Hold on, I'll just toss it to one of our nineteen other news reporters...
Throw it to Ezra. He seems to have the requisite sensibility.
"The original gag order, signed on May 25, 2008 by Judge Denis Hubel, prohibits the release of broad categories of documents associated with the case to the public."
Technically, I don't think its news until it actually gets signed, in only 16 short days.
Seems to me the film is nothing more than an extension of Matt's previous writings for the Mercury. Should the entire paper recuse itself? When the very issue is the police citing potential media coverage as a reason not to release things to the media? I think not.
I suppose you could say there is more of conflict if the film is being made for profit and Matt shares in that profit but A) I doubt it (Matt?) and B) he gets paid to write for the paper too.
@4—It's corrected. Thanks.
When you're involved in a project that you're reporting on, it is no longer reporting. It's lobbying. Whether or not he's being paid by the paper or the film or both is inconsequential.
I think your definition of reporting is different from mine, but I appreciate your comments.
Disclosing that you're working on the project isn't enough. Maybe best to let someone else follow up on this story for the Merc.