Portland developer Bob Ball was considering a mayoral bid when he says he heard that his potential opponent, commissioner Sam Adams, had done something career-ending with a 17-year-old boy.
He brought up the rumor with two political contacts, both of whom believe they were being used in a political smear. The Oregonian and Willamette Week investigated, but neither could find any evidence, any accuser, or anyone who believed the story. Both Adams and the now 20-year-old man say it's untrue.
Willamette Week's Nigel Jaquiss decided that something about this merited publication. Breaking the news online, his lede intoned ominously of a politician engaged in "damage control" over "persistent rumors," detailing all the gory lack of evidence for two dozen paragraphs.
Six grafs from the end, our would-be child predator acted like he was the victim, blaming an as-yet unmentioned figure: "Adams blames Bob Ball, the Pearl District developer who is thinking about running for mayor as well," Jaquiss revealed.
Adams spent the day all over television, granting sit-down interviews to what seemed like any reporter who wanted one. Ball could not be reached for comment until KOIN managed to interview him on the sidewalk, where he acknowledged that not even he believed the rumor. He later told The Oregonian he wished to apologize to Adams.
Jaquiss followed up in print with a story faulting Adams for doing things that someone could start a falsehood about, while also faulting Ball for damaging his own political career.
The Oregonian's Anna Griffin saw a different angle "quickly adopted Adams' talking points," according to Jaquiss. The Mercury's Scott Moore was openly critical of Jaquiss.
Jaquiss, of course, won a Pulitzer in 2005 for uncovering a prominent politician's years-long sexual abuse of a child starting at age 14. While that story included actual wrongdoing with actual evidence and an actual victim, this story didn't. Other than that, the two stories present eery similarities.
Would the "Adams is doing damage control" story have been spiked or dramatically altered had it not paralleled a prizewinner's earlier triumph? Would another editor at least make the reporter earn an "allegedly" by finding someone who actually alleged something? If there was a scandal here, was it political or journalistic?
Griffin had another story in Saturday's O, interviewing Ball, his friends and his lawyer. They portray him as a naive victim of circumstance. It's worth the read.
In oddly familiar news, Nick Budnick over at the Trib discovered another unsubstantiated rumor, this time that Ball had been sexually involved with a 17-year-old boy. Poetic justice? A "rest of the story" anecdote too ironic to ignore? Or evidence that even the short kids can hop over a lowered bar?
Personally, I think both of Griffin's articles were worth running even if WW hadn't published what they did. Depending on whether you listen to his current friends or his former ones, Ball is either too naive for politics at this level, or something a lot worse. I want to know these things when I have a ballot in my hand. Moore's analysis was also helpful.