I have always been more keen to column writing and feature (or soft news) writing than I have to hard news and investigative journalism.

Maybe it is because I lack the drive necessarily to eyeball every nook and cranny of a story, get to every available contact and file through dozens to hundreds of pages of documentation often required. Or, perhaps I shy away from the stereotype of investigative journalists: the heartless, dirt-digging, conniving, do anything (including sell your soul) to get the next scoop. Probably a combination of all of the above. Regardless, I’d rather report on a heroic story or write a music review than print a news piece condemning people, calling out organizations for wrongdoing and flinging allegations around like poop in a monkey cage. (Poop jokes are always funny. I don’t care who you are.)

But, if all journalists had the same feelings, this country would be lacking some serious citizen gahones. The media is the self-appointed watchdog of government in the United States. It’s often far from perfect. But, the simple presences of the media in the room is usually enough for government officials to double check their work and confirm that procedures were done by the book. The minute the media lollygags on its watchdog duties, government officials may relax on their duties.

There is also the mode of thought that government officials should not have to work under a constant microscope of media and citizens alike — that freer decision making will lead to more efficient work, as it does in the private sector. The key difference is that in the private sector workers are handling their own money, and in the public sector workers make decision with everyone’s money.

The cover story in this issue is a sensitive case for many. There are several parties involved. Four months after The Voice first reported on the pending lawsuit against Clark, I’ve decided to readdress the issue with additional storylines because the evidence, testimonies and documentation I have received from numerous students and faculty shed dark skies over Clark.
The documented actions by staff are ones that seem to have no oversight. Lies were told and rules were fabricated, while in the meantime concerns of a retaliatory nature among the administration was brought up — certainly not for the first time.

Without access to any comment from college staff, I must give them the benefit of the doubt in some areas. But the huge amount of documentations available through records requests and the newsworthiness of the lawsuit — it may become the first Open Public Meetings Act matter decided on by a jury in the State of Washington — felt confident moving forward with the investigation. There are many bridges that could be burnt; we have been very careful to reduce the number of them. Either way, hopefully, this all doesn’t get to ugly ... there I go again, being a softy newsman.

Ossie Bladine is Editor-in-Chief of The Voice and enjoys the steam bath at the 24 Hour Fitness on Andresen.