TWO WEEKS AGO I wrote a column criticizing guidelines published by the Society of Professional Journalists. The guidelines purported to tell journalists how to avoid "racial profiling" in coverage of the September 11 attacks and their aftermath.

The Society of Professional Journalists didn't like my reporting--and they didn't like my conclusions. The SPJ president sent two letters (you can read them here and here) arguing that my column "cavalierly distorts" the guidelines. The SPJ Diversity Chair fired off a separate missive accusing me of "sweeping inaccuracies." Those claims, which I'll address in a moment, are baseless. The SPJ leaders fail to present any evidence of either distortion or inaccuracy.

But their response to my article is perhaps more troubling than the guidelines that provoked my initial criticism. It appears that the SPJ--self-appointed arbiter of journalistic excellence and paragon of journalistic virtue--is just another organization worried about negative press. The lengths to which the organization has gone to spin the story--including scapegoating one of its own student-reporters--is truly bizarre.

Much of my piece focused on information I got from a news article published on the SPJ's website. That story, written by student-reporter Curtis Woodward and edited by Candace Heckman of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, made a startling claim: Richard Luna, editor of the Salem, Oregon, Statesman-Journal, invited Salem-area Muslims into his newsroom on September 12 to edit the paper for content they deemed offensive.

"Pre-publication reviews" rank somewhere near the top of the list of journalistic no-nos. But such transgressions in the name of diversity are often overlooked, even celebrated. The SPJ article suggested that this pre-publication review was one such occasion--a triumph of sensitivity.

According to that report Luna not only admitted offering the pre-publication review, he called the session therapeutic. "I'm not sure how much [content] they really changed, but we all felt a lot better at the end of the night."

Steve Smith, the Statesman-Journal's editor and Richard Luna's boss, maintains that while "we invite people from the community to sit in on our news meetings, and we'll listen to anybody complain," no one other than the paper's editors change content.

And SPJ leaders now claim that the article on their website was inaccurate. In his first letter, SPJ president Al Cross says, "I see how the story could have given you the impression that Richard Luna granted pre-pub review to his Arab American readers, but he did not. But the story was unclear on that point and thus should have been checked out. The student byline should have been an additional warning flag." Rather than assume the blame for publishing an inaccurate article, Cross faults me for using the information on his website and implies that because the article was written by a student--a student the SPJ selected, it might be noted--it was somehow untrustworthy.

The "student byline" on the SPJ website read "Curt Woodward, Western Washington University." And upon hearing about Cross's undercutting, Woodward isn't amused.

"Regardless of what anyone at the SPJ says, I definitely stand by my story," he says.

Woodward says Luna talked freely about the review during a panel discussion at the SPJ national convention. Curious about Luna's admission, Woodward followed up with the Salem editor.

"I went up to him and talked to him about letting them edit stuff in his paper. I said, 'That's really interesting, because as a student we've been told never to give anyone pre-publication review.' And he talked about it with me."

Was Woodward surprised?

"Yeah, I mean, Jesus, the guy said he let people in his newsroom to edit his paper! That's why it ended up as the lede. It was something like my ninth panel discussion of the day, and to be honest, not all of them are that interesting. So when some guy says he let other people in his newsroom to edit the paper . . . "