Frontline: A Hidden Life

1. In the Frontline video, "A Hidden Life" editor Steven Smith talked about that if the alleged activity was true, there was a story. However, if he hadn't engaged in the activity, it wasn't a story. The reason I think Smith differentiated between the two is because the problem wasn't Mayor Jim West being gay, it was the fact that he was abusing his power privileges by offering men on the Internet jobs, and also the allegation that he was becoming or was already sexually involved or abusing under aged boys.

2. Bill Morlin justified the use of a user name on gay.com by hiring a company to do the dirty work for his, so to speak. In order to follow ethical conduct, Morlin was not allowed to lie about his identity to find out the information needed, so he decided a way to get around it would be to hire an outside source.

3. I think The Spokesman-Review ultimately published so many articles on Mayor West's alleged improprieties to put what they thought the truth was, out in the open. I think The Spokesman-Review wanted to see Mayor West recalled from his position, which is eventually what happened.

4. In the final analysis, I think that The Spokesman-Review felt that they benefited from the decision to expose Mayor West, but I don't think that they felt good about it. In the end, editor Steven Smith said he felt horrible for having to expose West, but that he felt it was necessary. I think that the person that was hurt the most during this entire time was definitely Mayor Jim West. His political career went down the drain, along with his personal life. I don't know if the outcome was worth it, it depends on who's outcome it was. I'm sure if you were to ask West if he thought the outcome was worth it, I'm sure it wasn't, he was publicly humiliated. But, if you were to ask all the reporters, editors, and writers who worked for The Spokesman-Review during the time of this scandal if it was worth it, I'm sure they would all say yes.

5. In the story The Spokesman-Review reported on Mayor Jack Lynch, it seemed all they were trying to do is make his seemingly good actions, be frowned upon. To me, that kind of reporting does seem unethical, unless you have concrete reasoning to believe that someone really is doing wrong. In the article, it says that Lynch would frequently drive by the park to check on crime and drug abuse going on, however, The Spokesman-Review made it seem like Lynch was guilty of other things, even though it didn't seem that they had concrete evidence of that.