Spokesman-Review feedback

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" ?
It seems like Smith and Morlin are jumping to conclusions and believing these things before finding evidence, and I wouldn’t be surprised it they honestly believed the same thing and had second thoughts.
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?
Initially, he said he was prohibited by the Spokesman’s code of ethics. They made their character 17 years old even though there was no previous evidence of West engaging with underage boys. After the character turns 18, the two decide to meet. After offered an internship, Morlin said the issue was public abuse of office, not the sexual activities.
3. Why do you think The Spokesman-Review ultimately published so many articles on Mayor West's alleged improprieties?
They said the citizens of Spokane needed to hear despite the fact that it would ruin the man’s life. West had acknowledged having online sex with an 18-year-old. The scandal was picked up nation-wide and received much media attention. The FBI started an investigation and all of his political allies left him. Nonetheless, West didn’t give up or resign; he kept his position despite an uphill battle, and the newspaper didn’t want to see that or waver on their position. 
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.
Clearly, West was hurt the most.  No boys claimed West had sexually abused them except Gallagher who didn’t make that claim until 25 years later when West became mayor.  Gallagher said he was apprehensive because of West’s power, yet he didn’t come out until West was at his height of power and popularity.  In the short-run, The Spokesman-Review may have benefited by the attention and revenue.  However, documentaries such as this one can tarnish their image, as well as the reputation of Spokane as a whole. I don’t think the outcome was worth it, as only one man accused West of an improper relationship with him.
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?
I think that this too was an example of poor reporting where the Spokesman tries to get the “evidence” to fit in the mold they created and decided to be true a long time ago. Rather than stirring up baseless stories and coercing information, the Spokesman should report on facts.  It seems like they’re just out to get famous community members to make their own name more famous.  I think it has come back to hurt them by giving them a poor reputation as a publication.