We are replacing today’s usual reflection on life by Dr. Frank Crane with a reflection on a regrettable reaction by our governor to a good piece of journalism in which the journalist did what journalists are supposed to do journalistically and did what a good citizen should have done ethically.
In all my years of covering Missouri politics I have never heard of any of our top leaders suggest a reporter should be jailed for giving the state a chance to correct a serious problem before a story was published.
Let’s be clear:
There is nothing wrong with testing whether the information about us held by government is safely held. You would expect a journalist to defend another journalist who was able to prove some private information held by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education wasn’t so private after all.
And I am.
Good journalists test and challenge systems, people, programs, and policies to see if they are what they claim to be. It’s a responsibility we have. If I can get information about you that the government claims is protected, how safe are you from those who want that information for malicious purposes?
We were involved in just such an issue many years ago and it exposed a weakness in state government that could have exposed everybody’s most important private information. This is the story, as I remember it.
Steve Forsythe was the bureau chief for United Press International back then. In those days there were two highly-competitive national wire services. Steve’s office in the capitol was next door to the Associated Press office in room 200 , which now is carved up into several legislative offices.
One day, Steve called the Department of Revenue because he couldn’t find his previous year’s income tax return, something he needed for the current year’s return. Could the department send him a copy of his previous year’s return? Yes, he was told. What’s your address? And a few days later it showed up in his mail box.
Steve was a helluva reporter who instantly realized what had happened. The Missourinet was a UPI client. He called me and we talked about what he had learned and we decided on a test.
We lured one of State Auditor Jim Antonio’s employees to call the department and use the same line that Steve had used. The department gladly agreed to mail the previous year’s tax return to her.
—except the return she asked for was that of State Revenue Director Gerald Goldberg. And the address she gave was mine.
A few days later, a fat envelope arrived in my mailbox.
Steve and I went to the Jefferson Building that afternoon and, as I recall it, stopped Director Goldberg in the lobby as he was returning from lunch. I handed him the envelope and asked him to open it. He was stunned to see his personal state income tax return inside it. There was a brief moment of, I suppose we could say, anger. But as Steve explained to him why we had done what we had done, he calmed down. On the spot he said he’d immediately look into the situation. I don’t think he wound up thanking us but we didn’t expect any thanks.
We could have asked for anybody’s tax return, I suppose, even Governor Teasdale’s although that might have been a harder ask. But this was bad enough.
There naturally was a certain amount of hand-wringing and anguish and probably some hostile thoughts about two reporters who were not known as friendly toward the administration to begin with pulling a stunt like this. But rather quickly, the department recognized that we had not opened that envelope and we had not looked at the director’s return, had not made any beneficial use of the information, had not yet run a story, and that we certainly did not intend anything malicious in our actions.
Antonio was less than enthusiastic that we had used one of his trusted employees as a tool for our investigation, but he also recognized the problem we had pinpointed.
The department almost immediately changed its policies to outlaw accepting telephone requests such as the ones that led to the stories UPI and The Missourinet later ran and instituted a process designed to protect the confidentiality of those returns.
From time to time in later years I wondered if I should see if the department’s policies had slipped back to those days when Steve and I embarrassed it. But I never did. Every year, Nancy and I file our state tax returns and assume you can’t have them mailed to you with just a phone call.
I suppose Governor Teasdale could have demanded a criminal investigation of our actions but he didn’t. His Department of Revenue just fixed the problem. Steve went on to a long career with UPI, which eventually lost in the competition for wire service clients to the AP and closed its capitol bureau. I went on to a long career with The Missourinet, which still serves a lot of radio stations in Missouri. We didn’t often care if we ruffled some feathers from time to time as long as we were reporting the truth—and that always was our goal.
Good reporters do what they are called to do—question, investigate, test, and report. Sometimes those whose skirts that turn out to be dustier than they think they are don’t like the findings.
One big difference between the days when Steve’s tax return and the security of private information turned into a state policy-changing news story and today, when a reporter’s news story about the security of private information has led to threatened criminal charges, is the change in times. We are living in stressful times that not only breed physical and political disease, but tend to breed reactions that are less prudent than necessary.
But that won’t discourage good reporters from doing what they have a calling to do. And the day it does, all of us are losers, even those who are embarrassed by what reporters find.