News-Record.com

I'd like to point out that Jay Rosen's article didn't say "yes". That was the viewpoint of Steve Smith, the editor of the Spokesman Review.

I also wrote about this a couple days ago. In it, I mentioned that here's the KEY piece that Spokesman failed in ethically. The computer forensics expert acted as an underaged kid (17 yr old) even though the key witness was an 18 yr old. That delves into the realm of if Jim West was looking to underaged kids, which becomes a vigilant act.

Also, the Mirage investigation is totally different since this one was based on a lure and bait scheme, while the Mirage was a bribery of legitimate businesses, so the setup was a legit business.

As I read the opening lines of this entry, I was reminded of the Mirage investigation the Sun-Times did as was the guy at E&P. It seems to me when a subject (especially a public official) is using deception to perpetrate something as heinous as trolling for underage boys on the internet, then he has forfieted his right to be confronted in a direct way about his misdeeds. The mayor is not as mad that the "boy" was a newspaper representative (not officially a reporter, but acting on their behalf), he was mad that he was caught. The newspaper should be lauded, not shamed. They helped stop a sexual predator. Great going, guys.

I disagree completely. So basically you're saying that papers have the right to do undercover operations to help beat out the bad guys? They aren't qualified. What if that guy happened to be a serial killer? Newspaper reporters and those on their behalf don't get "hazard pay" unless I'm totally wrong. Nor are they the law. Whether or not they did something for the greater good, it was still a vigilant act. Last I heard, vigilantes are thrown in jail.

Let me get this straight. You have an elected public official who promotes hateful anti-gay legislation by day and trolls for, if not underage, then boys of barely legal age by night, using his office to reward and/or pressure them for sexual favors and it's the reporter that is guilty of ethics violation?

The reporter did his job. A rare occurrence in today's "rubberstamp the status quo from your desk using government press releases" of mainstream journalism. Investigating corruption is exactly what the press is supposed to doing as part of the checks and balances of keeping our government officials honest.

This is not vigilantism, it's a refreshing throwback to the glory days of the press. What do you expect them to do? Wait until the guy comes forward on his own and admits he's a pedophile and a creep?

Let's get real here folks. The reporters deserve Pulitzers, not criticism. That the editors don't like it is no surprise. They have to answer to the publishers and CEOs who are all Bush Rangers and Pioneers. They've been blocking the pursuit of real journalism on Bush's behalf since he got into office. (No offense intended to JR here who seems to be an editor of a different stripe).

And it seems to me, that the journalists who would complain about undercover tactics are merely disgruntled because they look ineffective by comparison.

Oh, by the way Ben, they apparently don't put vigilantes in jail anymore. They allow them anoint themselves as "Minutemen" and let them prowl, fully armed, along the Mexican border.

Heh. Only in Texas (in regards to the Minutemen). And we all know that state is messed up. Just look at the Secretary of Education that comes from there (and a few others *laugh*). And I'm amused that you're pulling politics into this. Fine.

1) So an elected official is doing something illegal. Get the authorities involved.
2) Like I said before, the reporters asked the forensics expert to pose as an underaged. There was NOTHING from the previous witness that said anything about underaged. This was played out on part of the Spokesman Review.
3) Investigative reporting is fine, great in fact. But a lure and bait tactic for felony cases? Bring it to the FBI's attention. FBI current investigate any crime, whether or not they are "told" about it. I'm sure pedophilia will rank on the top than bottom.

Note I didn't involve ANY political bias above.

Like I said before. If they proved that he was a hypocrite, pushing anti-gay bills when he himself was gay, hey. Nothing wrong with that. The line was drawn when they had no evidence of a felony (pedophilia) but on a hunch, went to investigate that anyways. That's for federal computer experts, not private.

One other thing since you wanted to bring up politics. Spokane, WA is one of the largest red areas in Washington State (I would know, I grew up in Washington). So seeing it's okay for a more left-leaning paper in a red area, that makes it okay? Umm.. right. I agree that the reporter did his job. I don't agree with the decisions made (from editor standpoint), for more dirt unless they had a tip (which they did not).

This is also why all of the major editors from major papers disagree with the decision. You cross the line when you try a lure-bait tactic, since that makes you no better than tabloids. Sometimes, the best news does come from tabloids, but do you want that type of reputation? I would think not.

Ben, with all due respect, aren't you forgetting that two people came forward and alleged that they were molested by the man when they were children in his Boy Scout troop? Allegations given some credibility when two other of the mayor's co-troop leaders commited suicide after the allegations were originally floated a while back?

I see a smoking gun and as far as trusting the authorities, law enforcement is not free of corruption - here's today's Exhibit A and Exhibit B.

Again, how do you suggest an investigative journalist should practice his craft? By sitting at his desk waiting for a confession? And by the way I have a big problem with the kind of hypocrisy that allows a politician to pander to his constituents with anti-gay rhetoric while actively pursing the lifestyle on the sly. How will voters become informed about such dishonesty without courageous journalists?

No one said law enforcement didn't have corruption. But I'll quote my mother: "There are more good people in the world, than bad." If you can't trust those that are sworn to protect you, then who do you trust?

Myself, in this fair city of Greensboro, I would say that any of those officers would risk their lives protecting me. I have no issues helping them with their duties either as a young leader.

Not everything is a conspiracy theory. Note that I never said: REPORTERS sit on your butt and wait for a confession. I said they did a good job for what they were told to do. However, decisions made by the editor should have lead to immediate cooperation with the FBI cybercrime division. That's what they're for, and what they do.

You write as if all journalists have the utmost integrity, yet was it not also recently that the NY Times let go someone? Of late, Maureen O'Gara was let go from LinuxWorld for bad journalistic behavior.

With the issue with Spokesman Review, I can only speak to my personal ethics. I would have taken it to the law enforcement and cooperated with private/public joint investigation. If the case suddenly "disappeared", wouldn't there have been more of a story about corruption?

Point well taken Ben. There are more good people than bad but the bad ones seem to be the ones that get the power and control over the honest ones.

My point is that investigation of corruption is not under the sole purview of government agencies and in fact can't be trusted solely to them, particularly in the corrupt atmosphere created under the current administration.

Besides think about corporate whistleblowers. For instance Enron wouldn't have been exposed if not for a "citizen" investigator working on the inside. Often it's a civilian's legwork that triggers the investigation in the first place.

I agree with John's comment: There are times when an undercover "sting" of this kind may be merited. But how and when, I can't imagine for most newspapers.

I don't think it was needed in Spokane. From all that I've read, it was more a TV-era stunt than a journalistic method.

Jay Furst
Managing editor, Post-Bulletin
Rochester, MN

I agree, which is why I said a cooperative investigation. Law enforcement is authorized to do a lot of the things that "mere citizens" are not. At least within the bounds of the law.

Whistleblowers is a completely different topic in ethics. They do not partake in the actual act to catch the lawbreakers, but merely report them doing so. The forensics expert in the SR case still participated in "catching". That act in itself is what I have an issue with. This wasn't a matter of whistleblowing. This was a matter of doing something that should have been left up to the law (although perhaps as a reporter, you could be a spectator).

Even good people that do make it to the top, can be corrupted. Like they say: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

My point (which seems to now coincide with yours in some ways) is that law enforcement should have driven the cybercrime arena, while perhaps the newspaper could have had the forensics expert work cooperatively to make sure there wasn't anything shady. That would have been well in-bounds of the ethics. Having them partake in such evidence gathering wasn't their place. Reason? If they failed to follow procedure for any reason, the evidence would be thrown out, as are many of shoddy computer evidence gathering. While the law is not perfect, they are bound by rules, and if those rules aren't followed, someone's head will roll. Not likewise in private investigations.

Okay, the whistleblower was an imperfect analogy but the point is that exposing the truth is almost a civic obligation for every citizen, not just for law enforcement or even journalists and using whatever vehicle is available to obtain and disseminate the information is ethical as long as it remains within the law.

The reporters were not trying to entice the mayor into questionable activity against his will, they were gathering proof of his questionable conduct. The moral character of a public officeholder is material to his constiuents and the public has the right to know what sort of man they have put into office. As a citizen and a voter, I want to know these things and if I were a voter in Spokane I would be grateful for the information.

In any event, and with due respect to Mr. Furst, by your and Ben's reasoning Watergate wouldn't have been exposed. If Woodward and Bernstein had simply turned over their information to the authorities do you honestly think the investigation would have gone anywhere? I could give a dozen "internal investigations" going on right now on ethics violations in the current administration that would suggest the answer is no.

How you moved from Spokesman Review to the current administration is again beyond me. Like I said, it has naught to do with the issue at hand.

Berstein and Woodward were leading their own investigation that was inline with the FBI investigation. CIA was trying to slow down the FBI side of things. "DeepThroat" was a whistleblower. Watergate wasn't even a bait scheme. It was whistleblowing through and through. I find it amusing that liberals do not think that Democrats would do a similar deed if in office. Note my previous comment "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Like you said... bad people in power right? So what does it matter what party they are.

Regardless, the topic at hand again has nothing to do with government cover-ups.

In this scenario, SR's editor was not law enforcement. Neither was the reporter. There was no jurisdiction for the type of evidence gathering or "sting operation". Even if there was, like I noted before... in government, someone's head would roll since there is strict procedure. Private sector doesn't have the same level of responsibility compared public sector.

In the end, you keep moving the argument to current administration, and somehow relating it to how government is corrupt and you dislike the current admin and how investigative reporters are great and wonderful. Fine. Great in fact. In the end, I feel like I'm still repeating myself...

The "editor" was in the wrong to make that decision without cooperating with law enforcement. In the age where information is power: Play by the book, walk the fine line, but never cross it unless you're ready to get burned.

And burned he did get.

Actually, Watergate did not mirror what the SR did. Woodward and Bernstein didn't trap anyone in the act as much as they finally got someone to go on the record about what was going on. I understand where Ben is coming from, but I think the threat of a man victimizing young boys requires us to act, even if we might overstep our bounds. First, what was the police activity like before the SR did their investigation? I think asking the press to lay off a story because the police don't think anything is going on is a dumb idea. There may be more good people in the world than bad ones, but that doesn't mean we should ignore suspicions of this nature. Ben makes the point that reporters aren't qualified to carry on criminal investigations and such efforts carry risks. That's true, but I knew a reporter in Fayetteville that was doing an interview with the then-embattled director of the County Mental Health Department. There had been some malfeasance and during said interview, the director took out a pistol, shot the reporter in the face and then took his own life. (The reporter survived, people said he was too mean to die). Everything carries risk. Give me a nice safe computer to build the case and a public place to confront the mayor and I'd do the same thing if I could. I'm a big believer in if you think there's a problem, don't expect someone else to fix it, get up and do something about it. I also think protecting our children is the most important job our society has.
One more observation: I don't think Ben has any adolescent boys in his family whose safety he has to worry about.

Summary of the story:
The end justifies the means.

At least that's what everyone else is claiming. Oh well, I suppose I'll still hold fast to the belief that ethics still exist. Of course, I could be a dying breed just like the chivalrous.

Actually, Ben, it does. When one is confronted with this kind of situation and suspicions you do what you think is best. I imagine that the staff gave it a lot of thought and consideration before they started and throughout the process. They did what they thought was right. I think that even if you don't agree with their methods you have to agree with their results. Of course,they could have waited for the police to decide to do something, and possibly they would have been able to cover a really juicy molestation trial, or maybe some victim would have just hauled off and shot the mayor, and then we'd have a really great murder trial to cover. Any way you slice it, there would have been much more heartache on the part of the potential victims if he had been allowed to go on until the police got involved. Of course, reporters could have shown up at all the mayor's press conferences and shouted questions like "Are you still molesting little boys?" Then the reporters get accused of trying to ruin his career by inuenndo. So tell me, how would you have done it and gotten better results?