Ethics

1. I think that he differentiated it because if there wasn't a story, then the paper would lose credibility and would probably be sued. The Spokesman-Review had to be very careful and discreet about their operation. It could have been potentially so bad for the newspaper and the editor if it turned out not to be true and they based their story of a theory or opinion. They waited and the story developed for itself.

2. Morlin didn't want to create his own identity because it could have compromised the newspaper and their code of ethics. The purpose of the identity was to link him to underage boys, so it wouldn't have worked if he created his own. Having an outside source was good for the newspaper and FBI because it was legal.

3. The newspaper posted so many stories because it was major news from a public official. The people of the city needed to know the news and the truth about an elected official. Maybe they didn't want all the publicity to go national, but if an elected official is doing illegal activities, the people need to know. Being gay and in office is a big deal, so I feel that the editors pride was on the line so he had to finish West off and chase him out.

4. I don't believe anyone benefited from the news story. The only thing I can see was the little boys in the 70's finally getting justice. The newspaper looks sleazy and was playing God by removing an elected official who was doing a good job in office. What was going on was Jim Wests' personal life and whatever he did behind closed doors is his business as long as it doesn't interfere with his job and duties. The people hurt obviously was Jim West and his family. The newspaper literally ruined his life and made everything so difficult for him. I think then newspaper also ruined themselves a little. They dove into a topic that wasn't their business. They had to look into a story and investigate Jim West, that isn't news. They held their own investigation and Frontline spun it to make the Spokesman-Review look a little silly. It also slammed the gay community because West did not stick up for them and denied reports. I don't think the outcome was worth it because no internships were given and nothing had actually been exposed.

5. Yes I think there is something wrong with running the article. If it was a good news story there would have been no bias but they didn't really give Lynch's side of the story or at least didn't present it very well. Once again they based an opinion or accusation as the park being a spot for drugs and gays. In the sense that Lynch was there, the paper assumed he was gay and a drug addict. The paper needs more facts and hard leads before they run stories.