On taking down Jim West

Steve Smith, editor of the Spokane Spokesman-Review, struck me as thoughtful and persuasive last night as he discussed his paper's controversial Jim West story.

It's been nine months now since the Spokesman printed the stories about West trolling gay-oriented Web sites for underage partners, revelations that led to the Spokane mayor's recall and brought both praise and scorn upon the paper. The criticism has mainly concerned the Spokesman's use of an undercover investigator, hired by the paper, to pose as a teenage boy online and to confirm that West indeed was the person behind his apparent online persona.

Last night Smith explained and defended the ethics of that strategy, as he has done in many public appearances since the story broke. I thought he made his case well -- the undercover lurking by "Motobrock" was approved only after more than a year of digging, he said, and a determination that this story couldn't be nailed down any other way. Not everyone agreed, even in this audience primarily of reporters and editors (Smith's appearance was sponsored by the Seattle chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists).

It was a fascinating evening. I had several personal connections beyond my professional interest.

First, Smith and I worked together 26 years ago at the Eugene Register-Guard, where I was a part-time reporter and University of Oregon student at the time, and Steve was a reporter. I sat next to him in the newsroom, in fact, and I remember him showing me the ropes at the Lane County Courthouse and generously giving me reporting and writing help. I always liked him, although I hadn't seen him before last night for probably 25 years.

Also I know West very well, having covered him in Olympia in the late 1980s and early 1990s when he was a state senator and I was a statehouse reporter for the Seattle Times. I wrote many stories about him and his legislation, including the first coverage of his famous teen-sex bill -- even consensual sex among minors would be considered a felony -- that has been cited in the past year as evidence of West's hypocrisy. Personally, I always liked West too.

I was thinking about all of that last night as Smith was asked about the "fact" that everybody in Olympia knew West was gay and "covered it up."

In fact, though -- and I believe Times politics editor Richard Wagoner pointed this out from the audience -- the "fact" of West's homosexuality was the talk of much rumor and speculation in Oly at the time, but wasn't known to be true. Could that have been investigated? Sure, I suppose. I know we talked about it. But the prevailing thought, which I endorsed then and still believe, was that it wasn't the newspaper's place to out a politician on his otherwise legal sexual preference.

As Smith said last night on another question, you could argue the point.

Somebody at work today wondered aloud how the Spokesman-Review's coverage will be judged over time. I think the Motobrock decision will continue to be debated. But my guess is that the appreciation of Spokane readers, and eventually journalism critics, will grow as time passes.

The ultimate test is the veracity of the story, and that doesn't seem to be in question at all. The Spokesman nailed it.