The above words were written Saturday in Columbian editor Lou Brancaccio’s Column, Keep us close. Very close. I have no doubt in my mind they actually believe that. But, apparently it helps to belong to the Democratic Party as they also seem to be just a tad bit “friendlier” to them.
No better proof is seen in their coverage of the abrupt and mysterious resignation of 49th legislative district representative Jim Jacks, a Democrat who resigned suddenly Friday, March 25 giving no reason and saying only he “did not want to publicly discuss the details.” Rumors on Jack’s conduct have been heard for some time and both Clark County Politics blog and my blog reported on word we both received from people up in Olympia about reasons.
Contrasting the lack of interest from the Columbian into Jack’s resigning under cloudy circumstances with how they dug into the misconduct of Republican Richard Curtis in 2007, who wasn’t entitled to a ‘cloak of secrecy’ as they published 14 articles on his inappropriate conduct between Oct. 29, 2007 to Nov. 3, 2007 elicited the to be expected, “The Richard Curtis case was a completely different set of circumstances. (And there were not 14 articles in five days, at least not all from The Columbian.)” from Stephanie Rice, Columbian writer who wrote the article on Jacks.
After listing the 14 articles and the dates they were published, receiving a “sorry Lew, I didn’t know you were counting columns and editorials” (strain the gnat much) from Stephanie, I decided to do some more comparison of the two situations.
The Spokane Spokesman-Review published an article, Police probe alleged attempt to extort GOP state lawmaker October 29, 2007 where we read, “Details surrounding the case remained sketchy Sunday, but authorities confirmed that it involves two-term state Rep. Richard Curtis, a Republican from the southwest Washington town of La Center, and there was some type of confrontation last week at Davenport Tower. The identity of the alleged extortionist was unavailable, though police confirm he is a reputed prostitute,” and “Also unclear is the nature of the relationship between Curtis and the reputed prostitute.”
The same day, the Columbian wrote an article, Curtis denies wrongdoing, says he is not gay where we read, “State Rep. Richard Curtis, R-La Center, caught up in a statewide media frenzy over an ongoing extortion investigation in Spokane, said Monday that he is not gay. ‘I committed no crime,’ Curtis said Monday afternoon. ‘I did not solicit sex. I was trying to help somebody out’.”
By the standard used in the case of Jim Jacks, that should have been the end of it, right? There would have been consideration of the privacy of him and his family, as is being granted Jim Jacks. As Stephanie says in the comments section linked above concerning Jacks, “if there is ever anything credible to report about Jacks, we will report it.”
That wasn’t granted to Richard Curtis. The Columbian acted like real newspaper reporters in chasing the story down and we were soon shown Curtis denies sexual encounter on October 30, 2007, Police report sheds new light on Curtis encounter on October 30, 2007, apparently after they sought out the Police Report, Report: Curtis admitted tryst on October 31, 2007, Curtis allegations ripple through La Center on October 31, 2007, where they sent a reporter to the town of La Canter to interview anybody willing to speak about the allegations against Curtis, GOP discusses possibility of asking Curtis to resign on October 31, 2007, Curtis resigns from Legislature on October 31, 2007, Curtis breaks public silence on November 1, 2007, Embattled Curtis steps down on November 1, 2007, and 5 more by November 3, 2007.
Key in Stephanie’s comment is two words, “ever” and “credible.” As I said, rumors of Jim Jack’s ‘adventurous’ nature have been heard for some time. As soon he tendered his resignation Friday, I began receiving calls from people who work up in Olympia on the reasons.
There was even word of lawyers scurrying all over trying to figure out “how to handle it.”
I also recalled an email from August 13, 2010 just before last year’s primary election that was copied to me and sent to the Columbian saying, “Is The Columbian working with House Speaker Frank Chopp to sweep under the rug the fact that Jim Jacks has been accused of sexual harassment? Obviously they have done nothing to request the records that Chopp is keeping quiet in exchange for Jacks supporting him for speaker.”
What does it take to be considered “credible” to the Columbian? Would they “ever” accept anything as credible?
Are there any reporters up in Olympia seeking out the story as they did with Richard Curtis? Are they calling connections up there to get “credible” news on this?
Not that I can tell.
They didn’t accept Curtis’ word and dug until they got the goods on him, causing him to resign in disgrace. Where was the consideration that he had two daughters as does Jacks? It wasn’t there. Where was any consideration of privacy either for him or for his family? There wasn’t any.
But, Curtis was a Republican who had voted against legislation for gays and here he was caught up in a gay scandal. Who could not go with story like that?
Apparently the Columbian when it is a Democrat accused of wrong doing.
No doubt Lou Brancaccio believes it when wrote, “We Try Not To Be Anybody’s Friend Or Anybody’s Enemy.”
No doubt too, they are definitely friendlier to some more so than others and I doubt it a coincidence that it just so happens to be Democrats.
