For several weeks, in three editorials, the Seattle Times Editorial Board has sunk its teeth into scandalized Democrat state auditor Troy Kelley, who this week was indicted on 10 federal criminal charges including filing false tax returns, obstruction of justice and possession of stolen property.
Their outrage commenced in response to Kelley’s unwillingness to answer questions about what federal agents were looking for when they raided his Tacoma home (March 24, 2015, “State Auditor Troy Kelley must come clean”), grew louder when his “self-imposed witness protection program” continued (April 3, 2015, “State Auditor Troy Kelley must resign”), and reached a roaring climax yesterday when the news of his formal indictment prompted nearly every Washingtonian not blood-related to Kelley to call for his immediate resignation (April 16, 2015, “Time for Troy Kelley to show himself the door”).
{Cue slow golf clap.}
Please forgive those who may not see riding atop a juggernaut of public opinion as a shining example of journalistic integrity.
Although those three full-throated editorials blistering Kelley are right on the mark they do not erase the Times’ original sin in this story—their decision to endorse Kelley in 2012 for the office he now holds onto with the stubborn strength of a desperate man.
The Seattle Times editorial board owes its readers an apology for its 2012 endorsement of the then-candidate and now indicted Kelley.
Not because we don’t all get it wrong from time to time—we all do—but because the Times got it spectacularly wrong when they had all of the reasons handed to them to get it right.
Allegations that Kelley had been involved in the shady business dealings that now form the foundation of 10 federal criminal charges were first brought forward by his opponent in the 2012 campaign, business consultant James Watkins.
(Side note: The Northwest Daily Marker reviewed the evidence as part of our decision whether to run our initial story on the allegations that now form the case against him in federal court. We felt at the time, as we do now, the allegations were valid and well-documented enough to be newsworthy and warrant further public scrutiny.)
In awarding their endorsement to Kelley, the Times chided Watkins for his having brought the allegations by posting them on a website, characterized the act as “mudslinging,” and warned that “[v]oters should be cautious about the files posted on [factcheckkelley.com]. Legal documents are rife with hyperbole.”
So, because the Times didn’t like the style of Watkin’s message it appears they felt comfortable ignoring it and then shooting the messenger for good measure.
(It should also be noted that although the Times claimed in its March 24 piece that the original endorsement “called on Kelley to release a 2011 legal settlement involving one of his former businesses.” We have read the version of the endorsement still published on the Seattle Times website and were unable to find a statement that comes anywhere close to making a clear demand of that sort. If they had, one would have expected them to call him to task at some point during the 15 months following the demand, but not a word was printed on the subject after the endorsement until the federal case became known.)
In reality, it doesn’t matter who the messenger is or what the method of their delivery may be if the message itself has some hard evidence to suggest it might be true. Putting it aside because you don’t like the style of delivery is not an acceptable practice for organizations that believe the public deserves the truth about serious allegations.
We don’t deserve the truth for moral reasons—the special protections given to the press under the First Amendment imply a covenant of sorts that must function in a legitimate democracy.
The Seattle Times Editorial Board should step forward and give readers the apology they deserve.
Agree 95%…why? Three items:
1. Political leaders under indictment should be relieved of their public burden so that the work of the agency can continue untarnished and unabated and so that the object of the court’s affection can concentrate on his or her defense unfettered by actual public responsibility.
2. Once more the journalistic icons of Washington reveal an extreme party polarized penmanship when attempting to indulge in political punditry. When questioned closely someone will give the Harry Reid response in defense of the Seattle Times (Harry, you lied, Mitt paid his taxes. But he didn’t win, did he?). And in the case of young Troy, he actually didn’t pay his taxes – but not important, he won didn’t he? And just wait, the ST in response to this stinging criticism, will find that on page 511 of the state history there is an error in the forestry acreage destroyed in Okanogan during a small fire in 1923 and the ST will come unglued about how such errors are allowed to poison the public discourse and the young minds who must endure the mandatory Washington History course in High School — and oh, by the way, the state history is the sole responsibility of the Secretary of State who is a Republican.
3. Where I think Bryan has it wrong is in his target: the Seattle Times. Certainly the ST is culpable of blue bias, but the TNT should be first in line to carry that water. First because Troy Kelly is a Tacoma boy and at the time of his election was a sitting state legislator living in Pierce County. And don’t kid yourself, while McClatchy corporation would have you believe that TNT stands for The News Tribune, it doesn’t. It still stands for the Tacoma News Tribune. Just calculate the percentage of the local stories in that dark blue rag that are Tacoma based and then compare that to the population of Tacoma compared to the rest of the county. Secondly, the TNT is one of the most experienced in the state at going after and holding accountable major public figures indulging in shenanigans. Read up on Sheriff Janovich and Auditor Greco. Another miss in Bryan’s targeting is internal to the paper itself. In other words, whether the real culprit in blue bias is the ST or the TNT, it is not their necessarily its editorial page at fault. They make indorsement decisions based on what the paper knows about candidate A or B. And what they know comes from the newsroom, which really failed both papers in a big way. Now, I fully understand an investigative reporter not following up on one candidate’s whining about his opponent being a bad guy. But when the newsrooms were handed court documents about Troy’s financial misdeeds and did not follow up, that is professional malpractice in the first degree. And IF the editorial page knew of the documents but did not choose to divulge such information, then they compound the felony.
So why did I, and my father before me, spend our adult lives supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States and therefore a free press, when the press is too timid or incompetent to do its job? Bryan said as much but way more nicely in his closing paragraphs. Since we were stationed in some pretty rough places on pay that was – at least at the outset – qualified for food stamps I get a bit emotional about shortcomings in journalism’s primary function in society: accountability of the powerful.
Spot on Bryan. I hate to use this worn out formulation – but if a Republican candidate had faced allegations he ripped off tens of thousands of Washingtonians for $2-3 million, do you think the Seattle Times would have taken it more seriously? And really, of all offices, you’d think they would expect the State Auditor to be beyond reproach (meaning a lawsuit over a disagreement on whether or not you stole a million dollars is an automatic disqualifier).