Ethics Assignment

1. When referring to the allegation that Mayor Jim West was pursuing underage boys online, why do you think editor Steven Smith differentiated between a legitimate news story and one that is not legitimate when he said, "If he's [Mayor Jim West] engaged in this activity … we need to know that. If he's not -- there's no story" ?

If West had not been engaging in sexual acts with people that were underage, regardless of gender, there would not be any story because West would have not been doing anything illegal, it would not have been child abuse or child molestation. I find this poor reporting, since West only pursued the boy when he was supposedly 18. And, if the mayor offered the boy an internship, I don't see the problem, because had the boy been the child of a friend who had been offered an internship, there would not have been any problem. I feel that there are likely many people who get internship preference due to the fact that they know someone in the company they will be interning for. They could not have proven that an internship would have led to more sexual conduct, either.

2. How did reporter Bill Morlin justify the use of a concealed identity on Gay.com as part of The Spokesman-Review's and the FBI's "sting operation"? Why didn't Morlin himself create the assumed identity to engage Mayor West online?

They justified it because they would not have been able to confirm West's identity without it. Morlin was incapable of creating the identity due to the Spokesman's code of ethics, which in my opinion he still broke, regardless of the fact that he hired an outside consultant. In my opinion, this was outright baiting.
3. Why do you think The Spokesman-Review ultimately published so many articles on Mayor West's alleged improprieties?

The Spokesman-Review undoubtedly kept having high selling papers when they were running stories about West. And, likely people in Spokane were worried about their children to keep them safe. Smith also ran more articles on West because of a phone call from West where West desired to express his remorse and inside feelings.

4. In the final analysis, who benefited from The Spokesman-Review's decision to expose Mayor West and his alleged improprieties? Who was hurt? Do you think the outcome was worth it? Explain your reasoning.

Helped: Robert Gallagher because he could voice his opinion finally, some of the homosexual/bisexual people that were able to come out of the closet and put in their two cents in the Spokesman's stories.
Hurt: Mayor West foremost, Hahn's family, the boyscouts who were outed as being molested, Robert Gallagher because people knew about his past and how he had been hurt, the Spokesman's ethical level.
The outcome was not worth it at all. As could be seen through the lens when the camera was watching the group of people talking, the one man said something like, "I believe he killed, not killed, dittled little boys, because I've seen him, I've talked to him, he's a sociopath." This man likely would never have said anything like this if the Spokesman would have not run their stories, and you can see how quickly his feelings escalated when he says at first that he believed West killed boys, then retracts his statement. Similar to a racism segment I've seen on Oprah, people's stigmas against others can grow very quickly. When the men took West into the Spokesman's office late at night and told him that it was "nothing personal," they were outright lying. It was essentially only personal. None of the Spokesman's sources specifically said West abused them, and the stories about having children over for pizza and Cub Scout nights seemed exactly like something a Cub Scout leader or soccer coach would do. They ran information like the fact that West has had consentual sex was stricktly personal information, and was not necessary to share with people. The Spokesman would have been better off to run stories like the fact that people who have been molested can forget their negative sexual encounters as a form of coping, which could have been why Gallagher did not voice his opinion at first, adding to the fact that he may have been afraid of West's political power. Even if West supported anti-gay legislature, writers should have written stories about how that is what they likely would have done in that situation also (being the only gay person in his close political circle). The Spokesman had no right to go film West in his church, either. When the Spokesman showed their efforst to cause West severe personal harm, they also chose to say things like "West Goes Down" and "Bye-Bye Bi-Guy," they showed clear anti-gay sentiment, which showed exactly why they ran these hurtful stories. The fact that the FBI never came up with any solid evidence showed finally that the stories were irrelevant and should have never been run.

5. The Spokesman-Review has been criticized as conducting a "witch hunt" in its reporting on the private lives of some city officials. Below is a link to another recent article on Spokane Deputy Mayor Jack Lynch. Do you think that there are any ethical problems in the reporting in this story? Why or why not?

Personally I do feel that there are ethical problems with this story. Maybe I just have higher ethical standards than many of the workers at the Spokesman Review. Since the mayor was not having any problems doing his job and had not been even accused of any misconduct, the paper really did not even have the right to do all this background research on him. And what was the point of bringing in information concerning the park being associated with homosexual activity? I think the paper is just looking for more sensationalistic things to report on and is losing the ability to report on real news.

On a final note, this is why I've chosen to change my major and not focus on journalism anymore, because I feel that most reporting jobs are exactly like this.