Did Seattle Times Sit on Chris Bushnell Story?

When one of the mayor's top guys tells a fib big enough to cost him his job, that should be considered news, right?

​If you're at all interested in Seattle politics, the story of the week was that of Chris Bushnell, a top advisor to Mayor Mike McGinn who resigned last night after falsely claimed to have a Ph.D--a story broken by PubliCola.

The one-year-old Web site was the first to raise questions about Bushnell's educational background, and the only one to discover he'd sealed his records. But did PubliCola only get the scoop because The Seattle Times sat on their own version of the story?

That's what I'm wondering after a curious e-mail exchange with Times staff writer Emily Heffter.

Last night, in her piece about Bushnell's resignation, Heffter wrote the following:

But over the past few weeks, some of McGinn's critics targeted Bushnell, tipping reporters to questions about his educational and criminal background. They also called for his firing and blamed him for McGinn's decision to eliminate 200 of the city's top positions.

To my mind, there was something deceitful about claiming that Bushnell leaving was predicated on a tip from "critics:" that's how a lot of stories get broken. And I said as much in an e-mail to Heffter:

Unless I'm missing something in the Times' prior coverage (and that's always a distinct possibility), I never saw any public targeting of Bushnell. What I did see were a lot of pillorying comments over at PubliCola. So, for the record, when and by whom did this targeting take place?

And same goes for tipping reporters. Tips are the way most stories get broken. So why make a point of this here? And what reporters are you talking about? Because the way it reads is that Times reporters got the same tip as Erica and Josh, they just didn't break the story. Please feel free to refute that, btw.

Not trying to be combative here. Although I'm sure that's how I'm coming off. This was just a very curious graf. And I understand no one likes to give credit to competition that scooped 'em (it pisses me off I didn't get this story first) but these lines just kind of scream professional jealousy. And I'm wondering if there's a simpler explanation.

Thanks.

To which Heffter responded with this, emphasis mine:

We held off on the Bushnell story for a long time, and I think we had good reasons for that. He didn't seem to be hiding his conviction from anyone, so I was really hesitant to drag him through the mud in The Seattle Times over a 15-year-old crime.

After the transition, I got a lot of tips about McGinn from people who identified themselves as political opponents of McGinn's or as Nickels appointees who had been fired. It was clear they had political motives. I think that's a really important aspect of the story. He's not a public official, and he didn't lie to get his job in the mayor's office, so why is this suddenly news?

I included the graf you asked about because I think it's important for readers to understand the context: that there's more going on here than just a guy lying about his degree.

I sat down with Bushnell Monday to interview him about his past, his job with McGinn, and to make sure I was able to give him a fair shake. I put in a number of records requests and looked up the court records related to his charge. That kind of reporting takes time, but when someone's reputation is at stake, I think it's worth it.

Hope that helps.

Emily

To me, it's unclear whether or not Heffter's explanation means the Times knew about Bushnell's fake Ph.D before PubliCola and just didn't publish it, or whether they were stonewalled by Bushnell's records lockdown and never had the scoop to begin with. But that's all kind of immaterial anyway. Because Heffter's "why is this suddenly news?" line--that sounds like it was written by McGinn's PR shop--is the real story here.

Although any one of our more literate commentators could answer Heffter's question, I'd prefer to take it myself: The 15-year-old crime isn't the story. The story is that Bushnell lied. And though he may not be a public official, he was a close advisor to the top public official in the city and made his living, albeit briefly, on the taxpayer's dole.

That he'd lie about having a degree he didn't says a lot about his character, and is, by its very definition, newsworthy.

A follow-up e-mail to Heffter has yet to be returned. We'll let you know when it is.