Civil Beat editor John Temple responded thoughtfully to my criticism yesterday of their handling of a story about Rep. Angus McKelvey and foreclosure legislation. For those who don’t prowl the comments, I’m reprinting his response in full below.
I agree with John’s point that “this kind of reporting that explores how lawmakers’ personal lives affect their actions and interests in the Legislature is valuable.”
I also agree with John’s other main point: “But the subject of the story agreed that the question was worthy of consideration. Should we not report that?”
But my point was simple. Stories like this aren’t just “he said, she said” debates, although the views of those involved are certainly relevant. If you’re reporting conflict of interest, readers deserve to know the starting point, which is the legal definition of a conflict, so they can apply that standard to the behavior being reported.
In this case, the story did quote an internal House rule on disclosure, but never ignored the rule that defines a reportable conflict. As I pointed out, at least under house rules, the kind of conflict McKelvey faces is excluded from the definition because he and his mother are part of a class of people facing the same issue.
It is also not covered by the state ethics law’s definition of conflict of interest, along with most other legislative behavior. That’s not necessarily the end of the story, but it’s the starting point for the reporter and the reader, in my view.
Simple enough.
And I was quite surprised by the other prickly comments about Civil Beat generally. I think they’re making a very valuable contribution, doing good journalism, and deserve support.
In any case, here’s John’s comment.
Ian, I always appreciate your reflections on Civil Beat’s journalism.
In this case, however, I think you’ve got it wrong.
We have a lawmaker active in the foreclosure issue who told us that he feels he was intentionally singled out for foreclosure, as if to muzzle him. That seems pretty dramatic and worth our attention.
After being approached by Civil Beat about what was happening in his life, he told us that there was an appearance of conflict and that he will handle the issue more transparently in the future. That tells me he thought the issue was worth serious consideration.
As far as the substance of the story, I hope your readers take a look before taking your word.
The headline wasn’t about a conflict of interest: It was a factual report about how people making our laws face some of the same trials many in the public do. It read: “Lawmaker Caught Up In Foreclosure Mess”
The secondary headline read: “A leading advocate for cleaning up Hawaii laws on mortgage foreclosures, Rep. Angus McKelvey, finds himself the target of foreclosure.”
Again, nothing about conflict of interest.
Of course the reporter had to ask the question about his votes. We do raise questions with our reporting and we did with this one.
But the subject of the story agreed that the question was worthy of consideration. Should we not report that?
Civil Beat did not blow the appearance of conflict out of proportion, as I think is obvious from the structure of the story and the approach to the headline.
I think this kind of reporting that explores how lawmakers’ personal lives affect their actions and interests in the Legislature is valuable, and especially worthwhile when there’s not a black or white answer. Those are easy. This kind of story is hard, for McKelvey and for a reporter.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Bravo, Civil Beat, which has raised the bar on journalism.
The more journalists the merrier. But new-comers to the islands must also do their homework before providing ‘authoritative news ‘ on everything. You can’t always speak to the head honchos only.
I wish Civil Beat will understand and feel Hawaii, its unique charm, and its culture better. Its writers seem to be looking from their mainland lens and mainland ways.
I accept, generally, that the starting point for an ethics discussion is what the law says (be it statute, House rule, administrative rule, or whatever). That being said, I also think that there’s a colloquial type of “conflict of interest,” as in, it smells kind of funny. The McKelvey/legislation foreclosure intersection doesn’t fit the formal definition of “conflict” but I think it certainly raises a question worth discussing.
As for that discussion, I haven’t read the Civil Beat piece, so I’m doing a bit of “he said, she said” reflection here myself. However, it does seem from Temple’s explanation that neither the headline nor the story itself trumpeted the situation as a “conflict of interest,” at least not in the legal sense.
I guess we’ll have to draw our own conclusion as to whther the situation in which McKelvey found himself, and in which other legislators voting on legislation that affects a class of people of which they are a member, passes the smell test.
I was also surprised by the volume of comments about the quality of Civil Beat’s reporting and analysis by the commenters. I see so much moaning about the Star-Advertiser’s journalism by iLind commenters I thought they would appreciate the high level of Civil Beat’s reportage. Another reason to like Civil Beat: they are giving experience to several talented writers in their 20s. Gotta nurture that next generation, particularly in our manini-sized media market where opportunities for talented folks to write are few and far between.
Lind made good points in his original analysis and Temple responded with some credible modifiers. What I find most disturbing is in Temple’s response which he starts by saying that Lind “has it wrong”.
Good reporting, like science. is a process of research and illumination of an issue that can entertain differences of opinion, perception and the introduction of new facts. Right and wrong are polarizing and used to divide. Just framing opinions against each other with scant context or evaluative framework misses the potential.
Process and research with integrity leads to fuller awareness and perhaps better decisions. And this seems to be about what Lind’s specific analysis and bigger point has been all about; journalism with diligence and integrity.
I think what is most telling is that Temple attempts to solidify the basis of the reporting by saying that when asked “the subject said the topic was worthy”….what else was “the subject” to say at that point?? He was now aware of the attack and could only make it worse by denying or trying to explain. It was likely obvious by then that the tone of the question wasn’t simply out of curiousity but a cheap shot at his door. It was a loaded question at best and lousy journalism. Temple’s tone in his response is the foundation for the general vibe of CB. Witch hunting at it’s best. But what was the point to all this hoopla again???? Exactly.