RPS series also examines holes in S-R coverage

After 10 years and hundreds of news stories, what is left for The Spokesman-Review news staff to report about the River Park Square parking garage and the political tempest it fueled?

As the eight-part series that begins today shows, quite a bit remains to be said.

And it needs to be reported now, as the extraordinarily complex legal battle over the garage moves into federal court next month.

We did not embark on this series without careful consideration and some serious misgivings.

The River Park Square story is very much a story of the company that owns and operates The Spokesman-Review.

News organizations find it easy to write tough stories about others, but far more difficult to write about themselves. With an issue as complex and politically explosive as the RPS garage, that difficulty is compounded tenfold.

Furthermore, because the quality of our reporting on this issue has been called into question through the years, we know we face serious credibility concerns when we report an RPS story.

Still, as the RPS fight moves into court for what may be a decisive move in a protracted endgame, readers require a comprehensive review of the issue from its beginnings to the present moment.

No reporter anywhere is better positioned to produce that review than Jim Camden - he's written dozens of stories in recent years, examined hundreds of documents and immersed himself in endless depositions. In the coming days, Camden will walk readers through a series of key decisions that led, sadly but inexorably, to the Gordian knot of a legal case that now moves to trial.

Camden's series will show that the controversy grew out of a sincere, albeit desperate concern on the part of business, community and political leaders for the future of Spokane's troubled and deteriorating downtown. As the deal to renovate the River Park Square mall and the adjacent garage came together, Camden will show, numerous mistakes were made in developing business and financial plans. Those mistakes led directly to the garage's financial failure and are the root of the present legal entanglement.

Camden will show that RPS backers never understood the dicey political waters within which they were operating, and so conducted too much of the public's business out of the public's view. That might not have been a problem had everything worked. But when things went wrong, secrecy and closed-door decision-making fueled accusations of malfeasance, even fraud.

Camden's series will examine some of this newspaper's RPS reporting. He will document some failures to report completely on the controversy. Such failures were rare through the years, but they did happen.

Further, he will reference, once again, internal policies that allowed the newspaper's owners, including those involved in the RPS development, to review some RPS stories before publication. In the newspaper world, allowing the subjects of news reports to preview stories in advance of publication is considered unethical.

As publisher, W. Stacey Cowles was caught between his right as publisher to preview any story and the ethical breach that review of RPS stories produced. Policies that allowed for publisher or developer review of RPS stories were dropped three years ago. Cowles family members, including the publisher, have not reviewed and are not involved in any other way with this series.

Camden's review of Spokesman-Review journalism is necessarily a sidebar to the primary focus on the RPS controversy. However, I have pledged to support an independent audit of our garage coverage when the legal battles are resolved.

Meanwhile, I recommend the series that begins today to readers interested in an even-handed, understandable review of the RPS issue.

As always, I welcome your response. You can call me at (509) 459- 5423 or send me e-mail at editorforum@spokesman.com.

Copyright 2004 Cowles Publishing Company
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.