When Union-Tribune journalists heard Wednesday that verdicts in the David Westerfield trial were coming in, reporters and photographers not already at the courthouse fanned out throughout the city to gather information.
With the clock ticking, editors weighed the merits of putting out an Extra the print version of “we interrupt this broadcast. . . . ” Although an Extra had been discussed, the window to produce it was fleeting. Under the best of circumstances, the media (and the public) would have been told the night before that the jury would be delivering its verdicts the next day.
But the panel didn’t complete its deliberations until Wednesday morning, and reading of the verdicts began about 11:15 a.m. Time was so tight that decisions about the Extra were made on the fly and involved people throughout the building the newsroom, production and circulation.
An intricate double-page graphic of the highlights of the case had been completed and was ready to go. Editors, in their planning, had assigned a story outlining the next phase of the trial if the verdicts turned out to be “guilty.” What remained was the writing of a story about the jury’s decisions. And, the graphics, processing of photographs, writing of headlines and captions, other copy editing. Hundreds of little details that planning could not eliminate.
As the newsroom finished with each of the four pages, they were moved to production. The last page arrived about an hour after the reading of the verdicts was completed. By 1:05 p.m., the printing plates had been made. The first Extra rolled off the press minutes later.
By 2:10 p.m., nearly 40,000 copies of the Extra were printed and were being distributed by the circulation department.
But even then, there was no rest for those working on Thursday’s paper, with its six extra pages, including the double-page graphic.
Both efforts showed journalism at its best and most consuming. It was the essence of why journalists go into the newspaper business. Yet, no one forgot the reason this story captivated the community Danielle van Dam, abducted and murdered at the age of 7.
After a front-page article appeared Aug. 17, some readers questioned the Union-Tribune’s ethics. The article said Jeff Lee, a candidate for the San Diego Unified School District board, was summarily removed from command of a Navy ship after military investigators found he abused his power.
Why were the newspaper’s ethics being questioned by some readers, including voters who will be going to the polls in November?
In the article, reporter Maureen Magee acknowledged that the document spelling out the accusations came to the newspaper anonymously. That was enough for some readers to question the Union-Tribune’s ethics for writing about the findings. Some readers also concluded that the article appeared because of the newspaper’s editorial support of Superintendent Alan Bersin. At least one reader questioned the newspaper’s right to violate Lee’s “right to privacy.”
So what was going on here? Doesn’t the newspaper question the motives of the person who provided the document? Does the newspaper routinely print accusations obtained from anonymous sources? Does the newspaper print only news stories that bolster its editorial position?
Because the document came to the newspaper anonymously, Magee and editors indeed questioned the motives of the person who provided it. Was it being provided for political purposes? Or was it from someone with a grudge against Lee?
Perhaps. But what those who complained apparently missed is the most important and telling aspect of the story: Lee himself verified the accusations. He was interviewed and was quoted at length. He did not deny any of the charges although his explanation was not what military investigators concluded.
Editors decided the fact that this candidate for school board had a background that he had concealed and that put his character into question was something voters needed to know about, regardless of the motives of the person who supplied the Union-Tribune with the information.
In fact, although the story did not say so, the newspaper verified the authenticity of the document with a Navy official before even going to Lee. Magee said Lee already had denied the accusations when she first confronted him with the rumors four months ago.
Had the newspaper run the story without verification from the Navy and from Lee himself, it indeed would have been unethical. But that’s not the case here.
And accusing the newspaper of running the story because it supports Bersin on its editorial pages is wishful thinking on the part of some. The newspaper’s only consideration in deciding whether this was a story was whether the voters needed the information to help them make an informed decision about school board candidates.
Gina Lubrano’s column commenting on the media appears Mondays. It is the policy of The San Diego Union-Tribune to correct all errors. To discuss accuracy or fairness in the news, please write to Gina Lubrano, readers representative, Box 120191, San Diego, CA 92112-0191, or telephone (619) 293-1525.
——————————————————————————–
