The Inlander/July 2010

An individual served six months in jail for first-degree criminal sexual conduct. Thirteen years later he filed for mayor.

Another individual was arrested and charged with shoplifting a $6 sewing kit – in her words, she had “forgotten” to pay during a stressful time in her life shortly after her father’s death. Twelve years later, she filed for statewide elective office.

Do you report these transgressions as part of their candidacies? What’s your rationale?

Both of these circumstances occurred in Minnesota, and both were reported. The decision to publish predictably drew a mixed reaction among campaign staffs and readers.

Election season is upon us when news “tips” routinely are pitched to media. Some are automatic news, some should be dismissed out of hand, and others warrant scrutiny for facts and relevance to the election.

There is no absolute “yes” or “no” as to when election-season tips turn into stories. Each must be evaluated for its news value just like any other story pitched to newsrooms. And though editors may not anticipate anything will surface in local campaigns, it’s a good idea to have a brainstorming session on how to handle tips in advance of the heat of the political season.

Elected officials and public employee are understandably held to a higher level of accountability. Evaluating their conduct and actions falls within a newspaper’s watchdog role. Candidates for elective office step into that same fishbowl. At the same time, editors and reporters should demand the same level of accountability of news sources as they do of the candidates themselves.

Don’t forget that candidates as well as public officials have private lives, too. For example, it may well be legitimate for a reader to comment in a letter to the editor on an unkempt rental property of an elected official. But is it appropriate to publish criticism of an off-color comment made by the official at a private party?

The electorate is the ultimate beneficiary of thorough and substantive coverage of the candidates and the issues. Some decisions on whether to publish information are made rather easily, especially if the items are deemed public under state or federal laws. Candidates and readers alike are best served by “knowing the rules” – understanding that newspapers will be aggressive in their pursuit of the news. Editors should seize the opportunity to explain the ground rules in a column to readers.

The fact that something is public information, however, may not be justification in and of itself to report. A newspaper discovered that an incumbent lawmaker paid her property taxes five days late – complete with penalty. No laws were broken. The story reported that both her opponents paid their taxes on time, and there was no indication that late payment was a recurring problem with the lawmaker. Editors could reasonably debate when the late payment warranted even the brief news item.

Newsrooms should be especially cautious when tips surface as 11th-hour charges. These items – typically attacks on candidates – fall into two camps, and each prompts a different handling.

Some charges are strategically lobbed in the final days. The information is known well in advance but surfaces late with the hope that it might deliver a knockout punch. Editors are well within their bounds to reject pursuing a story, even if the information is deemed to have some legitimacy.

In rare cases, however, the information might address an issue that truly just came to light and warrants public attention. These stories do warrant coverage with all affected parties given an opportunity to respond.

Many of these circumstances can be avoided if newspapers are utilizing their collective eyes and ears. These tips usually circulate within a community with plenty of time to give them a full investigation and possible public airing.

Another element is often common to these tips. The information is forwarded by unnamed sources or by individuals who wish to remain unidentified. Newspapers should have a clear policy on what circumstances dictate honoring a source’s request to remain anonymous – and who has the authority to make the final call. The exceptions to identifying sources should be especially rare when dealing with political charges.

Editors and reporters constantly make judgment calls on what information is in the public realm and what is in the private domain. The clashes become more frequent during the political season. The litmus test should be whether the electorate is served by knowing a specific item. If so, newspapers should take the necessary steps to report the information in timely and responsible fashion so all parties have ample time to respond and react.