TIMING OF WEST STORY HAD TO WAIT ON FACTS;

Let's begin at the beginning.

The Spokesman-Review has a credibility problem. I don't like it. I challenge it; I fight it. But I can't simply snap my fingers and make it go away.

Of course, the nut of our problem is our coverage of the River Park Square controversy.

Ethical lapses, gaps in coverage and editorial hyperbole during the controversy's early and middle years properly damaged our credibility with significant segments of the community.

Problems of our own making opened the door to the conspiracy theorists whose wacky tale spinnings added to the perception of some that the newspaper's news coverage was driven by its owners' agenda.

In the past few years, as the controversy has moved inexorably to resolution, I believe we've substantially repaired our reputation. The tale spinners are still out there. But I sense that most of our readers believe our coverage of RPS and its attendant legal battles has been fair, balanced, accurate - and aggressive (note our recent legal quest to obtain documents from the city denied to our reporters by the developers, our owners).

But this week's stories on Mayor Jim West's recent sexual misconduct and allegations of past sexual abuse have raised the credibility issue again. And properly so.

Why, we are asked, did the newspaper endorse Jim West for mayor in 2003 if its reporters were aware of sexual abuse allegations? Was it because West had vowed to settle the RPS battles while his opponent, Tom Grant, remained an implacable foe of settlement and an outspoken critic of the newspaper?

Furthermore, we are asked, was publication of the West package delayed until last week so that the recently completed RPS settlement agreements could be wrapped and ribboned by the courts?

These are fair questions that deserve answers.

This is what our newsroom knew in the summer and fall of 2003 when West was running for mayor: We had just published a series of stories documenting abuse of young boys in the late 1970s by Scout leaders George Robey and David Hahn, a Spokane County sheriff's deputy. Hahn had killed himself in 1981 and Robey did the same in 1982. Our story noted the close relationship between Hahn and West - they were co-leaders of a Scout troop and both were deputies. The story included West's denials that he knew of or was involved in Hahn's abuse.

Shortly after the stories ran, reporter Bill Morlin received tips suggesting that he continue to dig and that he might discover links to West. He had no names. No dates. No corroborative evidence. Light smoke, at best, but nothing close to a fire.

Under the protocols governing a newspaper's operation, Morlin did not cross the hard line separating the news function from the editorial function. He did not inject himself in the endorsement process. He did not pass across that line unsubstantiated rumors. Nothing Morlin was chasing would have been on the table during the endorsement process.

As editor, and the only newsroom executive on the editorial board, I was aware of Morlin's early work. But in 2003, I exempted myself from the mayoral endorsement interviews and discussions because I believed it would compromise my ability to supervise our RPS and mayoral election coverage.

Questions about West's sexual orientation had circulated for years. But sexual orientation was never viewed as relevant to our coverage of or the editorial board's endorsement for this race.

We now know that West's mayoral opponent, Tom Grant, knew of West's predatory nature well before the election. West had tried to date the underage son of Grant's boss. Furthermore, Grant knew about allegations of past sexual abuse, having been told about Robert Galliher, one of the accusers in our stories. Grant, a self- described investigative reporter, even passed on these stories while editor of The Local Planet, an alternative newspaper now defunct.

After he was elected mayor, West worked, as he pledged he would, to resolve the RPS legal quagmire. Settlement talks among the various parties proceeded through 2004, and as the year wound down the outlines of a settlement began to develop.

Why, we are asked, did we not report the West stories during that time, before RPS was resolved? Was it because West's intervention was producing a result favorable to the newspaper's owners and his "fall" would interfere with that process?

The simple answer is no. We didn't have a story yet.

Morlin's search for men who could be identified as possible victims of abuse did not produce results until a few weeks ago when he reconnected with an old source, Galliher, and tracked down a new source, Michael Grant. Until he interviewed both men in mid-April, we had no named accusers.

Morlin learned of the mayor's online activity last fall. But the Internet connection between the young man who was Morlin's first source could not be verified independently. To make sure the adult behind the fake screen names on Gay.com was Jim West, we hired a computer specialist who worked several months to nail down the identification. We did not receive conclusive evidence until April 9.

By early April, the RPS issue was all but resolved, at least insofar as this company's owners were concerned.

Professional journalists and perhaps those involved in law enforcement will understand the pace of our investigation. And anyone familiar with the legal elements of libel will understand any newspaper's unwillingness to print unqualified rumors and unsubstantiated allegations.

The stories were ready when they were ready. And they were published as soon as we could give the mayor the courtesy of an interview and the opportunity to defend himself.

I know that nothing we say will deter our harshest critics and the tale spinners. For everyone else, our credibility will rise and fall on the basis of our journalistic performance over time. Are we fair, accurate and balanced? Are we aggressive? Do we tell the truth insofar as truth can be determined?

Our newsroom values statement includes the following: "We tell people what we know when we know it without fear or favor." In the case of the Jim West investigation, that is precisely what we did.

Steven A. Smith is editor of The Spokesman-Review. Readers can reach him at (509) 459-5423 or by e-mail at steves@spokesman.com.

Copyright c 2005 The Spokesman-Review
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.