The local paper, the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, which I respect a great deal, and which does a very good job of reporting on local and regional issues, published a story earlier this week about a candidate for the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors who had failed to pay property taxes for a number of years. This entry is not about the substance of the story (I try to stay out of local political issues), but about the way that the Press Democrat reported handling the story. Here’s a quote from an article it published yesterday (emphasis is mine):
Both The Press Democrat and Sonoma West published stories this week involving Furch’s tax troubles. Sonoma West reported that Hirshfield’s campaign was responsible for “a hit piece” against Furch.
The Press Democrat, which did not receive a packet from the Hirshfield campaign, broke the story on Furch’s tax history Wednesday. In June, after a tax default legal notice ran in The Press Democrat, a member of the business community called to alert a reporter to the notice and suggest that the newspaper write a story about Furch’s back taxes.
A reporter first contacted Furch about the topic in December, then conducted a follow-up interview in early January, during which Furch asked for time to gather her own tax records. The story was published after a Furch campaign volunteer called an editor last week and said Furch was ready to address the matter.
Let’s see if I have this right. The local paper has information in June that it obviously believes is newsworthy (as evidenced by the big play the issues received in the paper this week). Rather than publishing any story about the information, the paper waits until December to even ask the candidate about the issue, and even then doesn’t publish anything until the candidate “was ready to address the matter.”
The incumbent Supervisor from the District had announced he was not seeking re-election in May. So during the time candidates were considering whether to run, and political types and contributors were considering who to support, the Press Democrat had accurate, relevant information about one of the likely candidates and simply chose, for whatever reason, not to disclose it … until, apparently, the candidate was “ready to address the matter.” Very civilized and polite. But good journalism? Perhaps some journalists could chime in on that question.