Our View - Friday

SHOULD REPORTERS CALL THE POLICE?
Questions remain about KOAA's report

   District Attorney John Newsome drank a lot of beer. He's at the center of scandal because a TV crew with a hidden camera videotaped him drinking. It was classic gotchastyle journalism, fit for a show such as "Caught on Tape." One can debate the merits of caught-on-tape-journalism, but it's a genre that sometimes works to keep the system in check, and it's probably here to stay. In this case, it raised an important issue about the district attorney, as well as questions about journalistic ethics and responsibilities.

   Newsome is a powerful public official, and his actions are open to scrutiny. But TV reporters and producers also serve the public interest, and function at the behest of the public's trust.

   When KOAA came forth with a story about Newsome's beer binge, it did so ostensibly to alert us all to the impropriety of a public servant. What was most inappropriate about his behavior? It was dangerous. Had he not driven a car away from the bar, this wouldn't be a story. He's obviously an effective prosecutor, so who cares if he has an affinity for beer? It hasn't rendered him ineffective in getting the results he was elected to deliver. It was the driving that mattered most, because in driving after drinking he risked the lives of himself and others. He behaved in a way his office condemns, because it's dangerous.

   In the danger of drinking and driving lies the importance of the story, and the staff at KOAA knows as much. Yet in working to inform the public, did they fail to report a possible crime in progress?

   If KOAA's motive for catching Newsome on tape was to further public safety, why didn't the staff call 911 the moment he got behind the wheel? According to their own reports, they suspected that Newsome had driven on more than one occasion after consuming large quantities of beer. If they witnessed it, and failed to alert authorities, they may have been complicit in the danger. As questions remain about Newsome's actions and his future, questions surround KOAA's decisions.

   Gazette reporter Andrew Wineke asked KOAA News Director Cindy Aubrey whether James Jarman, the lead reporter on the story, had a responsibility to call police. Aubrey explained that KOAA had two undercover crews at the tavern. She said the two crews didn't have time to compare notes before Newsome left to got in his car, which means they didn't know for sure how much he had drank.

   "At that point, we didn't have all our information," Aubrey said.

   But the journalists were there because they had reason to believe he would drink heavily, which he did, and then drive. Was there really a question, in the minds of KOAA staffers, whether Newsome had consumed multiple beers before getting behind the wheel? Possibly. But if the witnesses suspected he had drank too much, they needed to call police.

   Here's a possible reason nobody called police. They were there to get a shocking, modern-day, caught-on-tape story. If that was the main motive of the sting, it's easy to understand how considerations for the immediate safety of other drivers on the road could be overlooked. Yet if public safety is the reason we're to find this story important, the staff should have been prepared to alert authorities to any suspicion that Newsome posed a threat.

   Had the journalists on hand called police, we might have useful physical evidence that would tell us whether Newsome was legal to drive. But there was a journalistic risk in calling 911. What if Newsome has a bionic metabolism, and he was determined legal to drive? There would go the suspicion that makes the story a hit. And what if he was over the limit? Well, then the story could have been the arrest of a public official, with the undercover tape a potentially minor footnote. These are the kind of ethical dilemmas involved in caught-on-tape reporting.

   The media have a social and legal charter to report on the course of human events. But that role does not alleviate common civic responsibilities, such as reporting suspicion of a crime in progress.

   KOAA's story has made a big splash, and it may lead to good things for Newsome, his family and Judicial District 4. But in this story, journalists possibly failed to put the public's interest ahead of their own. To get an A-plus, they'd tape a suspect and get him off the street.

   Newsome has a reputation to repair. And KOAA has some questions to answer, in the interest of advancing the cause of caught-on-tape journalism.

FAREWELL, MAYOR BOB

   Any time a person who has had a major effect on an area dies, it feels like the passing of an era. That's the way things are this week in Colorado Springs as an entire city mourns the passing of Robert Isaac on May 2. A public memorial service will take place at 11:30 this morning at City Auditorium after a procession through downtown , led by a horsedrawn hearse.

   A Colorado Springs native, "Mayor Bob" graduated from Colorado Springs High School (now Palmer) in 1945 and received an appointment to the U.S. Military Academy at Westpoint in 1947. After serving his country, Isaac attended the University of Southern California law school, then returned to the hometown he loved to practice law.

   He served in private practice, as a prosecutor and a municipal judge before setting his sights on a City Council seat. In 1979 he was elected mayor and served in that role for most of the next 20 years. He retired from that position in 1997.

   This page and Isaac had an often-contentious relationship, butting heads over taxpayer subsidies for such entities as the city bus system and a convention/civic center. Both parties held deeprooted beliefs on the issues, so we never saw eye-to-eye. But both had the interests of the city at heart and sought to look out for the common man. Mayor Bob was a worthy adversary for some and good friend for others. We'll miss his vitality and interest in Colorado Springs. Rest well, Mayor Isaac; you deserve it.