Home
"Unprecedented." "Groundbreaking." "One of a Kind." How the Washington News Council studied the Spokane Spokesman-Review
John Hamer
• The newspaper suppressed financial information of importance to decision-makers and the public at large, but potentially unfavorable to the developers.
• Ownership's involvement in news stories it deemed sensitive was inappropriate.
• A news editor overseeing the reporting of a controversial issue involving the owners of the newspaper advocated a particular outcome, which he should not have done.
• The newspaper suffered from the potential for self-censorship of the news product by reporters and editors.
• The same attorney simultaneously-and inappropriately-represented both the Cowles family in its business dealings and the newsroom in its freedom of information and similar matters, and influenced the decisions of both.
When the report was completed, true to Smith's word, it was posted on the Spokesman-Review's Web site (www.spokesmanreview.com) and also printed in the May 6, 2007, edition of the paper. It occupied three full pages.
In a separate column that ran that day, Smith wrote: "We accept the findings. And we sincerely apologize for not adequately living up to our journalistic standards." In a column that ran next to Smith's, Spokesman-Review Publisher Stacey Cowles wrote: "While I reject substantially all of the allegations of influence collected in the News Council's report, I do respect the direction of its recommendations."
Cowles said the report presented "one view of our coverage of River Park Square and there are certainly many others." He said that former Spokesman-Review Editor Chris Peck (now editor of The Commercial-Appeal in Memphis, Tennessee) and his team "faced a very complex and controversial story." He said they "did their best" but made "a few tough calls that in hindsight they might reconsider."
The following Sunday, on May 13, Smith ran a column by Peck that defended the newspaper's coverage and his performance. But on the same page, Smith wrote a second column responding in detail to the WNC's recommendations-and accepting most of them.
• Ownership's involvement in news stories it deemed sensitive was inappropriate.
• A news editor overseeing the reporting of a controversial issue involving the owners of the newspaper advocated a particular outcome, which he should not have done.
• The newspaper suffered from the potential for self-censorship of the news product by reporters and editors.
• The same attorney simultaneously-and inappropriately-represented both the Cowles family in its business dealings and the newsroom in its freedom of information and similar matters, and influenced the decisions of both.
When the report was completed, true to Smith's word, it was posted on the Spokesman-Review's Web site (www.spokesmanreview.com) and also printed in the May 6, 2007, edition of the paper. It occupied three full pages.
In a separate column that ran that day, Smith wrote: "We accept the findings. And we sincerely apologize for not adequately living up to our journalistic standards." In a column that ran next to Smith's, Spokesman-Review Publisher Stacey Cowles wrote: "While I reject substantially all of the allegations of influence collected in the News Council's report, I do respect the direction of its recommendations."
Cowles said the report presented "one view of our coverage of River Park Square and there are certainly many others." He said that former Spokesman-Review Editor Chris Peck (now editor of The Commercial-Appeal in Memphis, Tennessee) and his team "faced a very complex and controversial story." He said they "did their best" but made "a few tough calls that in hindsight they might reconsider."
The following Sunday, on May 13, Smith ran a column by Peck that defended the newspaper's coverage and his performance. But on the same page, Smith wrote a second column responding in detail to the WNC's recommendations-and accepting most of them.
Be the first to comment on this story