The methods used for a story of allegations of sexual misconduct involving Spokane’s mayor will be debated by journalists for years.
But I wanted readers to address a crucial question raised by the approach: When, if ever, is it appropriate for journalists or their agents to pose as someone else to obtain information?
The Spokane Spokesman-Review reported last week that two convicted felons say Mayor Jim West abused them when they were boys in the late 1970s and that West has used a gay Web site to seek relationships with young men, even offering perks of his public office.
As part of its investigation, the newspaper hired an outside computer expert who posed as a fictitious chat-room character who aged from 17 to 18 during the role. The former U.S. Customs Service computer expert was hired to confirm that the mayor was the person behind online identities and to corroborate accounts from others who said they’d had online relationships with West.
The mayor denies he ever abused any minors and, while acknowledging he has met men through the Web site despite his opposition to gay rights legislation, says he believes that’s a private matter.
The newspaper’s editor, Steve Smith, told readers in a note that the newspaper reluctantly chose to use the expert because of the mayor’s possible abuse of his office and the potential harm to young people
When I shared the story, which also was published Friday in The Oregonian, and Smith’s explanation with a group of regular readers of The Oregonian, they reacted strongly. A few opposed the approach, but most applauded it.
“The Spokane matter is EXACTLY the type of work that newspapers are ideally suited to conduct and commensurate with their journalistic responsibilities to the public,” writes reader Darrell Dorrell.
“In this case I approve because the crime involves children and abuse of office,” writes Katie Larsell. “I wouldn’t approve if it was just to find out that the guy was gay.”
Reader Bob Whiteside said the approach is a reflection of the Internet age. “People pose as fictitious characters in newsgroups and chat rooms all the time. . . . The mayor was a real risk-taker by interacting with a person who was most likely using an alias. . . . The bottom line for me is law enforcement and journalists should use all the resources available to them. I believe focusing on the practices used to do investigative work is less meaningful than the quality and accuracy of the information uncovered during the investigation.”
But other readers questioned that role for journalists. “If someone is suspected of actually violating law, it should be left to law enforcement to carry out stings. Even law enforcement officers, with lots of training, are always in danger of creating a situation of entrapment,” writes reader Stan Seleen. “I think the media loses credibility when it steps beyond simply reporting the news.”
Wyatt Newman argued that the newspaper didn’t need to focus on the Web activity, given the sex-abuse allegations. “The real issue, misconduct with minors involving abuse, is lost amidst the explicit sexual activity, the Web site contacts, homosexuality, matters that truly are private,” writes Newman, who lives in Bend but grew up in Spokane.
In The Oregonian newsroom, most, but not all, journalists reacted like Tom Detzel, who oversees investigative projects: “It’s a pity they had to undercut the credibility of an otherwise fair and relevant report by setting up a phony identity and luring West into a trap. This is not anything I could ever imagine condoning here. You can’t lie to get to the truth, then expect someone to respect or believe your version of the truth.”
Peter Bhatia, The Oregonian’s executive editor (and who began his newspaper career at The Spokesman-Review in the mid-’70s), agreed with Detzel in principle, but suggested more time is needed to absorb all that happened in Spokane last week. “The heart of these decisions is that they are made locally, and any rush to judgment is premature. Clearly, the editors in Spokane agonized over bringing in the expert, and that decision deserves a truly thorough analysis.”
Smith, the editor, said Friday taking such a step indeed was agonizing, and he recognizes that editors will disagree about it, particularly depending on their communities. “We are at peace with the decision,” he said, “but journalists are obligated to have the debate.”
While my initial reaction was to disagree with the newspaper’s decision, I admired the dogged reporting and found the newspaper’s transparency to its readers remarkable; it pulls back the curtain on all of its reporting. On the newspaper’s Web site at www.spokesmanreview.com, you’ll find Smith’s explanation, transcripts of interviews with West, a reporting timeline, key documents, even transcripts of chats and e-mail exchanges involving the mayor.
The site also offers an immediate chance for readers to respond to its reporting. What is striking is that readers don’t question the methods; they only speak to the information about West. Smith said that by Friday the hundreds of e-mails and phone calls were running at least 8 to 1 in favor of the newspaper, and none of the critics cited the issue of the fictional character.
I always will struggle with the decision by the Spokesman-Review, a newspaper I grew up reading and respecting. It crossed a line that journalists should rarely, if ever, pass, igniting critical questions of fairness.
And yet the judgment of readers, particularly in the Spokane community, should be a loud voice in the journalistic discussions in the years to come.
You can still fill out an informal survey on national and international news at www.oregonlive.com/weblogs/publiceditor. The results will be addressed in coming weeks.
