Investigative journalism goes beyond one-minute sound bites and he-said, she-said reporting. It requires professional reporters given enough time to pursue and verify information. It demands editors apply high ethical standards.
And it requires us to make sometimes unpopular decisions that we know are part of our responsibility under the Constitution – to arm the electorate with information.
On Friday, the state Attorney General’s Office charged Pierce County Superior Court Judge Michael A. Hecht with felony harassment and a misdemeanor count of soliciting a prostitute.
The charging documents were the first official paperwork corroborating our investigation into allegations against Hecht that led to a Jan. 11 front-page story.
Courts reporter Adam Lynn spent months reporting the initial Hecht story, and editors met often to discuss what to do with the information Lynn was collecting.
Our questions could have come straight from a journalism ethics textbook: Are the sources credible? What is their motive? Can we verify what we’ve been told? To what lengths do we go to protect the privacy and reputation of a man who has not been charged with a crime? What is the public’s right to know?
For us, the story began in November when Ted Gonzalez gave us a dossier containing allegations about Hecht prepared by private investigator Morgan Armijo. Armijo is the son of Sergio Armijo, the judge ousted by Hecht in the August 2008 election. Gonzalez is a supporter of the elder Armijo.
The dossier included a signed statement by Joseph Hesketh IV, an admitted drug addict, who said Hecht paid him for sex and threatened his life. Gonzalez gave the same information to county prosecutors and the state Commission on Judicial Conduct.
Quick background checks showed that Hesketh had numerous misdemeanor convictions. Lynn found no record of Hecht ever being arrested or convicted of a crime.
At this point, we had a piece of paper supposedly signed by a petty criminal handed to us by a supporter of Hecht’s political opponent. Our decision not to publish a story immediately was an easy one. Given the credibility issues, we could have dropped the matter altogether. Instead, we dug deeper.
Our job was not only to check out the allegations, but also to watch whether the criminal justice system investigated the matter thoroughly and fairly.
Through good source relationships built over years on his beat, Lynn tracked Hecht’s case from county prosecutors to the Tacoma Police Department, back to the county and eventually to the state. We were prepared to write a story if and when charges were filed, but short of that we didn’t think we had enough to go on. We pressed to complete our investigation before Hecht took the bench.
Lynn spent weeks tracking down Hesketh and confirming that he’d dictated the statement we held in our hands. Still, Hesketh was one man who said Hecht paid him for sex. We asked Lynn to see if he could find others. He found a second – Edward Smith. (The News Tribune has since talked to a third man who said Hecht paid him for sex.)
Lynn also talked to area shop owners – more credible sources – who said they’d seen Hecht pick up young men.
A reporter’s most reliable source is himself, so Lynn went several times to the Tacoma area Hecht was alleged to have cruised for prostitutes. While he never saw Hecht pick up any men, Lynn saw Hecht’s car one time, and Hecht in his car a second time.
We had to consider that the allegations could be a baseless political vendetta, and had to hold the Armijo camp accountable for its actions. Lynn interviewed both Armijos, asking how they gathered their information and why they brought it forward.
Lynn also asked Hecht directly about the allegations. Hecht declined comment through his attorney.
At this point, Lynn wrote his story, laying out what he learned when and from whom. He disclosed the prostitutes’ questionable backgrounds, and questioned the political rivals’ motivations. He steered clear of sensationalizing the lurid allegations.
Afterward, Lynn invited Hecht to come to our office to read the story, something we often do on investigative stories. It allows the subject to tell us if our facts are wrong and respond to any allegations. Also, we believe there’s no reason to ambush someone in print with a story the person should know is coming. Despite repeated offers, Hecht declined.
Then came the most wrenching newsroom decision. Legally, we had every right to publish a story. But should we break with our normal policy of waiting until someone is charged with a crime before naming him or her in the paper? We knew that publishing the Hecht story would forever color the public’s perceptions of the man.
In the end, we decided it would have been far worse to watch Hecht take the bench without telling readers what we had learned. We decided the public had every right to know that the man they had elected to carry out justice was himself the subject of a criminal investigation.
Karen Peterson: 253-597-8434
karen.peterson@thenewstribune.com
blogs/thenewstribune.com/editors
JOIN THE DISCUSSION | Register here
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part — and abiding by these simple rules. A thorough explanation of rules of conduct can be found in our Terms of Service. If you have any questions, including why your comment may not be showing immediately after you submit it, be sure to visit the commenting FAQ.