Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Alerts | Electronic edition | Advertise | Subscribe to the paper | Today's Extras

Breaking News:

Subscribe

TEMPLE: A cautionary tale for the Web era

By John Temple, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published February 2, 2008 at midnight

Text size  

What to report and when?

Those can be tough questions.

Thursday was a case in point - a case that shows how news outlets handle the same ethical questions differently.

These questions often involve alleged unseemly behavior by public officials and the level of proof necessary to print claims that could end a career. Almost invariably, the answer involves standards on the use of anonymous sources and on how to treat alleged victims of sexual abuse.

I don't know what other editors knew in making their decisions that day, only what they did. But I'll admit up front, I'm competitive and put myself among those journalists who hate to be beat. Yet beat we were by a political Web site and by The Denver Post, through no fault of our reporter.

We were beat because of a decision I made.

Sometimes, though, I think it's better to be beat than to report a story that doesn't meet my standards.

This story starts on Thursday morning, when our crack political reporter Lynn Bartels gathered her editor and the managing editor to tell them about explosive allegations against a Democratic state lawmaker, the culmination of days of reporting.

A Capitol source last week told Lynn that a female lobbyist wanted to talk to her about something that had happened involving a lawmaker. The source said the lobbyist didn't want her name attached to the claims she was making; she assumed that because she was a victim of inappropriate sexual conduct we wouldn't use her name.

The story heated up Thursday when it began to leak at the Capitol. Lynn felt anxious to publish something, and a draft of her proposed story was brought to me. After quickly scanning it, I walked to the desk where we edit news for our Web site to make sure it wouldn't move through our system so quickly that my questions would be an afterthought.

I knew the woman had told her story to the speaker of the House. She had done the right thing, gone to a person in authority who could do something about her concerns. But she hadn't filed a criminal complaint. There were no witnesses. Other women were said to have had similar experiences. But we couldn't find them. And a prosecutor hadn't evaluated the case and determined that there was cause to file charges, so no independent party had concluded there were grounds to believe she was a sex assault victim. (The Rocky doesn't report the names of sex assault victims in criminal cases.)

The story was a case of "he said, she said," I told Lynn. Without witnesses or other women or a prosecutor or confirmation from the House speaker, we would do nothing with the story except continue to investigate it - unless the woman was willing to put her name to the allegations.

Our policy on anonymous sources is clear:

"The Rocky Mountain News discourages the use of anonymous sources. Their use threatens the credibility of the newspaper because the reader has no way to judge whether the source is reliable and/or whether the source is using the newspaper for his or her own end.

"When considering whether to grant an exception to our rejection of anonymity, journalists should ask whether the information from the source is crucial to the story, whether it is informational or accusatory and whether it is fact or opinion.

"The News does not use anonymous sources for opinion or accusatory material, or for incidental elements."

It was clear that we were dealing with accusatory material and couldn't publish it.

So that's what Lynn told her source, saying we needed other victims to come forward or the woman to go on the record. A short time later the story was published on facethestate.com, a conservative blog that spends much of its time going after Democrats.

Now that the story was public, I was asked, what should we do.

Nothing, was the answer. Others don't edit our paper or Web site for us.

Then a few hours later, the Post's Web site carried a shorter story atop its home page, again with essentially the same facts. The headline read: "Rep. accused of lewd conduct."

In neither case - the Post or the conservative Web site - was the name of the woman used.

There were no named sources.

Again, I was asked what we should do. Why weren't we running with the story, too?

It wasn't that I didn't believe the alleged victim. But it didn't boost my confidence when the story appeared on the GOP-oriented Web site, because it made it seem more like an attempt to hurt the lawmaker.

Into the night we went, trying to determine the facts. But from the speaker all we heard was no comment because legislative rules forbid him from even confirming he's received a complaint. And nothing more emerged.

The next morning, the Post ran a front- page story. And the lawmaker, Michael Garcia, resigned. He later issued a statement saying that the behavior was consensual but inappropriate and that published details of what happened were inaccurate.

What are you to take from this?

It's a cautionary tale about the Internet era. With more "news organizations," there are going to be more stories. And more pressure to publish, because of the speed with which events can now unfold. Many stories reported on blogs are going to be true, even when so-called mainstream news organizations like the Rocky won't touch them. But some also are going to be false. And many times you're not going to know the difference.

This time, it appears the story may have substance, given the lawmaker's resignation. But I still think the Rocky did the right thing in steering clear until we had a named source or a news peg, such as the resignation. Otherwise, anonymous people with axes to grind will exploit the media for their own agendas - destroying reputations along the way.

John Temple can be reached at editor@RockyMountainNews.com or by mail at 101 W. Colfax Ave., Denver, CO 80202.

Comments

  • February 3, 2008

    8:41 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    dwilson writes:

    Thank you. I have been a Denver Post reader, and am now planning on changing my reading to the RMN. I want real news and not the Enquirer style. I want to read news that is written by journalists with standards and an editor who enforces them. I want to read stories based on facts. Keep up the good work!

  • February 4, 2008

    10:07 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    newsguy writes:

    Interesting you want journalists with standards but don't mention wanting politicians with standards.

  • February 4, 2008

    9:50 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    dwilson writes:

    News guy, the comment was specific to Mr. Temple's editorial and the standards RMN used to handle reporting the story on Garcia. I didn't comment on the Garcia incident, just the reporting.

    I fail to see how you make a leap of faith that my comment means that I don't hold politicians to standards. This is the type of hyped judgment that was used to write and publish a story in the Post before anything could substantiated.

    There is a story here, but it should be after the proper authorities were notified. It should be after a determination of probable cause a crime had been committed. Anything less, smacks of yellow journalism.

  • February 7, 2008

    12:08 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    freethinker07 writes:

    I'd rather read something late and true than something early and false.

    With google bringing up stuff from 10 years ago care is even more important. thank you.

  • February 9, 2008

    9:48 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    GetReal writes:

    Hey "Editor" Temple!

    THE GUY RESIGNED FOR A REASON, DON'T YOU THINK?

    Where are all your hard hitting journalists, hot to get the WHOLE story by investigating these other victims that you somehow cant FIND?

    You cant deny you hacks would be all over this if it were a Republican, doing daily pieces for weeks exploring every conceivable Rebup bashing angle you could come up with.

    And as an editor, you should know better and not make excuses in the guise of "cautionary reporting",

    But sadly, and as usual, you don't.

    If you can't perform your job maybe you should take Garcia as an example and resign.

    Fat chance.

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.




(Forgotten your password?)




News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.

Sponsored links



Reprints