An editorial published by The Philadelphia Inquirer Oct. 15
 

What we have here, to put it mildly, is a mayoral election in turmoil.

In just 18 days, residents of the nation's fifth-largest city will be asked to pick their leader for the next four years.

Even under ideal conditions such a choice is a difficult one. Voters must sift many known facts about Candidates A and B, weigh them against campaign promises, take a deep breath, and vote.

Here, though, the situation is nigh impossible.

One must choose not on the basis of what's known, but what's been left unknowable: To what extent does a recently revealed federal investigation at City Hall involve Mayor Street? Should it be a matter of deep concern that Street is a "subject" of the probe - or is he an innocent bystander and victim of a politically motivated smear?

Add the complication of race, plus widespread yet utterly unproven insinuations about a Republican White House pulling the strings in the probe, and what you have is the recipe for voter mental meltdown.

So pity Philadelphia's voters.

What little reliable information they have about this mind-boggling mess does not come from the federal authorities. It certainly does not come from the campaign partisans who are out to hype and spin.

Self-serving as it might seem to mention it, the only solid additions to the voting public's information about this federal probe and its implications have come from the news media - the reporters working for newspapers, radio, television and Web sites.

Why mention this?

Only because of something U.S. District Court Judge James T. Giles said Tuesday as he denied a petition by Philadelphia Newspapers Inc., publisher of The Inquirer and the Daily News. The papers asked the court to unseal any search warrants in this probe that led the FBI to bug Mayor Street's office.

This was a tough call, requiring the judge to weigh important values in conflict. On one hand, keeping the documents sealed would protect individual rights to privacy and the presumption of innocence, as well as preserve the probe's momentum.

Releasing the documents, though, would meet the voters' urgent need to know more clearly the original intent, scope and status of this investigation before choosing a mayor.

Also, the conspiracy theories being spun about the probe's timing and motives, in the absence of any full explanation by federal authorities, were in some quarters eroding respect for the federal judiciary, the FBI, and the Justice Department.

The judge chose the values that argued for secrecy over those that suggested disclosure. That's fine; he had ample precedent in case law.

What rankled was his gratuitous comment that the reason the newspapers sought the documents was "temporary, titillating interest." Thus was the press' First Amendment role as a watchdog and a provider of the information that fuels democratic dialogue insultingly dismissed.

Struggling not to jump on that old high horse, let us admit frankly that the judge has a lot of company in that view these days. Allegations that news gatherers are gluttons for trivia and sensation are commonplace - and sometimes justified.

But in this case, the allegation is off-base - and an insult to dozens of print, broadcast and Internet reporters who are working like the dickens right now to find facts to help voters make their difficult decision.

These journalists could care less whether it sells papers or boosts ratings. This is a rock-bottom part of their personal mission statement: Give the public the information it needs to know, the information it never gets complete and straight from the candidates, partisans, or government officials.

In Philadelphia, this probe is huge, legitimate news - vital to an election that will set the course for the city for the next four years.

The way reporters have to go about their business isn't always pretty. They have to be pushy, pesky, impertinent.

If they do that merely in pursuit of sensation, it's blameworthy. But when they do it in pursuit of the public's business, they deserve better than the slap Judge Giles gave them.