The O Disappoints Again
I’ve stayed off this blog for quite some time because as befitting someone who describes himself as going Howard Beal, this political season is about to drive me over the edge.
But as I opened my ballot yesterday and looked at the ballot measures, it struck me that once again, my local fish wrapper The Oregonian has let me down. They spent months examining David Wu with a team of reporters over a possible sexual assault from 28 years ago. They spent two years investigating some statistics on meth and turned it into a weeklong borefest that should have been condensed into fewer days worth of coverage.
But they never dedicated any serious resources to the ballot measures I am about to vote on. Nothing beyond the typical "this side said it will help people; this side said it will hurt people." For some measures, just replace "people" with the environment, farms, forests, and you get the gist.
Some measures are easy to cover. Measure 36 is pretty simple. Either you want all people to have fair access to marriage, or you don’t. Not much to explain there. And the other issues that come with that are easy enough to report on and write about.
But Measure 34? Heck if I know what it’s all about. Sure, there’s the propaganda that I can read from either side, but I really wanted my newspaper to look at that measure in-depth and examine what it’s all about. Send a reporter to the forests. Do what’s today cliche in environmental coverage -- tour the forest with one pro and one con on Measure 34 and see firsthand what’s up. Go to www.oregonlive.com and look over the Voter’s Guide and you won’t even find coverage of the measures listed beyond a couple of paragraphs on some roundup story.
Or Measure 33? I see the ads from the proponents. I’d like to know whether it’s true that there are hordes of people out there who have a medical marijuana card who can’t grow the stuff and can’t get it elsewhere. Didn’t see that and other questions addressed in The O’s coverage.
Or Measure 35, a measure I know a lot about from researching the subject for two years, The O did the same "he said, she said" story that it’s being doing on malpractice insurance rates for the past two years. Not one hard question; not one effort to get beyond the rhetoric. Heck, a reporter never even talked to an insurance company. If Oregonians vote to restrict their constitutional rights, how much would insurance companies lower rates, if at all? The same 200 percent to 400 percent that they’ve raised rates since 1999?
Hell, the Oregon Health News, a small monthly which only has a couple of staff members and runs on a shoestring budget, took on an in-depth report about malpractice and caps on jury awards. Guess what? The O quoted it because it didn’t do any independent reporting.
Or Measure 37. Couldn’t they at least make a stab at looking into how much this will cost taxpayers if this thing ever makes it into law? (Sidebar to Jack B. Any of your lawyer friends talking about the constitutionality of this monstrosity?)
So you get my drift. I’m mad as hell because while The O is willing to spend resources on some stories that they can enter into awards competitions, they can’t seem to spend the resources to analyze with any depth ballot measures that we’re voting on. These are measures that will change the landscape, literally, in Oregon.
You mean to tell me that The O couldn’t spare a couple of David Wu sex reporters for a couple of months to look into a measure or two? This is the best that the state’s supposed newspaper can do to inform voters?
It may not be as titillating as sexual escapades or worthy of an ASNE award, but to me, a newspaper’s job during an election season it to provide more than surface coverage about important political issues.
OK, rant over. Back to my hole until the election is over.
|
October 27, 2004 |
Chris Bouneff
| Share on Facebook |
Comments
Posted by: Randy | Oct 27, 2004 7:06:02 PM
I hate the Oregonian (although I am a subscriber).
Anything in the first section I take with a grain of salt.
I, too, found their coverage of the meth "crisis" and Oregon State Hospital pandering and self-serving.
But I love "The Edge".
Posted by: cc | Oct 27, 2004 7:12:51 PM
I just like the fact that they run Get Fuzzy in the comics. I love Bucky the cat. Though I could get that fix online... nope, I guess I have no use for the O. Oh wait, I do do the crossword and the jumble while I'm drinking my coffee. Other than *that* I have no use for it.
Posted by: Joe Baldinux | Oct 27, 2004 9:54:23 PM
Good one, Chris. Down here in Corvallis, I don't subscribe to the O, but the Daily Barometer (OSU campus) has been stricken by poor political journalism this season. In the last two days I've had to e-mail the editors twice to report sloppy journalism, from incorrect quoting of on-campus profs to down-and-out bias in reporting on "liberalism". It's a weird time.
Posted by: Jack Bog | Oct 27, 2004 10:36:20 PM
Dunno if 37 is constitutional. It wasn't the last time it passed. I'm sure the proponents have tried to cure the constitutional infirmities in the new version.
But it's enormously popular, and eventually a contitutional version of it will pass. Then, after about five years of terrible disasters under it, the voters will repeal it or drastically cut it back.
I look for it to pass, and to do serious damage to Oregon for 5-10 years. I'm voting no, and it's at the top of my list of important measures, right after Kerry and 37.
Posted by: Evan Manvel | Oct 27, 2004 11:04:48 PM
Measure 37 doesn't fall short on at least three of the four challenges brought against Measure 7, because it's statutory, not constitutional. The fourth challenge wasn't addressed by any of the courts in the Measure 7 lawsuits, as they found earlier challenges enough to toss it.
There are some smart lawyers thinking about various approaches, most of which are untested and sort of highly-intellectual arguments that aren't to be put out in the public.
Measure 37's the number one underreported story this election cycle, given the vast potential impacts. The O (and other media outlets) have blown it -- Oppenheimer's piece was crap, luckily Pulaski wrote a good piece, but given the implications, doesn't it deserve more? Jesus. It's not as sexy as Measure 36, but still -- two stories? For the end of land use planning in Oregon?
As far as cost, yes, they could have taken a stab. Would it have been innaccurate? Sure. Would it have been enormous? Yes, if you presume compensation (and even if you don't, i.e. that all laws are waived, $200/household each and every year just for the administrative costs is a lot). Would voters have believed it? No, because: (a) they don't read the paper; (b) many voters think you can cut taxes and continue existing service levels. They think you can have your cake and eat it too. They will be in for a very, very interesting day if Measure 37 passes and is upheld.
To volunteer (yes, you still can!, drop the campaign a line www.noon37.com).
Oh, and O should get the Boondocks.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Oct 28, 2004 12:47:18 AM
I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that equal protection is certainly a problem with 37. It simply cannot be possible for the laws to exist in one way for me, and another for you.
If Joe Blow buys his house in 1985, he only has to follow laws and regulations passed prior to 1985. I, on the other hand, must follow all laws and regulations that Joe does, PLUS the ones between 1985 and 2002 when I bought my house.
That's patently silly, and obviously unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment - and its Oregon corollary.
Posted by: John | Oct 28, 2004 5:44:31 AM
Where are the environmental groups?? Looks like they've chose to put their time and $$ into trying to pass M34, and missing the boat on a measure which if it passes will have VERY significant effects on the environment in all of Oregon. Seems very short-sighted to me!
Posted by: GA - Keith | Oct 28, 2004 11:17:24 AM
Great rant, though I personally feel slapped around about Measure 36. While it should seem obvious as to how people should vote, there are important points that people do not know about -- such as the lack of access to health coverage to couples who cannot marry.
And the concept of a discussion about the civil rights of Gay Americans as 'sexually titillating' is something I'd really like to see us get away from. If the issues are 'titillating' because they involve lesbians and gay men, then more education needs to be done, not less.
Is Gay marriage a hot button issue? Sure. And it deserved as much coverage as it got and probably more. But the measures you mention were inexplicably underreported by The Oregonian, and there is no justification for that. Oregonians deserve a newspaper which offers in depth coverage of the issues that we all face.
The Oregonian failed us all this election season, no question about it.
Posted by: elaine | Oct 28, 2004 11:22:37 AM
GOLI AMERI BLAMING CHUCK ADAMS - LET THE INFIGHTING BEGIN!
Goli Ameri's campaign is now blaming Republican operative Chuck Adams for her latest mail piece.
In clear violation of FEC law, the letter "From the desk of Kathy Dolan" does not have a "paid for by..." on it, though the return address on the envelope is the Ameri's campaign. And the letter from Kathy Dolan is identical in format and font to another letter "From the desk of Susan Winkler" sent from the Ameri campaign to voters last week.
Staff at the Ameri campaign were originally denying that the Dolan letter existed at all, and are now blaming Adams for this - is Chuck a willing fall guy?
Posted by: elaine | Oct 28, 2004 11:45:07 AM
CHUCK ADAMS IS TAKING THE FALL FOR AMERI
What's so wonderful about all of this, is that they were clearly trying to disguise that this letter came out of the Ameri campaign - the return address on the envelope was only an address, no affiliation. Chuck Adams goes to bat...
October 27th, 2004
Ameri Campaign Statement Concerning Error in Recent Letter
PORTLAND – Today, the Goli Ameri for Congress campaign issued a statement concerning a piece of direct mail sent by the campaign that did not include a disclaimer stating that it was paid for and authorized by the campaign.
Adams and Company, a Wilsonville, Oregon based consulting firm, distributed a piece of direct mail for the Ameri Campaign on Tuesday, October 26th 2004, but did not state that the letter was “Paid for by Goli Ameri for Congress 2004.” The mailing was paid for by the Ameri campaign.
“Adams and Company mailed the letter without submitting a proof to the campaign,” said Chuck Adams, president of Adams and Company. “We take full responsibility for the error and apologize for any trouble it may have caused voters.”
In a letter to the Ameri campaign (attached below) Mr. Adams wrote:
“I want to apologize for making a mistake in the proofing process relative to the Kathy Dolan mailing. We inadvertently left off the disclaimer on this mailing. Somewhere in the process of emails and print houses, the disclaimer was removed and unfortunately not included in the final printing.
“As you know, we had the campaign’s return address on the mailing and were in no way intending to be anything other than forthcoming with who paid for this mailing. In fact, you and your campaign made a point of asking us to make sure the disclaimer was included.”
Federal election law requires that candidates for federal office clearly state that campaign-based mail to households is paid by the campaign sending the material.
Upon learning about the mistake, Ameri for Congress campaign manager Hap Hinman issued a letter to U.S. Federal Elections Commission General Counsel Lawrence Norton informing him of the mistake. Mr. Hinman’s letter is attached below.
“The Ameri campaign regrets any confusion this oversight may have caused voters,” said Ameri for Congress spokesman Jonathan Collegio.
The letter was mailed to approximately 70,000 households in Northwest Oregon.
***
Posted by: Audrey | Oct 28, 2004 1:49:24 PM
I'm the last person to defend the Oregonian, but the editorial board, at least, has published, incredibly, three very strong editorials in opposition to Measure 37. The bad news is if you didn't read them the first time you probably won't find them. The Oregonian's website is so bizarrely terrible you can type Measure 37 (or Measure 36) into its search engine and get "oops, we found no results."
Posted by: Evan Manvel | Oct 28, 2004 4:07:08 PM
Editorials have been good -- but aren't very influential to the average voter.
And Kari -- no, you're not a lawyer. Neither am I. But we can both play one on BlueOregon. I have to disagree that Measure 37 is "obviously unconstitutional" under equal protection.
There are lots of laws that apply depending on when someone bought a piece of property (for example, that grandfather in certain uses, or Oregon's so-called "Lot of Record" law for building houses in farmland). There are other laws that discriminate against young people voting, old people driving, etc.
The equal protection requirement, as I understand it, requires equally-situated people to be treated equally. Under Measure 37, one could argue that everyone who bought property in 1985 is treated the same way.
A test that I'm recalling roughly is: is there a reason to create certain classes of people, and discriminate among them? i.e. Is there a reasonable explanation for treating people who bought their property in 1985 differently than those who bought their property in 2002?
And the answer is: perhaps. Those who bought their property in 1985 bought them under one set of laws, people who bought them in 2002 under a different set. To discriminate based on that difference may be allowable.
Any real lawyers want to weigh in?
Posted by: Anne Dufay | Oct 29, 2004 12:11:33 PM
Re Chris Bouneff writing that the meth story was a "borefest" and "Randy" writing: "I, too, found their coverage of the meth "crisis" and Oregon State Hospital pandering and self-serving."
While I agree with the general sentiment that The O's coverage of the ballot measures was wimpy and largely unhelpful, I really don't understand the above. Certainly not in the case of the Oregon State Hospital -- a classic journalism moment - opening a door on a dark room, where powerless, voiceless people have long suffered, in our name, and on our dime(s).
I suppose one COULD make a pandering charge against the politicians, who, suddenly, care...
As for the meth story - I presume we all understand that meth is a problem, negatively affecting all our lives in some way or other (whether it's just the hassle of shredding your credit/personal info to protect it from meth-user identity thieves, to watching someone you care about being slowly destroyed, to being terrorized by someone in the throes of meth-induced violence, to learning about someone being suffocated by a Meth-addict with a plastic bag. So, I presume no one would really kvetch about in-depth story on this issue.
Was the "problem" the "personal interest" part of the coverage? I'm guessing that's what is meant by "borefest"? If so I'd just like to point out - one person's "bore" is another person's fascinating read. I'd bet for every person who found that part of the coverage boring, five more found it a way into the issue, through which they came to understand the implications of this drug.
The Oregonian writes for a wide-ranging audience. Some, for instance, like to read well-done peer-reviewed statistical analysis. Others like a bullet-point approach. Others prefer stories that are told from the heart. In this story I thought they did a good job of getting stuff in there for all readership styles.
I was encouraged by the quality and originality of the research on this story. It was a new and encouraging step for The O. I applaud it. I just hope they will expand such efforts to other subjects in the future.
Just skip the stuff that bores you. And don't presume that just because YOU'RE bored, the piece wasn't interesting.
Posted by: Chris Bouneff | Oct 29, 2004 2:43:54 PM
I would agree that the Oregon State Hospital coverage was solid. The David Wu coverage was disturbing, given the amount of resources they spent on it.
But the meth series? Total borefest, plain and simple. I'm glad you liked it, but you have it wrong. For every you out there, there were probably 20 who skipped over it. Readership surveys time and again say readers don't read multi-day series. Newspapers do them to win awards and for institutional reasons.
That series could have been vastly condensed to make it more accessible to readers, rather than day after day of repetitive coverage climaxing with a good story about a family torn apart by meth. Clearly, they went overboard because one reporter had spent two years on the story. There’s an interesting interview on newspapers’ ability to be gaseous when doing a series from NPR at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1121710.
The O did a disservice to its readers when it put more emphasis on the meth series than it did the ballot measures that could change the lives of nearly all Oregonians.
Posted by: Randy | Oct 29, 2004 5:33:35 PM
Anne:
"Certainly not in the case of the Oregon State Hospital -- a classic journalism moment - opening a door on a dark room, where powerless, voiceless people have long suffered, in our name, and on our dime(s)"
All certainly true.
However, in an election season like the present with so many disturbing potential outcomes that will affect so many people -- why was this given the front page treatment? So they write a good story (I'm taking your word for it since I barely skimmed it) and as a result of their placement what more crucial news for a much larger group of people was ignored. And everybody rushes to say we will fix this, its horrible, smiles all around.
I would have loved to see some in-depth stories about the gays and lesbians who got married. Weren't the first two lesbians these older women who had been together for 20+ years? What is the magic to their commitment? Why did they want the blessing of the state upon their choices? And by doing so, perhaps humanize the sacrament of marriage for those who blindly parrot fundamentalist line of 1 man/1 woman.
Posted by: apekshr dlryi | Sep 23, 2007 3:49:38 PM
awxc ixywrafqe qikx cmopkq ghire qcjgapbw qnaruv
Posted by: elwmk laykfib | Sep 23, 2007 3:52:18 PM
tgmbaewu flaumj yozgxnf mtecovzs wslzne nzdamlbu chrtsv http://www.xyehi.yobcvp.com
Posted by: xtyc wcafvri | Sep 23, 2007 3:54:04 PM
ctjlpq gelqt obdtun vpkog lnkqzx ezlum pdkay [URL]http://www.gelihod.ritgf.com[/URL] epivb kfsqjn
Posted by: lisinopril | Sep 24, 2007 10:51:58 AM
Posted by: zestril online | Sep 25, 2007 4:28:45 PM
Posted by: bontril sr | Sep 27, 2007 11:45:59 AM
Posted by: order vaniqa | Sep 27, 2007 1:14:37 PM
Posted by: buy online vaniqa | Sep 27, 2007 2:23:00 PM
Posted by: 250mg lamisil | Sep 27, 2007 3:22:58 PM
Posted by: effects lamisil side treatment | Sep 27, 2007 4:20:13 PM
Posted by: 250mg lamisil | Sep 28, 2007 5:30:46 AM
Posted by: generic zestril | Sep 28, 2007 10:24:57 AM
Posted by: generic tegretol | Sep 28, 2007 1:35:56 PM
Posted by: aldara generic | Sep 28, 2007 8:18:54 PM
Posted by: aldara genital wart | Sep 28, 2007 9:40:59 PM
Posted by: cephalexin tablet | Sep 29, 2007 7:58:21 AM
Posted by: Jeff | Oct 27, 2004 6:10:08 PM
I love a good rant.