Sometimes, you can’t win.

You’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. It’s important for us to be transparent with readers about newsroom ethical debates we hold, and we wanted to share a few of those with you here. We don’t just publish stories on a whim without considering the effects of our reporting, and it’s important for you to know about our processes.

Hopefully it’s helpful for you to get a peek behind the curtain.

You’ll see we published an article this week about a complaint filed by a county employee, Ty Barger, against one of the county commissioners, Lynn Padgett.

Of course, that’s a newsworthy topic. Anytime a county worker accuses another public servant of harassment — especially an elected official — it is of interest.

But here’s the rub — when someone gives us a complaint about an elected official and says, “This didn’t come from me,” and it just happens to be at the same time ballots are going out for that official’s re-election bid, that’s problematic.

We were faced with an ethical dilemma. Sure, we could file a request for a public record we knew existed. But going fishing for documents out of the blue, knowing we were looking for negative dirt on a candidate who is nearing the end of her election campaign? Uh, no.

So we went back to Barger and told him if he wanted to make this complaint public, he’d have to take responsibility for it, and for the timing of its release. It had to come from him, which it did.

Ideally, we wouldn’t report on a complaint like this so close to the election. The reason is obvious – it looks like we’re trying to influence the election.

But after Barger agreed to take responsibility for making the complaint public, we faced another challenge.

If we didn’t report on it now, it would look like we were trying to influence the election.

Either way, we’re screwed. There will still be critics who accuse us of targeting Padgett, which we did not do. We requested an interview with her, and she instead provided a prepared statement. That’s her prerogative, but we would have liked to understand more with an authentic opportunity to ask questions that we’re sure constituents would like answered.

We did the best we could with a difficult situation. The timing is bad. We cannot help that. We hope you will make up your own minds and consider the information we were able to report, knowing that we did not choose to seek out this complaint prior to the election. We were forced to report on it now for fear it would look worse if we waited.

***

We faced quite a bit of criticism for a letter to the editor we published last week.

It was authored by Ridgway reader Andy Nasisse, and his main complaint was about the sound of cows mooing.

Unfortunately, another reader took a screenshot of the letter, which is a violation of the newspaper’s copyright, and posted it on Facebook, where the trolls came out.

Anytime people can act ugly on social media, they do. It’s a different environment than choosing to respond with another letter. Facebook is a cesspool where people say things they might not say to someone’s face.

One commenter said, “Honestly shame on the newspaper for wasting everyone’s time in posting this.”

We didn’t post it on Facebook. Someone else did and violated our copyright.

Another posted: “The fact that a ‘legitimate’ paper would print this is hilarious.”

“Guess sales are down for the paper, this is what they came up with. They are just as bad for actually printing it.”

Huh. You’d think we’d put the bovine bashing on the front page if we’re so desperate to sell papers.

The truth is, we didn’t come up with anything. The letter met our standards for publication and it was the opinion of the letter writer himself. You’ll see responses from others with differing opinions printed this week.

While some other newspapers have eliminated letters pages, we have decided to keep ours to offer a public forum.

We have a letters policy, which we publish in the paper regularly and is available to read online anytime, and we are strict in enforcing it. We don’t allow personal attacks, we don’t allow letters longer than 400 words, and letters must be about local issues.

What we do allow is a wide variety of opinions. We don’t endorse any of the letters. It’s not our business to tell folks what to think.

We do try our best to fact-check letters for outright lies or misinformation. This causes consternation and we suspect it’s one of the reasons some other papers have eliminated their letters pages. It can be a real pain to go back and forth with a letter writer who doesn’t believe in facts.

We believe in freedom of speech, and the right to express even unpopular opinions, which sometimes leads to criticism.

***

On Tuesday afternoon, we learned there was an accident blocking U.S. Highway 550 just north of Ridgway, near Vista Terrace.

We decided to post an announcement online with a detour, letting folks know they should avoid the area and plan to go around for the time being.

Then we received a photo of the accident, emailed by a nearby resident.

We took a look at it and decided it illustrated a serious accident, without any gory details.

While it showed two vehicles, it was taken from a significant distance and neither of those vehicles was distinctive. You couldn’t see any license plates. One was a silver SUV, and we figured those are numerous enough to not be identifiable. These are things we look for because we don’t want to have obvious, unique details in accident photos that make vehicles easy to identify before next-ofkin can be informed, in case an accident turns out to be fatal.

The photo helped illustrate why people needed to go around and be patient with the first responders who were at the scene, who were continuing to block the route. We sometimes hear that drivers don’t understand the situation and become impatient and unsafe, so maybe if they saw this they could give emergency responders some grace.

We decided to post the photo. Soon after we posted it, we started getting complaints. Anyone who might have known someone who could have been in the area and drives a silver SUV of any make and model was wondering if the accident involved their loved ones. While we had been careful to choose a photo without anything that could identify the parties, it caused the opposite problem.

It’s important for us to reflect on the outcomes of our decisions.

Sure, we want to illustrate what’s happening. The post notifying folks of the detour communicated the necessary information. But the questions and panic that came from people seeing the photo of the unidentified vehicles were not our intention. That was an unintended consequence of a photo that didn’t identify anyone, so it could have been many different people.

We decided to replace the photo with a map showing the closure location.

While we have a job to do, we also need to consider feedback. We will be the first to stand up for the freedom of the press, but we also have to think about our purpose in what we report and how we report it.

Those of you who read the Plaindealer know we rarely publish photos of accidents online or in the newspaper. The last example was two years ago, when a Jeep that went off Camp Bird Road was hauled back up the mountain by crane. That photo showed a serious accident and the dangers of high-country roads. It helped illustrate the story.

We’re not ambulance chasers.

Our goal is to report deeply on stories that matter, and most of the time, accidents are handled like breaking news on a needto- know basis. While our goal was to provide as much information as possible for the public to understand the situation, the photo in this case produced unnecessary anxiety and panic.

Upon further reflection, we don’t think most accident photos are worth the angst they can cause. And if we choose to publish one in the future, we’ll have a darn good reason.

Erin McIntyre and Mike Wiggins are the publishers of the Plaindealer. Email them at erin@ouraynews.com and mike@ouraynews.com.