Mayor David Faber took The Leader to task in an Oct. 2 social media post for covering the ethics complaints made against him, because a) the person who filed it should not be taken seriously, b) we ran it with “splash salacious headlines across to top of the fold,” and c) readers don’t always read the whole story, and hence they might not understand. 

In the process the mayor omitted a lot of other details, most significantly that a reporter from The Leader had contacted him on Oct. 1 to write a story about the mayor’s perspective of the accusations for the Oct. 2 paper. He didn’t mention that The Leader had also run a guest column he penned on Sept. 25 across the top of the editorial page: “Golf Park plan no threat to Camus Prairie.” There he addressed critics of his advocacy for the development of the longtime greenspace. (The proposed development of that property is at the core of one of the complaints.) 

The suggestion is that we shouldn’t be writing about it but if we did it should be relegated to the back pages. Yet Faber acknowledged at the time the ethics complaints were filed that it was a legitimate story. (This happened at a meeting about other coverage with me, Lloyd Mullen, publisher of The Leader, and Shelly Leavens, the city’s director of marketing and communications. They had taken issue with a headline about a different story. This story was contrasted as legitimate by comparison.)

Let’s have a look at our coverage about the ethics complaint filed against the mayor. 

The first story that ran in The Leader was July 24, which reported the complaint had been filed by Rev. Crystal Cox. It ran on the left hand side of the front page, two columns, with the mayor’s response near the top. He spoke of the complainant’s proclivity for going after elected officials, and predicted it would be “summarily dismissed.” The  mayor’s perspective filled the third paragraph, and it included everything he provided. 

The next time we did a story was on Aug. 21, which ran on the lower half of the fold. It explained why there hadn’t been a determination yet, which a lot of people (not just the mayor) assumed it would already be dismissed. The hearing examiner’s contract needed to be revised. 

The story that prompted the mayor’s post ran on Sept 25 across the top of the page:  

“Ethics complaints about the mayor move forward.” Phil Olbrecht, the independent hearing examiner — now with a new contract in place — had agreed to hear two of six complaints filed against the mayor. 

That’s big news, in our book, because Faber is the mayor. 

The story included several paragraphs about the complainant, but in Faber’s view, based on his post, it needed more. The mayor listed two sources he thought we should have used: A New York Times story published in 2011, and a Wikipedia page that cites another lawsuit about the complainant. He also quoted a letter we’d published from his friend and business partner, Theo Howard — without disclosing as much — which called the complainant names. (We had run the same letter, editing out the name calling.) 

None of those three elements are things that would place near the  top of our source list. That’s because we abide by industry-wide standards of operation. The Leader adheres to the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, which is posted in two places in the newsroom. We are actively at work on another layer that will make our commitment to readers even more clear, which I’ve been saving for a full rollout. More about that later.

Going forward

Importantly, we aren’t done reporting this story, and may write about it from a number of different angles and in different ways. That includes the complainant, the specific allegations, and of course Faber’s perspective. I encourage the mayor to talk to our reporter so we can more fully present his position. I also welcome another column. 

We endeavor to present all sides of a story, an ongoing process. As I’ve opined elsewhere, it is anathema to us to knee-jerk block coverage of an event based on an opinion — ours or anyone else’s — about the worthiness of a complainant. It is so dangerous a proposition it’s worthy of its own column.  

Readers should know we listen and we work hard to be fair. Anyone who thinks they aren’t getting a fair shake will be heard. We believe other views should be heard and provide space for it. We aren’t always going to get it right and when we’re wrong, we admit it. Bring new information and we reconsider. But part of our job is to hold government to account, and that’s what we’re going to do.