News Council findings force introspection

The Washington News Council review of The Spokesman-Review’s River Park Square coverage was published in last Sunday’s paper and is posted online at spokesmanreview.com.

As I wrote last week, it’s important to remember that the council report is not an investigation into the appropriateness of the River Park Square development or the public-private partnership that was its foundation.

The News Council report focuses solely on Spokesman-Review journalism, from 1994 to 2005, and on the decisions made by newsroom editors: Was our coverage fair, accurate, thorough and balanced? Did we exercise the independence expected of community newspaper editors?

The report included five findings with follow-up recommendations. In my column accompanying last Sunday’s publication, I promised a response to the recommendations by today. In addition, former Spokesman-Review Editor Chris Peck has responded to the report and to my public apology for our ethical lapses, challenging both. His column appears on this page.

I hope readers will see in my responses the complex nature of ethical decision-making at a daily newspaper. It’s difficult to come up with hard and fast rules. Journalism is not a science. Good journalism is the product of clearly articulated values, ethical standards and common sense judgment.

Even as the News Council offers ideas for better ensuring ethical coverage of our owners’ business interests in the future, we understand that no action will ever satisfy everyone, that there will always be some who perceive inappropriate influence or interference no matter what steps we take to prove otherwise. The council report was never intended to generate perfect solutions. It was intended to demonstrate the willingness of Spokesman-Review staff and the present editorial team to take responsibility for our journalism, past, present and future.

In my response below, the council recommendations are edited from the original report to conserve space. The edited language was provided by the council. The full text appeared in last Sunday’s print edition and can still be found online.

News Council Finding No. 1

The newspaper did not investigate thoroughly in a timely manner and report promptly and forthrightly the financial structure of RPS. Further, the newspaper suppressed financial information of importance to decision-makers and the public at-large, but potentially unfavorable to developers.

Recommendation No. 1: Newsroom management should consider creating a “Cowles Co.” beat. It should staff that beat with an experienced reporter assigned to look routinely at all aspects of the Cowles Co. operations – journalistic, political, environmental, financial (including development of land it owns). Alternatively, the paper should consider hiring an outside, independent reporter to cover significant stories dealing with Cowles Co. interests.

Response: The recommendation suggests two alternative approaches.

First, we could establish a full-time staff beat dealing exclusively with Cowles Co. matters. But this solution is simply not practical in the opinion of newsroom editors. We’re not certain the Cowles Co. enterprises, as diverse and widespread as they might be, warrant a full-time staff reporter’s attention any more than a number of other business interests in our communities. For example, Marshal Chesrown’s Black Rock Development Co. projects, including Kendall Yards, currently dwarf Cowles Co. activities. Yet we’re not staffed so well as to assign a full-time reporter to the Chesrown beat. More importantly, assigning a staff writer does little to address the perception that a paid Cowles employee is incapable of reporting without bias in favor of the employer.

The editors agree a wiser approach is suggested by the second alternative recommended by the council: When circumstances warrant we’ll make certain there is an independent, outside editor to assure appropriate, aggressive, fair and balanced reporting. An outside editor can evaluate, arbitrate and suggest and also assure readers the paper is doing its job. Last year’s RPS garage death might have justified such an outside perspective.

News Council Finding No. 2

Ownership’s involvement in news stories it deemed sensitive was inappropriate.

Recommendation No. 2: The newspaper’s owners should know what’s being published about them before the paper hits the newsstand. However, Cowles Co. representatives should be given the same opportunity to influence the choice and content of news articles prior to publication as any other source or subject, no more and no less.

Response: This recommendation is somewhat more liberal than our current practice. Currently, story subjects generally know in advance that a story is in the pipeline. But, as a matter of policy, we do not allow subjects to review those stories in advance of publication. Reporters can choose to double-check facts and figures, may even run a quote by a source to ensure accuracy. But prior review is not allowed. Since the end of the “no surprises” policy in 2001, that has been the practice for all stories involving the Cowles family and their diverse interests. That practice is jealously guarded by the newsroom and has been uniformly honored by the owners and will remain in place.

News Council Finding No. 3

A news editor overseeing the reporting of a controversial issue involving the owners of the newspaper should not advocate a particular outcome.

Recommendation No. 3: An editor involved in supervising news coverage should avoid even a perception of conflict by not taking a public position on an issue in these circumstances. News reporting and editorial opinions should remain separate.

Response: This finding and recommendation highlight a more significant structural issue within the Spokesman-Review.

As editor, I am responsible for both the news and opinion functions of the newspaper. The managing editor reports to me on matters of news coverage while the editorial page editor reports to me on editorial page issues. I serve on the newspaper’s editorial board, along with the publisher, the editorial page editor, four associate editors and a letters-to-the-editor coordinator. This arrangement is not uncommon at metropolitan dailies. However, it can create the perception that news decisions are influenced by editorial positions. I have attempted to manage that perception in the past by removing myself from some editorial discussions. For example, I recused myself from endorsement interviews in the 2003 municipal elections. I plan to do the same with municipal elections later this year.

But the News Council report tells me that at this time, in this community and with the RPS controversy still percolating, it might be best if I stepped away from the editorial board. So that’s what I will do, effective the end of May. At that time, Editorial Page Editor Doug Floyd will begin reporting directly to Publisher Stacey Cowles and I will learn of the editorial board’s positions the same time readers do – when I pick up the morning paper.

Leaving the editorial board isn’t easy for me. I truly enjoy the stimulating discussions and lively debates. But I’ll also gain a bit of time so that I can more frequently address journalistic issues on these pages and on a new editor’s blog we’ll launch soon. I’ll revisit this decision in a year or two. It may not be forever. But it’s right for now.

News Council Finding No. 4

The Spokesman-Review suffers from the potential for self-censorship of the news product by reporters and editors.

Recommendation No. 4: The Cowles Co. should explore possible ways of separating the newspaper from other business interests. Members of the Cowles family – including the publisher – should vest the editor of the newspaper with the authority to make any and all decisions about news coverage of Cowles business interests.

Response: The news staff frequently addresses the built-in conflict of interest. The subject comes up in news meetings whenever a story intersects with the company’s interests. Our meetings are open to the public and they are webcast for all to see. These issues also are frequent fodder for the blogs and other interactive features that are part of our transparent newsroom initiative.

We are in the process of updating our written code of ethics. The new code undoubtedly will address some of these concerns. We’ll present a draft to the community later this year and even take it out for public comment and review. The final draft will be printed in the newspaper and posted online. No other newspaper in the country has so opened itself for public review and oversight. And I’m always open to new ideas for our transparency program.

Divesting the newspaper from the Cowles business interests is a decision only the owners could make. Personally, I would oppose such divestiture. The community is better served by a locally owned newspaper. The alternative, a newspaper buried in the bowels of one of the mega-media giants, would create problems for Spokane that most citizens cannot even imagine.

Finally, I was given the mandate by the publisher to cover family business matters aggressively when I accepted the Spokane editorship. He has never abrogated his agreement with me, never directed coverage, never asked me to cross my ethical Rubicon. One of the positive outcomes of this review process is the public nature of Stacey’s recommitment to newsroom independence. It is on the record for all to see.

News Council Finding No. 5

The same attorney simultaneously influenced decisions on related business and newsroom matters.

Recommendation No. 5: The Spokesman-Review should find a separate law firm from the one used by the Cowles Co. generally. Avoiding the perception of a conflict outweighs the advantage of having the newspaper’s lawyer standing by the editor’s desk.

Response: While I accept the News Council’s finding in this matter, this is the one recommendation I cannot accept. Yes, Duane Swinton was in an ethical if not a strictly legal conflict during the RPS years. To the extent it occurred, it was a mistake for this newsroom to meet with, consult or discuss RPS issues with Swinton.

But since the RPS cases were resolved, he has focused, and will continue to focus, primarily on media law issues involving the newsroom. And we will continue to use him in that way.

Why?

First, he is absolutely the best media lawyer with whom I have ever worked. Last month, he represented the newsroom in three cases before the Idaho and Washington supreme courts. We prevailed in one and expect to prevail in the other two when those decisions are announced. And that’s just his “A” game.

Second, I believe we have resolved the conflict-of-interest issues that existed between the newsroom and Swinton’s firm, Witherspoon Kelly. We’re told that other lawyers in the firm are taking on more and more responsibility for Cowles Co. business matters. In my view, the firm’s principals now understand how the newsroom could see an ethical conflict at the same time Swinton’s representations are acceptable to the Bar. Removing Duane for past conflicts or arguments he made while properly representing the interests of his client seems more punitive than practical.

Third, there really are no good alternatives. If there were, I would have made the switch four years ago. Nearly every major legal firm in the state of Washington played a part in the RPS legal debacle. We’re in no position to use some of the best media lawyers in the state for the same conflict-of-interest reasons. More importantly, I disagree with the News Council that “virtual” representation is a valid alternative. We deal with our lawyers daily. They are available to us 24/7 and that availability protects us legally, saves us time and money and allows us to be as aggressive as we have been covering powerful local institutions. It would be irresponsible of me to drop Swinton and a breach of my fiduciary duty to the newspaper.

I fully understand this decision will not satisfy the perception issue raised by the council. But it’s my decision to make and I take full responsibility for it. If there is criticism to be leveled, it should be directed at me. Simply put, this is not a decision the publisher makes. Further, I did not consult the publisher before making the call.

I welcome your response to this column, to Chris Peck’s response and to the RPS content audit. My phone number is 509-459-5423. You can send e-mail comments to editorforum@spokesman.com or jump into the threads on our several Transparent Newsroom blogs.