I get tired of people telling me that I'm not allowed to discuss morality. There exists a modern philosophy that presupposes that there cannot be one truth because each of us learn morality independently. Moral relativism drives a lot of the criticisms against bringing up religion and morality that are essentially forced into the dialogue when ever an ethical dilemma presents itself.
Look...I'm sorry if this offends, but when I encounter an ethical dilemma, I solve it the best way I know how...through my FAITH. The very reason religion exists is to help us solve moral and ethical problems we encounter in every day life. Josh Lueke is getting this much attention in Seattle because there is TREMENDOUS cognitive dissonance between various groups of people about how best to address the ethical/moral dilemma of what to do with someone in Lueke's position.
My morality - my RELIGION - (and I came to my faith very slowly and without parental instruction by reading the scholarly works of various theologians and philosophers, so I feel like I've "earned" my certainty in certain truths) tells me it si unequivocally wrong to persecute a man for a crime before we know beyond all doubt that he is guilty of that crime. No matter what, we have to err on the side of caution when it comes to the language we choose when describing something like the Lueke case. Baker seems to think it's perfectly OK to continuously, unendingly attack Josh Lueke every chance he gets simply because Lueke plead no contest and "accepted responsibility." That is immoral...and no, I won't accept the concept that there is a valid morality which makes that OK. There are some things that are just right or just plain old wrong and this is one of those things that I believe is just plain old wrong.
So did the founding fathers of this great country. Innocent until proven guilty is not just a catch phrase...it defines our essential morality.
And oh BTW, I think Baker deeply violates his own (speaking amorally for a second) journalistic ethics when he has an obvious agenda in the news he reports. Baker himself does NOT DENY that he has an agenda. No news reporter should ever...EVER...have a personal agenda coloring his stories...when you report the news, you have a responsibility not just to report things that are true (Baker has not lied in any of his columns) but to report the whole story from all angles and to be objective in doing so. Baker's agenda is clear...use Josh Lueke is exhibit A in his case against the Mariner front office...attack the Mariners at all costs until they submit to his demands for accountability. That's not what a journalist is supposed to do.
So not only does Baker act immorally when he rips at Lueke five times a day in his web column to make sure that wound never heals...he's also unethical as a journalist, in my opinion.
Journalistic agendas explain many of the evils in mainstream media reporting...from the national "get Obama elected!" push that resulted in a president who was COMPLETELY unqualified for the job and is proving to be among our most ineffectual leaders EVER (thanks to his never being asked a tough question by members of the press in public while McCain was grilled even on the most routine of appearances) to the environmental movement which is slowly but sure producing draconian legislation designed to tell us all how to live. If I can tell what your agenda is as a reporter...then you've FAILED as a reporter.
We do all have agendas...it's impossible to be 100% objective...but the first rule of journalism I learned (I did take one course...I'm not a journalist, but if this rule is the first thing they teach you in Journalism 101...then failing to live by it is the worst kind of failure)...was that if you have an opinion on an issue you're covering, you should investigate your opposition first. In other words...if you think Josh Lueke is guilty of raping that girl...you should talk to Josh Lueke, his coaches, his teammates, and anyone else you can who can tell you more about who he is and report on that first. Challenge yourself and your world view every time you write something that will be seen as official media (I don't have to work as hard when I post to a blog...this is just people talking...no one will mistake what I say for the incontravertable truth the way they might with what appears in the Seattle Times).
Baker is cmofortable with how he's acted regarding Lueke...he shouldn't be...and that's a shame.

Great points Matt.
But, since you cite "innocent until proven guilty" - I see the Lueke situation as, (and I think Baker, also), that he *WAS* proven guilty.  In taking the plea that he did - by the law of the land, he is considered guilty of a crime - and he HAS RECEIVED punishment for that crime. 
If I were to ask you in general terms - "Is it moral to punish a criminal?" I think you - (like most people), would say, Yes.
If the question is "Is it moral for a newspaper to print unkind articles about convicted criminals?" the answer (for me) in general terms would be, yes.  But, I could also see the possibility of circumstances where I would feel differently.  I am an avid watcher of the "American Greed" series, which I view as a very positive journalistic endeavor to explain how some of the worst abusers of our system got away with their crimes for so long. 
Is it immoral to cause THOSE criminals (and their families) additional grief (beyond the punishment of the judiciary)?  For me - no.
I could see some that might call it "unfair" or "unnecessary" or "unseemly" -- but (for me), it doesn't cross the line into immoral.
Then again - AFTER a crime has been fully paid for - and the criminal set free by the justice system, (regardless of the crime) - what about then?
In the general case - it is immoral to cause harm to another.  In a specific case of crime - it is not only moral - but a sign of a moral society that they punish criminals. 
For *ME* - the Lueke case is complex in that he was initially charged with an extremely serious crime - but he was convicted of something far less serious, (else the punishment would've been far more severe).  I can easily see the argument that Baker is treating Lueke "as if" he were convicted of the original more serious crime -- and if so, that could certainly be viewed as "unfair".  But, I'm not sure (for me), that would cross the line into immorality.
I've argued that the way Lueke should be treated (by the press and the club) should be consistent with the way the justice system opted to punish him.  So, while I may interpret Baker's piece as "heavy handed", I can't see it as being immoral, (especially when my own moral compass views a show like "American Greed" as serving a public good).
In any case - it's a fascinating discussion with some top shelf intellects.

...the only people who are relevant to talk to are the ones that don't disprove his view of events. He doesn't care what people who work with Lueke think of Lueke beacuse "they weren't in the room"...no one but Lueke and this victim of his were in the room...this is classic argumentative fallacy stuff here. Don't be fooled.

It's not that the original article, taken by itself, was all that horrifying...it's a subtle slant i his writing style. He needlessly uses phrases over and over and over again in that piece and then again as side comments in a half-dozen other pieces since then. He takes every opportunity he can to remind us all that Lueke is a CRIMINAL! (epmhasis his, echoed by me...not intended to be read as me yelling at the readers here) This is the reducto ad absurdem of how Baker has been writing this story into his pieces:
Today, we learned that CEO Howard Lincoln didn't have the right information regarding this EVIL RAPIST WHO PLED NO CONTEST TO HIS EVIL DEED WHILE A RANGER!!!! and this leads us to believe that Zduriencik either didn't do his homework before the trade was made and is covering for that failure or felt he had to lie to his bosses to get his deal through. BUT THIS EVIL MAN IS NOW WITH US and the consequences to the front office are certainly on display. P.S. LUEKE IS EVIL!!!!!!
Yes...I'm exaggerating for effect, but that is how the tone feels to me. He goes out of his way to throw those extra few words in about the no contest plea whenever he thinks he get them into a paragraph. He's doing this for a reason. His goal is get people in Seattle mad about the trade in an effort to make the front office comply with his philosophy of accountability...if that means Lueke has to get run out of town by a band of pitchfork wielding local soccer moms, then so much the better.
The most dangerous media bias is not the stuff that labels itself as biased. It's the subtle slant that the average reader will think is innocuous while a certain impression is being ingrained in their head. It's the softball questions going to one political candidate while the tough ones go to the other. It's the differences in connotation attached to certain word choices that sway public opinion when written as news and information, rather than opinion fodder. This stuff Baker has written about Lueke exemplifies my concerns about journalists slanting their reporting to suit a personal agenda. Baker didn't lie...he didn't distort the facts...he just chooses his words in ways designed to make you, the reader, angry at the Mariners, at Lueke and anything else necessary to put pressure on the front office.

...you could NOT give away potentially valuable property that's fanning 14 per nine innings in AAA just because he made one really bad decision in his life.  Just a thought.

to the game here, and so this comment will probably never be read, especially never read by Geoff, who is the person I am really curious as to his response, but here goes anyway...
First an honest question.  Doesn't the agreement to a plea work both ways?  I mean yes Josh Leuke has plead no contest and takes responsibility, and is guilty in the eyes of the law and all that of false imprisonment, but didn't the victim ALSO agree that Josh Leuke is guilty of (and ONLY of) false imprisonment?  In other words, isn't the victims (and prosecutions) willingness and sign off on taking the plea agreement an explicit (not implicit, explicit) admission that there was no rape?  Legally speaking, doesn't the accusation of rape get resolved by this plea?  I am not being rhetorical I really don't know and the answers to those questions definitely affect how I feel about Geoff's writing.
I think that this is where much of the disconnect is, because my assumption is that the above is all true, and so if Geoff wants to speak about the facts and only the facts then he should not ever use the terms (and these are especially highly emotive and charged terms) rape, or accused of rape in his article, because those "facts" have indeed been resolved by the fact of the plea.  IOW, I respect Geoff desire to only speak about the facts because speculation is messy and we can never really know.  But the rape accusation is just as much speculation as the extenuating circumstances that led Leuke to plead out or get into this situation in the night of question in the first place.  So it feels unbalanced and unfair to use the, "Just the fact and only the facts, ma'am" line of reasoning to discount any speculation on Leuke's side of the ledger, but to ignore that reasoning when speculating that a no contest plea to false imprisonment really means he was guilty of rape on the other end.
For what it is worth (not much I know).  In my world view everything that the facts support Leuke really did do (got sloppy drunk and had premarital sex with a girl who was also inebriated) is completely and utterly deplorable and heinous.  I have no problem with him being strung up in the papers a a guy who did something very bad, very wrong on the night in question.  I also have no problem with him being the lever that is used to try and pry the dysfunctional relationships in the front office to the surface or try to expose the M's as nothing more than an expensive investment device for the owners and not a true competitor for a championship.  My only issue is that I would want that reporting to be done in a balanced way, and speculation being allowed on one side (rape), but not on the other (maybe there were extenuating circumstances to the whole night and to the plea) is not balanced in my view.
Of course I am also posting while impossibly tired, so I could be writing completely incoherent dribble right now :)

There are plenty of good reasons for your disconnect, OBF, because there are lots of complexities that have gotten skimmed over.  The time gap is actually helpful, because it allows for some helpful perspective.  This is my view:
The DNA and other evidence, of which the DNA is by far the most straightforward, points to three acts.  I won't get too involved, but some level of understanding is necessary.
Act A: The "standard" way of doing things.  DNA evidence that it happened: 100% (anyone can correct me where I'm wrong).  Plausibility that she consented to it: Somewhat plausible.  Plausibility that a young athlete would "assume" consent, in a manner a jury would sympathize with, in light of drunken outing/"groupie" behavior: Very high.  Legal consequences if no consent: Very serious. "Ugh factor": in this world, frankly limited to the extreme drunkenness and uncertainty about consent.
Act B: A "less standard" way of doing things.  DNA evidence: also 100% unless I'm missing something.  Plausibility that she consented: Less plausible.  Plausibility that he "assumed" consent: Less likely, and also less sympathetic to a jury.  Legal consequnces if no consent: Probably somewhat more serious.  "Ugh factor": probably less than it would have been back in the day.
Act C: I've tried to be oblique about this one, but it's not helping.  So, sorry Doc, feel free to edit. Essentially, the charge is that he stood over her unconscious body, possibly removing some of her clothes first, and pleasured himself to the point of DNA ending up in her hair.  She remembers waking up and seeing this happening, although she did not know which one of the three players it was.  DNA evidence: Josh Lueke's DNA was in her hair.  True, it could have gotten there some other way, so not 100%.  But it dovetails with her story, and completely obliterated his original story.  Plausibility that she consented: to my mind, virtually zero.  Plausibility that he "assumed" consent: I can't imagine what would make him think she'd think it was OK.  Legal consequences if no consent: Significantly less.  It is an assault of a sexual nature, but not the R-word.  "Ugh factor": very high, especially since it seems so unlikely that someone would consent.
Sooooo . . .
If it were just Act A and "he said, she said" then you would have a Kobe/Roethlisberger situation.  The stakes are high, the consequences are serere, the facts murky, and the justice system would punt. Lueke would have a black mark but no felony record (exactly as Kobe and Roethlisberger), and the ripples would eventually die out.  Adding Act B in the "he said, she said" scenario, frankly doesn't change it much.  In the worst possible scenario, though, the possibility that a trial would conclude that Act B took place while she was unconscious and without her consent would rightfully mean decades in prison for Josh Lueke, and he could not rule that out.
But Act C is the one thing she remembers distinctly, and the DNA supports her story, and the justice system could move forward on the basis of jurors being likely to concur in the notion that there was no consent or implied consent to that act.  So it is the least murky thing in the whole equation, but it also does not carry the same consquences.
So you end up with a situation where everyone involved realized that a massive effort to have a trial would quite possibly end up with, at best (from the prosecution's point of view), a conviction on only the lesser charge, and that, from Lueke's standpoint, getting the best deal he could on the lesser charge would eliminate the possibility of a conviction on the way, way more serious ones.  So the outcome that occurred was probably close to what would have happened anyway, and saved everyone lots of expense and risk and uncertainty.
But, from the Mariners' standpoint, the legal fact that Act C was the lesser charge created the largest PR headache (due to the "ugh factor").  Who wants a guy on your team who did that?  And who wants to market that guy to soccer moms?  That's why Z glossing over the facts was a legitimate error, and why it truly cost him capital within the org.  I will continue to assert -- you do not need a "PC" agenda to find Act C unsavory, nor to realize that Z was playing with the team's community image (overly "PC" or not) by acquiring Lueke without any notice or red flags to Armstrong.
That's my view.  Many here disagree.  Hope it helps.

The only thing that Leuke was "guilty" of from the courts perspective (after the plea agreement) was false imprisonment, which again to the best of my knowledge has no sexual component AT ALL.  EVERYTHING ELSE, including everything you write above, is hearsay and or speculation, in terms of legal court approved convictions and facts, and all I was saying is that if Geoff doesn't want to speculate on Leuke's end, then he shouldn't speculate on the victims end (Leuke admitted SOME guilt so we will speculate and assume he is really admitting to all of it).  That, in my view, is where the in-balance is in Geoff's articles, especially since he wants to hide behind the, I am just presenting the facts ma'am line of reasoning.  The FACTS are that Leuke is "guilty" of false imprisonment, nothing more nothing less.  
BTW as an aside, evidence != fact.  Evidence is information, and information only; the conclusion that one draws from that is a judgment call.  In reality the indisputable facts in this matter are really none at all, however the way the Geoff wants to define fact (at least as far as Leuke goes) is only what the judicial system judged to be the facts.  In that case the judicial system judged that there was indeed NO RAPE, in fact no sexual crime at all!
In the end the unbalance in Geoff's articles come from the willingness to speculate on the victims end but the unwillingness to do so on Leuke's.
And once again for the record I think that everything Leuke did that night was wrong and he deserved punishment for it (which he has received, both in the court of law and the court of public opinion).  Please don't read my call for balanced reporting and consistent treatment of the facts (or no facts) as an endorsement of Leuke the man or the baseball player.  However I also believe in second chances and the fact that good people can do things that they regret with all of their hearts especially while intoxicated.
Also, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Geoff for being in my view the best sport writer in Seattle.  In reality his reporting compared to other sports writers in the region and in the country is incredibly balanced and unbiased, and huge props for him for actually interacting with those who take umbrage here or there.  And in the end I (and probably most everyone else) probably wouldn't have even commented on the matter if it hadn't been such a hot button issue about a sports team with NOTHING ELSE TO TALK ABOUT because the season has been over for months!  :)

So the back-and-forth is useful.  There are lots of ways to look at it.
To my mind, he was not "judged" to be innocent of a sexual crime.  In exchange for avoiding a trial of uncertain outcome, both sides agreed to a plea arrangment. The particular charge agreed to was one that would not trigger sex-offender registration/consequences (like, in some states, not being allowed to live near a school).  At the same time, the charge was "false imprisonment with violence" when there is really no evidence of violence in any of the facts I've seen.
So I think the negotiation was that Lueke's side took the "with violence" charge "in exchange for" the removal of sex offender charges.  Nonsensical, but not necessarily unusual I don't think.   The "with violence" might carry different consequences (ability to get a weapons permit or qualify for certain jobs), but he was probably more willing to accept those consequences than sex offender consequences.
But obviously, the nature of Lueke's misconduct was sexual -- the technicalities of negotiations don't change that.
Then, from the Mariners standpoint, they are not a court of law, and are not bound by those technicalities.  We can disagree that Baker went too far, but to me the evidence is pretty clear that the events of that night would reflect negatively on the Mariners no matter how you slice it, and Z did a poor job of managing it, and Baker is within the scope of his journalistic role to pursue it the way he did.
We agree that Baker is doing a very good job generally, and we agree that Lueke deserves a chance to play baseball as long as he toes the line, so the specifics become less relevant.

Mojician or some other lawyer type to chime in, but I thought the victim had to actually sign the plea agreement along with the defendant, almost like the prosecutor and defender are acting like brokers between the two, but it is the victim and defendant, along with the court making the agreement.  But now we are REALLY getting out of my knowledge base :)