A BLEG TO THE BLOGOSPHERE - WE NEED YOUR HELP!

I'm sharing this post from Spokane resident Dick Adams as an example of the Spokesman-Review's media malfeasance and malpractice [Paper of record of Spokane, WA]. IMHO the S-R is being used as an instrumentality of an ongoing criminal enterprise to conceal the illegal acts of its owners [River Park Square and other projects] through its own self-censoring of stories and censoring of alternative info and reader comments. The systemic level of political/governmental corruption in Spokane is the worst I've witnessed in my 35-year law enforcement career.

I'm also sharing an email to the S-R Editorial Board by award winning investigative journalist Tim Connor of Camas Magazine (www.camasmagazine.com) who has documented this ongoing fraud for the last seven years. Connor is taking to task S-R Editor Steve Smith for the hypocrisy of his past actions and the S-R's behavior re the new S-R draft code of ethics.

There is a national angle to this story as the matriarch of the Cowles family [Owners of the S-R] is married now to the patriarch of the New York Times family. The family just spent $41M to purchased several TV stations in California. The Cowles family are founding members of the AP and continue to sit on its board. Nothing re this fraud and conspiracy rarely leaves Spokane. For a more in depth piece on the pervasiveness of this conspiracy see Terresa Monroe-Hamiliton's post ant the Media Mythbusters Blog:

An Army of Davids Strikes - Spokane, WA

Terresa and I are about to unveil a new fan website for the Mark Fuhrman Radio Show. This show fell victim to the "usual suspects" as it was cutting too close to the bone on the River Park Square fraud. Tom Grant an award winning investigative TV reporter was also similarly squelched by the Cowles. In the meantime we have started an email group to post new information. If you would like to join the list go here:

Subscribe to friendsofmarkfuhrman
Powered by groups.yahoo.com

The citizens of Spokane need your help to break this story nationally. This house of cards will topple in the light of national media attention. This story also includes the tragic and untimely "Death by Parking" of Ms. Jo Savage in the River Park Square parking garage that IMHO was a negligent homicide that should have been investigated and prosecuted as a first degree manslaughter. This is documented in Connor's partner Larry Shook in his soon to be published book, Girl from Hotsprings , a chronicle of former Councilperson Cherie Rodgers who has unceasingly attempted to expose this fraud. The sitting US Attorney for the Eastern Washington District, Jim McDevitt, may be complicit in this fraud and has recused himself from the new federal criminal investigation underway by the US Attorney's Office in Seattle, WA.

I'm invoking the Instapundit's Army of Davids effect. Please spread the word. If you can we would appreciate a link. More importantly if you have contact with any national investigative reporters who are looking for their next intriguing story by all means pimp this story. Pulitzer anyone?

Please help the citizens of Spokane to rid themselves of this river leech that is sucking the its life's blood and soul.

RBT

www.rocketsbrain.com

AKA "Ron the Cop" a regular of The Mark Fuhrman Radio Show

Det. Ron Wright (Retired - Badge No. 1)
Riverside PD, CA

*****

I thought I`d spend a couple minuets this morning and send the following to the "Society of Professional Journalists", Mr. Joe Skeel, Quill Editor. fyi, Dick

From: Dick Adams
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 8:39 AM
To: jskeel@spj.org

Subject: Spokesman-Review, Spokane, Wa

Dear Sir:

Yesterday, January 20, 2008, The Spokesman Review newspaper, Spokane, Wa. was pandering to its subscribers for input regarding a revised code of ethics it plans to implement. I sent the following letter to most of the Spokesman editors and staff personnel. I provide rather important issues which have not to date been published. I`m wondering if you might help me to get answers.
----------------------------------------------

TO ALL:

After Steve Smith moved onto the scene at the SR and took over the reins from Chris Peck, both he and I had a following out. After just a couple of email exchanges or so (no more than 4), Smith advised me he`d placed me on his spam filter and told me, we are done playing games and done writing to each other. PERIOD!

Today (1/20), after reading there goal outlined by the SR and values used everyday, according to Smith, I shall respond per his request to hold the SR accountable. Again he`s pandering for help from its subscribers.

I shall list "NEWS I`VE FURNISHED TO THE EDITORS" in the past, along with supporting proof of what I sent so they would report it, and absolutely no printers ink was used. I still hold the documentation as evidence.

In addition to the foregoing, and for the record, I have told friends, editors and staff writers, I felt the Washington News Agency analysis regarding the SR reporting of the RIVER PARK SQUARE SCANDAL over the years was, in my opinion, printed rubbish, preposition damage control. When the WNC report was published the SR, as they have done today, requested comment from the subscribers. I sent a letter to the editor with what I thought was omitted from the story and I thought should have been published. I received the usual type of denial sent me by Doug Floyd about my letter. So be it. Its the infamous "ring of marbles" played by the owners, via the Smith`s and Floyd`s of the world that I don`t like. The sound bite asking for help they print sure sounds good, except it is a facade. I`ll tell you and show you why.

The first thing I`ll point out will be the censorship by the SR, which was proof to me the grip they hold on their staff writers to write about the truth. I`ll share a few examples..

Jack Geraghty, former Mayor, regarding his conversation with Judge Kathleen O`Connor, right after rendering her court decision on the RPS case (I was involved as a plaintiff). The SR was made aware by me of the conversation. Remember, the Mayor had been a major player and pushed hard for the RPS project. Because of their conversation, was during a critical time frame for appeal, Judge O`Connor was disqualified. NOT REPORTED!

Judge Sam Cozza`s decision regarding RPS scandal, denying its citizens rights on a submitted petition in which the record proved, he did not even read the evidence submitted to him. I even requested a correction about the erroneous story published in the SR about COZZA`s decision. AGAIN, NOT REPORTED!

Next, I`d like to mention the city of Spokane purchasing auto parts from EMPIRE FORD, when part owner of the company, Roberta Greene was a sitting City Councilwoman. I have kept all the records on this, proving the transactions and my attempt to have the SR expose the illegal act. AGAIN, NOT REPORTED!

And my investigation about a LOOP HOLE in the tax exemption for historic preservation of the Spokesman Review building, where, the Cowles, in addition to paying zero real estate tax on the structure, they did not pay one dime on the land the structure sits on for the 10 year period. Talk about corporation welfare. I even have correspondence between Mr... Stacey Cowles and I, when he tried to justify paying no tax on his land. AGAIN, NO PUBLISHED STORY!

Another not so funny, laugh, I had. I was a guest writer last fall for a story about the outrageously high 25% city utility tax and explaining how the Lilac City tried to hoodwink the rate payers on how much they were actually paying in taxes. After submitting my final draft of my story to Doug Floyd, op-ed, I was asked for a concession. Floyd`s request was made via email. He said, before the SR would publish my story I`d have to sign off on a concession or my story would not be published. I refused to sign it but for some reason, the SR published it anyway. My guess is, what they asked me for was something so absurd and stupid they thought better of it and printed my story.

I have more examples but I`m afraid I might be wasting my time as in the past submitting stuff to the Spokesman Review and with no results.

Sincerely,
Dick Adams
Spokane, Wa.
----------------------------------------------
I am a resident of Spokane, Wa, seeking the truth. Any help would be appreciated.
Regards,
Dick Adams
Spokane, Wa.

*****
date Jan 20, 2008 12:01 PM
subject Your New Ethics Code

Reply

January 20, 2008

Re: New Spokesman-Review Ethics Code

Dear Steve:

I had trouble finding our newspaper this morning on the front porch so I retreated to my office to see if I could read Rich Landers and other of my favorite S-R columnists on-line. It was there, on your homepage, that I noticed the extraordinary and prominently displayed new Ethics Code you've posted and are seeking comments on. It's extraordinary in a good way and it's one reason I'm copying my comments to several folks in my address book, including the Columbia Journalism Review and Editor & Publisher.
I'm not aware of any other newspaper which, for example, is willing to hold itself "to the same standards of openness it [the Spokesman-Review] applies to public institutions and agencies."

That's a remarkable commitment, and we're going to find our pretty quickly just how that works. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

The elephant in the Ethics Code is, as you know, the historic problem the Spokesman-Review has had in putting the needs of its publisher's family ahead of the needs and legitimate interests of its readers. This was reiterated in last April's lengthy critique by the Washington News Council which concluded, among other things, that the Spokesman-Review "suppressed financial information of importance" to readers and public decision-makers about the riskiness of the River Park Square public/private partnership. (As you know, the City's last gasp efforts to recover some of the tens of millions of dollars it lost in that fiasco seemed to reach a dead end in federal appeals court last week.) Suffice to say that none of what you've posted and committed yourself to is any more important than you're willingness to truly act independent of the Cowles family and its long time associates and allies. Say, for example, the Witherspoon Kelley law firm.

For the sake of brevity, I'm not going to rehash the ethics complaint I filed against you with the newspaper's ombudsman last summer, shortly before you fired him. But Mr. Blewett's firing--ostensibly for not talking to people he was writing about--is relevant because it points to a double standard.

It begs the question of what happens to other S-R editors and reporters when they write scathing material about people that turns out not to be true, and do so without having taken the time to interview these people.

Say, for example, you.

Remember that error-filled and utterly baseless assault on my former colleague Tom Grant you posted on your blog November 18th? This is the one you expressed regret about on November 21st, after Grant wrote you and listed the several factual errors in your attack on him. This is how you handled the errors and the apology: "I won't dispute his version of events. And I do apologize to Grant for any errors of fact." At our kitchen table we call that a "drive by" and it's not something we let our children get away with. The rule is you at least have to make eye contact and say it like you mean it.

As I sometimes visit your blog, I was grateful to see the new rule:

Blogs

Any full-time or part-time employee, extra-board staff member or correspondent who writes or produces a blog for spokesmanreview.com or any other digital or virtual platform should uphold the same ethical standards for accuracy, attribution, fairness and so on as required of journalists producing content for the print newspaper and its related print publications. Blogs produced for the Web should be considered an extension of the printed brand - even as they embrace and invite more relaxed and casual discourse.

My comment here is that this rule should be retroactive, and that it should apply to the smear job you did on Tom Grant--probably the most decorated broadcast journalist ever to work in Spokane--last November. I would suggest that you at least commit yourself to a stand up apology and suspend yourself. I realize that the punishment delivered upon Mr. Blewett is likely a course you won't consider. But it seems to me (and many other readers) that your offense was far more egregious than his.

My main comment, however, is on what you've called, for some time now, the "Transparent News Room." As you know, it's now been cast into a part of your proposed Ethics Code in this way:

Transparency

The Spokesman-Review holds itself to the same standards of openness it applies to public institutions and agencies. Our decisions about news coverage – both in print and online – are open to scrutiny. Citizens and readers are encouraged to ask questions, observe and participate in news meetings and share their opinions through blogs, letters to the editor and any other interactive processes that might be developed. Reader interaction must be a component of all newsroom initiatives. Transparency enhances our credibility by opening up the news-gathering process and allowing readers to test their assumptions about our biases.

I think I'm in a better position than most to appreciate what a positive change this represents, if it's genuine.

But let's see. What I'd like to do here is take you at your word and file what amounts to a public records request on you and Cowles Publishing Co. This is also a test, as you put it above, of my assumptions about your biases.

To do this and help explain what I'm after, I'm going to walk back through the email request I sent to you and reporters Jonathan Brunt and Erica Curless last Friday in which I informed them (and you) of a documented mistake in their January 11th story, requested a correction, and asked questions about whether the error was introduced into the copy on purpose, in order to try to protect Duane Swinton, the newspaper's attorney. Your immediate note to them that they did not have to respond to me is, of course, contrary to SPJ ethics and, of course, the newspaper's Ethical Code.

It occurred to me after I wrote the email, that perhaps I was a bit too concise and left out some important background. So, let's try this again.

As you know, I filed a grievance with the Washington State Bar Association against Mr. Swinton and Witherspoon Kelley last July. One reason I took this action is that Witherspoon, last April, went to a federal Judge and succeeded in blocking the release of deposition transcripts of a public official that were promised me and my colleague Larry Shook in our 2006 settlement with the City of Spokane of a major public records lawsuit.

My ethics complaint against Mr. Swinton and Witherspoon Kelley is multi-faceted and calls into question, for example, his documented plea to a public agency not to create a record acknowledging the fact that agents working for River Park Square had created the non-profit Spokane Downtown Foundation which issued the $31.5 million in bonds for the RPS garage. (Indeed, Mr. Swinton was one of those agents and bondholders registered this as a key material fact in their successful securities fraud complaint). But clearly one key issue in the grievance is that Mr. Swinton has a classic Conflict of Interest under state RPC Rule 1.7. That is to say, he does not appear to have followed the conflict of interest rules while he and Witherspoon were simultaneously representing the newspaper and River Park Square. My contention is based largely on how Publisher Stacey Cowles described Mr. Swinton's conflict in 2004, but it also relies on Jim Camden's reporting in the S-R's March 28, 2004 edition where, in his series on River Park Square and the newspaper, he reported on "The Cowles Connection." In the article, and in an accompanying graphic, River Park Square is identified as a "separate company" and a "separate operation."

This was done to assure me and other readers that the newspaper and the mall were independently operated, such that Cowles business interests wouldn't compromise the journalism ethics of the newspaper.

In a remarkable stroke, Mr. Swinton disputed this characterization in responding to my grievance last August. Instead, he proposed that all the Cowles entities were united in purpose as "Cowles Company." This is his explanation for why there is no conflict of interest.

Ten days later, in an article about the recusal of U.S. Attorney Jim McDevitt, Mr. Camden noted, albeit vaguely, a change in corporate policy in which the River Park Square project was undertaken "by what is now Cowles Co."
Gone is any reference to RPS as a "separate company" or "separate operation."

Then came, Mr. Brunt and Ms. Curless's front page article on January 11th: "Cowles Co. opposed RPS papers' release," that begins:

"The company that owns The Spokesman Review fought last year against the release of hundreds of pages of documents..."

As I noted in my January 11th email to them (cc'd to you) this is not true. The legal papers were not filed by Cowles Publishing Co., but by River Park Square LLC and RPS II, LLC, the companies that operate the RPS mall and garage. River Park Square LLC and RPS II, LLC do not own The Spokesman-Review.

It's a fair and reasonable question to ask what's going on here. To me, a plausible explanation is that the newspaper is bowing to a corporate policy that, at a minimum, is intended to have the newspaper fall in line with the description of Cowles enterprises that Mr. Swinton described in response to my bar complaint.

Thus, I have what I think is a reasonable hunch that the change between the March 2004 description (see attached "Cowles Connection" article) and the new one is the subject of a memo that came either to you directly, or was circulated to the newspaper's senior editors. If that memo exists, I'd like to request it pursuant to the "Transparency" tenet cited above. If there is no memo, please just answer my question: Why did the Spokesman-Review drop its description of RPS as a "separate" company and replace it with "Cowles Company?"

Consistent with the rules that apply to public agencies you cover, if you do have the memo and choose not to provide it to me, please explain why you are withholding it from me.

regards, Tim Connor