To be very honest, due process is not, nor should it be, the obligation or goal of a spirited and independent press.

This misimpression of press obligation is one of the byproducts of the ongoing John Kitzhaber-Cylvia Hayes nightmare.

As you have probably read, Kitzhaber resigned as governor after months of stories — initiated by Willamette Week — looking into the shenanigans of Hayes, the fiancee of the ex-governor.

While referring to herself as the First Lady of Oregon, she was financially rewarded for her work as a consultant with businesses that had policy interests with the state of Oregon.

That is as tame a description as you’ll read of the multiple outrageous examples of Hayes’ activities uncovered by the press.

The crux of this tragedy, however, rests in the role of Kitzhaber in allowing or abetting Hayes’ misdeeds, the facts of which the press has a solemn obligation to report.

A reader last week took me to task for defending the press in a previous column, writing, “… this is a country with due process of law and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. This basic right seems to have been obscured in this case and the investigations, yet to be concluded, will determine whether Kitzhaber’s resignation was justified or not.”

Since the investigations — by the state attorney general, U.S. Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service — are just getting underway, it seems premature, at best, to suggest that they or the court system have abrogated their responsibility to due process, which is a legal right articulated in the Magna Carta and embedded in the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution.

In fact, the news Thursday was that Hayes, citing a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, is exercising her due process right to go to court to block the release of emails involving state activities, according to The Oregonian.

Whether or not she wins that argument, it is her right to assert it, a right that is integral to our concept of justice.

In a court, or legal proceedings, the goal is admissible evidence, assembled through an investigative process and presented or challenged by lawyers under long-standing rules. That is the heart and soul of due process.

That’s not what the press does.

We chase information guided by a commitment to factual accuracy and the willingness to let those written about in a story — be it Kitzhaber, Hayes or anyone else in a similar circumstance — comment.

Many people do respond, but some don’t — often on the advice of their attorneys — which is certainly their right. Not offering the opportunity for comment is unacceptable in our business.

And the press has been diligent in offering Kitzhaber, Hayes and anyone else involved in these stories — including state government and investigating agencies — the opportunity to respond to the stories.

That they do or don’t respond is their choice.

But their choice can’t stop publication of important stories.

A very good case can be made that had the press stopped reporting the story because neither Kitzhaber nor Hayes would comment or voluntarily release public information, there would be no investigation today.

And the historic expectation of a press that diligently watches and reports on the activities of government would be over in our society if we did not report news until all official investigations were complete.

By that standard, Richard Nixon, a man who came perilously close to destroying our Constitution, would likely have served two full terms as president of the United States and been given the time to finish his ignoble pursuit.

— John Costa is publisher of The Bulletin. Contact: 541-383-0337, jcosta@bendbulletin.com.