Statement from Former Intelligencer Journal Reporter

For immediate Release
Friday, February 9, 2007

During my six years as a reporter for the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal, I often disagreed with my editors regarding the choices they made when it came to covering the news. It was my opinion that in most cases they were too cautious and non-aggressive in their approach to particular news events and happenings and I was often bewildered by their omission of the critical details I had included in stories. In some cases the editors simply refused to present all sides of a given subject or event and in the occasional rare case, they failed even to make the most minor spelling errors or corrections when I made them aware of them. It was my opinion that the news in Lancaster County suffered because of the laziness of some of the Intell’s editors - not all of them (many are hard working people who are rarely recognized for their excellence) - and that the public was often vastly misinformed or simply obstructed from viewing pertinent information.

For these reasons, I cannot understand why the Intelligencer Journal would now try to excuse unethical behavior by saying that repeatedly accessing a confidential law enforcement website (and ignoring two pages of legal warnings) was simply “a routine reportorial tool.” In my opinion, the essence of the Intel’s editorial is not consistent with its pattern of caution in other areas of news reporting.

I was unaware of the unethical activities of the five reporters named in the grand jury report until well after their access to the website had been shut down. I also believe most of the reporters outside this small group were also unaware of their behavior. This is important because if this activity had been thought by newspaper editors, not as “abuse,” but as “authorized” access, why then would it have been such a tightly held secret? Why wouldn’t each of the Intel’s reporters have been given the coroner’s username and password as part of the staff’s general list of resources? Not only did Brett, Paula, P.J., Madelyn and Carrie keep their access to the site a secret from the public and most law enforcement officials, they also kept it a secret from the rest of the news staff. To me, this shows clear and convincing evidence that the parties involved KNEW they were violating the law, breaching company policy and acting outside ethical journalistic standards.

When Brett informed me that he and other reporters were accessing this website, I initially believed it was no big deal. This was because Brett downplayed the gravity of the situation and said the information contained therein simply validated what his “sources” had already given him. Because of what Brett told me, I also believed the AG was overreacting. He failed to illustrate to me the scope of the information he and the other reporters had access to. More than anything else, though, I considered Brett a friend, and I wanted to believe him.

That friendship was shattered when I learned - on the witness stand before the grand jury - that Brett had used to his advantage what was to me, at the time, a very frustrating situation. The “concessions” Brett refers to in his e-mail were not made by me - they were made by the editors I mentioned above against my will. In fact, I had a full on-the-record interview with the coroner right after he filed his lawsuit against the city and county medical societies. This was in the summer of 2004. Intell Editor Jon Ferguson wouldn’t allow me write the article, preferring instead to wait until after the case was settled and resolved. When the case was finally settled, Ferguson refused to use the interview in the story that was written because Kirchner had asked me not to - and had even threatened to cut off communication with us. I can only assume that Ferguson acquiesced to the coroner’s wishes because he did not wish to compromise in any way the open access that his newspaper - and his newspaper alone - enjoyed. It is true that the coroner never said he had given his username and password to the Intel alone - but it was certainly implied.

That makes this statement from the Intel ridiculous: “There was no agreement of confidentiality with Kirchner in this matter and, indeed, the Intell had no knowledge whether Kirchner had provided the password to other news media.”

Under an anonymous pseudonym, I accessed LancasterOnline.com and posted several statements that wrongly admonished Lancaster County District Attorney Donald Totaro and the Lancaster New Era for their roles in publicizing the activities of my fellow reporters. It was for these anonymous statements - and these statements alone - that I was fired. I can see now that my commentary was misguided, and I have apologized both to Totaro and to New Era Editor Ernie Schreiber for my comments. I offer them my apologies once again.

For many months after my termination, I was forced to keep silent on this subject because of the pending legal action from the AG’s office. Although I believe Kirchner was wrong to have given his password to reporters, the reporters were wrong to accept it and even more wrong to trying to bully the coroner into giving them a new one. It is the equivalent of receiving the keys to a locked room of confidential files. Even with permission, a good reporter knows not to cross that threshold without a very good reason and certainly not as “a routine reportorial tool.” As I told the grand jury, “The first thing I would have done would have been to make sure the coroner knew I was using his password. The next thing I would have done would have been to tell my editor the situation to see if using it was OK. Even then, I probably still wouldn’t have used it.”

One of the mantras I applied both to my own professional conduct and to those who found their way into my stories, was “Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should.”

I have had several offers to re-enter the newspaper business since my firing. Luckily, many of my colleagues at other newspapers can see my termination for what it was. Nevertheless, I find the prospect of once again becoming a reporter to be very distasteful. This experience left me without a purpose in my life for a very long time. I started my own business, HeadlineConsultants.com mainly because I never again want to be treated the way I was by my employer at the Intell. I am happy to finally have closure on this issue, and hopefully, newspapers everywhere will take extra care when they are given unrestricted access to sensitive information, and that they will justify their actions before they take them.

I also certainly hope Lancaster Newspapers uses this opportunity to rethink the way it goes about gathering news and to perhaps shuffle its players to ensure the most ethical reporters and editors are the guardians of the process. Perhaps those editors who so often go unrecognized for their excellent abilities will finally get their due. For Intell readers, it is their only hope.

###