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.