May 5, 2000 Washington News Council Dear John, This letter is to withdraw my complaint against The Seattle Times, which I filed with the Washington News Council on 13 March 2000, regarding the unfair, imbalanced unprofessional and unethical journalism practiced in its feature story "Greenbelt vs. Development on Mercer Island," 24 January 2000. This article was damaging to me personally and professionally. As you know, my motivation in filing the complaint was to stand up for myself publicly. The WNC afforded me that opportunity without my having to file a lawsuit. My principal reason for withdrawing is that I believe this process has reached the point of diminishing returns for me. I believe without any doubt that if I were to complete your process, including a public hearing, my complaint would be upheld by your council, and The Seattle Times would be reprimanded. In fact, I believe my case would be uncontested, inasmuch as the reporter admitted to me, in the presence of his editor on 25 January, that he made no attempt to contact me for an interview before the story was printed. Furthermore, after the complaint was filed, Suki Dardarian, Assistant Managing Editor, Metro, News Department, apologized to me during our telephone conversation on 24 March, saying that the story should never have been printed with the subject paragraph in it. Suki is decent and has integrity. But neither the reporter nor his editor nor The Seattle Times has ever apologized. In my opinion, the newspaper should do so publicly and in writing. The press is the constitutional watchdog of our society and government. No person and no human institution is perfect, and we shall always need a free press. They hold public and business officials accountable for high standards of conduct, but when they fail to live up to those same standards, they earn the reputation of arrogance, duplicity and hypocrisy. They, too, are imperfect. We all know from our personal lives that when we behave this way, the only corrective action is to apologize and ask for forgiveness. Anything less is corrosive to ourselves. A wise man once told me, "The soulĂs only defense is humility." This was the perfect opportunity for a prominient member of the media to set an example and thereby raise public perception of the integrity of the press. Instead, The Seattle Times has done almost everything possible to avoid a public apology. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the Times for the follow-up story of 10 April, for posting (at my request) the follow-up story on the TimesĂ website, and for printing my letter to the editor on 27 April. None of this would have happened were it not for the Washington News Council. The Times had seven weeks between the time of its initial article and the time of my complaint to act on its own initiative to correct the damage it did to me by quoting slanderous innuendo, without even giving me the opportunity to reply. It chose not to take any action. And I am 100% convinced that the Times would have done absolutely nothing were it not for the existence of the Washington News Council and had I not chosen to stand up for myself by filing a complaint. The Times is at a similar point now in the decision process. They had more than ample time and opportunity to apologize in print, and again they have chosen not to do so. On 25 April, I asked Suki Dardarian to relay to the Editorial Department my request that it print an "EditorĂs Note" under my letter to the editor, apologizing to me. She said she would do so, as well as pass it up the line within the News Department. Two days later, the letter appeared in edited form with no apology. To my knowledge, no apology has ever appeared in any column. At least, as of now, the written record is balanced. It is not fair, but at least both sidesĂ points of view are at last in print. I believe the net impact remains unfair because recent feedback to me from peers, friends and local Mercer Island residents indicates to me that the personal and professional damage done to me by the TimesĂ initial story continues and persists today, unmitigated in the public consciousness. The mud in the first story stuck, but the second story and the letter to the editor did not wash it clean. This sorry situation need never have been. So, I ask myself, what is a public apology now worth? A lot. But an apology not freely given is not sincere. I am not a vindictive person, and there would be no gratification in publicly vilifying a reporter, an editor or their employer. As I said, this is the point of diminishing returns for me. As I withdraw, let me ask one favor of the WNC. On 22March, I documented the instances of harmful feedback which I had experienced due to the first article. A copy is enclosed. Would you please forward it to The Seattle Times? It was evidence that would have been introduced before the WNC public hearing. Were I going forward with the process, more recent evidence would be compiled and presented. Let me thank you, John, for your invaluable service. At each step of the way, you have clearly enunciated WNC procedures and outlined my options, without biasing the case or prejudging the results. I am profoundly grateful to you and the council. Had the Times stonewalled to the end and done nothing at all, I certainly would have carried my case through the hearing process in expectation of uncontested vindication through the WNC findings. As it is, I hope my case shall serve as one more valuable model among the variety of complaints the WNC undoubtedly will be called upon to process in coming years on behalf of members of the public. Sincerely yours, B. Glenn Ledbetter
|