No, it's not a rigged game.
In his lengthy comment, Novick campaign manager Jake Weigler does an excellent job of rehashing old arguments on behalf of his employer.
I'm not going to address every point he makes, or join him hin rehashing old arguments about the two Senate candidates. I'm not generally a fan of meta-criticism of blogs. But I think our readers deserve a response about the question of how we manage BlueOregon.
First, I want to acknowledge the hundreds of people who tell me that they love BlueOregon, think it's a valuable resource, and enjoy the discussion. 9 times out of 10, when I meet our readers, they tell me that they never, ever comment. Many of you have expressed consternation to me about the high level of vitriol in the comments. Especially since the vast majority of the comments come from less than two dozen often-cranky people (including me sometimes.)
Second, I want to provide some context for Jake's allegation that BlueOregon is a "rigged game." Nothing could be further from the truth.
To be sure, I am a Merkley supporter. I've also been a consultant to Jeff Merkley since 2004. I readily acknowledge that that affects my worldview. But Kari Chisholm is not BlueOregon, and BlueOregon is not Kari Chisholm.
BlueOregon comes from the combined effort of several dozen contributors, and several hundred guest columnists. When Jake alleges that everything written here is masterminded by me, he insults the creative contributions of many other people.
Remember: BlueOregon is just a blog, read by less than 2% of the readership of the Oregonian's website (and they have a daily newsprint edition too!). It's not going to make or break anyone's campaign - and it's a bit silly to watch a US Senate campaign get so distraught over a blog. (Yikes, if they are this easily distracted, Gordon Smith's got an easy road ahead!)
Here are a few facts that might help illuminate the discussion:
- Since early September, when Nick Wirth joined us as the BlueOregon Fellow (our internship program), roughly 80% of the "in the news" and "elsewhere" posts have been written and posted by Nick. We created the Fellow program precisely so that the majority of the "Voice of BlueOregon" content is not written by me - for both "neutrality" reasons and workload reasons.
- We have published every single guest column submitted to us by Steve Novick or his campaign staff. That's exactly one.
- Since Steve Novick entered the race, we've received 271 guest column submissions, but only ten focused on the Senate race. Of those 271, we've published 111. Of the ten about this race, we've published seven. (Two supportive of Steve, four supportive of Merkley, and one recapping a visit to Eastern Oregon by both of them. The three we didn't print: one Novick, two Merkley.)
- There are seven BlueOregon contributors that have publicly endorsed Steve Novick (that I know about): Les AuCoin, T.A. Barnhart, Charlie Burr, Leslie Carlson, Randy Leonard, Chuck Sheketoff, and Kristin Teigen. Between those seven BlueOregon contributors, they've written five columns total in support of Steve Novick since he got in the race. Each of them has a password, and can post at will - without editorial review. (By my count, by the way, the pro-Merkley count is nine.)
- The Novick campaign has direct access to submitting stuff to BlueOregon, and that pipeline does NOT go through me. Both Charlie Burr and Nick Wirth can post in-the-news items directly, without any editorial review from me.
Jake Weigler calls BlueOregon a "rigged game" and declares that he will "refuse to play." It seems quite clear to me, and perhaps to you, that the Novick campaign abandoned BlueOregon as an outlet a long time ago. Either that, or their supporters just aren't very supportive. Seriously, over eleven months, seven contributors have only managed five columns about Novick? And only three people (counting Steve himself) have seen fit to send in supportive guest columns?
Meanwhile, with respect to the news and blog coverage here, I believe we've given Steve Novick more coverage than any mainstream media outlet in Oregon. From the beginning, we treated him like a serious candidate - unlike much of the mainstream media.
Let me make it clear: This is a blog. Like the rest of the activist blogosphere, we are under no legal or ethical requirement to be fair, to be balanced, to give equal time, or do any such thing. But we choose to try. Are we perfect? No. Do we make dumb mistakes? You bet. But over our body of work, over the last 4726 blog posts, we've done our damnedest to try to reflect the full range of progressive opinion in Oregon. And when we fall short, our comments are open and our guest column form works. You've always let us know.
On the jump, I've posted a complete listing of the Merkley and Novick news coverage since April 18, 2007 - the day that Steve got in the race. I invite you to review it for yourself.
Out of 688 total news posts since April 18, 2007, just 114 have been about the 2008 Senate race. Of those, 34 have been about Steve Novick, and 42 have been about Jeff Merkley.
I'd love to hear your comments - especially if you're one of those folks that doesn't comment very often.
Now, can we get back to beating up on Gordon Smith?
|
March 11, 2008 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (104 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 11, 2008 2:44:16 PM
BCM, you're talking about editorials I've written over my own name. Those are DEFINITELY biased, and are intended to be so.
And the seven pro-Novick contributors can do the same. No argument here.
I've been very transparent about my affiliations. Don't like it? Don't read it. Don't trust it? Don't believe it. Simple as that.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 11, 2008 2:45:02 PM
We shouldn't allow BlueOregon to be treated like this.
Oh, and on that. Dude, get over yourself. It's a BLOG.
Kari, will you recuse yourself from all posts having to do with Novick-Merkley until after the primary?
No.
Posted by: BCM | Mar 11, 2008 2:46:12 PM
If they're editorials, where are the disclaimers telling us you work for Merkley?
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 11, 2008 2:49:09 PM
I would invite folks to go through the history of BCM's comments at Blue Oregon here and decide for themselves whether that record reflects objectivity with respect to this issue.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Mar 11, 2008 2:50:36 PM
Personally, it's not so much how many items cover each, but the content and how they're handled.
Many pro-Merkley items have been allowed to sit as the top item for a long period of time. Positive Novick ones are regularly bumped in a short period of time.
There are a lot more posts attacking Novick, often times for inaccurate things, attacks that should have never been made, etc.
It's these kinds of things that I'm concerned about. It's made for a situation where we're tearing apart fellow Dems on rumor, twisted information, and complete junk.
Posted by: BCM | Mar 11, 2008 2:54:10 PM
I'm not billing myself as objective, Kevin. I'm not. I'm saying that Kari's bias is filtering through to affect BlueOregon's discourse. Clearly, the campaign manager for Steve Novick agrees on the basis that his candidate cannot be treated fairly here.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Mar 11, 2008 2:54:27 PM
Speaking of meta chatter, could we get the link fixed on the filing day post?
Thanks!
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Mar 11, 2008 2:55:53 PM
And just in case if anyone is wondering...
Yes, I did indeed build the Novick for Senate web site. However, I haven't done any work for the campaign in months. Now I'm just a supporter.
Posted by: darrelplant | Mar 11, 2008 2:57:46 PM
In his lengthy comment, Novick campaign manager Jake Weigler does an excellent job of rehashing old arguments on behalf of his employer.
If, by "rehashing old arguments" you mean responding to false allegations in a column from Blue Oregon's newest regular contributor.
Let me make it clear: This is a blog. Like the rest of the activist blogosphere, we are under no legal or ethical requirement to be fair, to be balanced, to give equal time, or do any such thing.
Or even to get facts straight. See, that's the thing that aggravates me the most about the mainstream media. They'll just publish any old crap and call it truthy, with no actual facts to back it up.
You allowed Kevin to baldly lie about facts as Jake refuted. That's not giving an opinion, that's lying. I don't like it when the Oregonian published opinions based on lies, either.
I believe we've given Steve Novick more coverage than any mainstream media outlet in Oregon.
If, by coverage, you mean coverage in fabricated accusations. Sort of like how Sherwin-Williams covers the earth, only if the bucket was filled with garbage.
Either that, or their supporters just aren't very supportive. Seriously, over eleven months, seven contributors have only managed five columns about Novick?
I guess you'd have to ask that of the seven regular contributors you say are for Novick, Kari. From the comments, certainly, there seems to be a fairly even split, but the number is small on both sides. The commenters, at least, seem very supportive.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Mar 11, 2008 3:01:11 PM
Looks like BCM needs some chicken soup to calm down. Better yet, lets just lable him a "troll" and be done with it.
It is amazing how someone can get so overzealous and uptight that they lose sight of the reality here. BO is a blog - one that is to facilitate conversation and ideas, and not to be the end-all of someones campaign. Kari does a good job of being a facilitator (in a manner of speaking)and clearly lables some of his comments with his "disclaimers" about who he is working for.
We need to calm down and realize that BO will not make or break anyones run for any seat - that is because it is just a blog. And how it has gotten to a lofty status in the mind of BCM is beyond me.
Lets chill and hope Portland State makes the big dance in men's B-Ball.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Mar 11, 2008 3:04:11 PM
One curious omission from that list:
October 11, 2007 Smearing Jeff Merkley with GOP talking points
Posted by: BCM | Mar 11, 2008 3:11:36 PM
Looks like BCM needs some chicken soup to calm down. Better yet, lets just lable him a "troll" and be done with it.
Easy to label and dismiss, hard to respond, I know.
We need to calm down and realize that BO will not make or break anyones run for any seat - that is because it is just a blog. And how it has gotten to a lofty status in the mind of BCM is beyond me.
I never put BlueOregon on a pedestal. Please, look through my comments again and tell me where I did if you disagree. And just because BlueOregon may not affect the outcome of the race, doesn't mean I should disengage like yourself.
Eric, are you incapable of responding intelligently to my points? It seems you are comfortable conjuring up reasons not to enter the debate, such as labeling and dismissing me and my claim. I don't see you making any counter arguments, which is a pity, because we could use more dialog and less demagogery.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 11, 2008 3:14:14 PM
If they're editorials, where are the disclaimers telling us you work for Merkley?
At the bottom of each post or in the first comment. As usual.
Posted by: petrichor | Mar 11, 2008 3:14:27 PM
kari,
you yourself have acknowledged that the "in the news" (etc) posts are not neutral:
"We post news items here all day long, that's true -- but they're certainly not original journalism (they're clips from other places) and they are often loaded with language that journalists wouldn't call neutral.
As our BlueOregon Fellow, Nick Wirth, likes to put it -- even our news posts come with some 'mustard'".
i have to assume that you are acting on good faith, and not just ignoring me; perhaps you are busy doing other things, but why do you not respond to my suggestion that the best solution to this issue would be to no longer post these items anoymously?
why not engage in total transparency?
Posted by: BCM | Mar 11, 2008 3:16:24 PM
...why do you not respond to my suggestion that the best solution to this issue would be to no longer post these items anonymously?
why not engage in total transparency?
I second this.
Posted by: Nick Wirth | Mar 11, 2008 3:16:53 PM
Let me add a few thoughts to Kari's post. I normally try to avoid the debates that take place over the perceived injustices of BlueOregon, they're silly, often far-fetched, and ultimately pointless. But there's a few topics I would like to address.
People have accused BlueOregon of being a mouthpiece for Mandate Media's clients many times. I resent that. When I was interviewed for my position, Kari and Jeff told me explicitly that I was welcome to support any candidate I wanted, and that if anything it would probably be better if I supported different candidates than them.
Kari stated that I post around 80% of the in the news and elsewhere stories. Kari posts some of the others, as do Jeff and Charlie. Some weeks I post less, for example I've been dealing with midterms over the past week so other editors have posted more. Guess what? I don't universally support Kari's clients this year! I'm not a shill for any campaign, even those that I do support. Neither do I make news stories magically happen, I don't control what reporters write, and I equally don't control when they write them.
Now people are complaining because Kevin, a strong Merkley supporter, was added as a contributor, as though it was some conspiracy between Kari, the Merkley campaign, and Kevin. Who here knows what candidates Kevin supports in the AG, SOS, CD5, or state legislative races? Are they exactly the same as Kari? I bet Kari's clients in those races take exception to the idea that their races aren't as important as the Senate.
As for the idea that Kari should stop posting about the Senate race, let's not get away from ourselves here. Kari is not the Chairman of the DPO, he's a blogger, there's no requirement of any sort for him to be neutral.
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 11, 2008 3:17:00 PM
BCM,
You don't see a reasonable level of objectivity being a prerequisite for judging the biases of someone that you percieve, rightly or wrongly, as being on the opposite side from you?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 11, 2008 3:17:37 PM
One curious omission from that list:
Stephanie, the list is a list of our NEWS coverage. Editorials are supposed to be biased. The one you mentioned is a guest column. None of the guest columns, or any other editorial, is included on the list.
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 11, 2008 3:18:04 PM
BCM cont.,
I mean, isn't lack of objectivity the charge being leveled at me?
Posted by: Nate Currie | Mar 11, 2008 3:19:07 PM
I don't have time to do the research, but as a regular reader, I suspect my recollections are reasonably close. Regardless of the number of stories about each, as Jenni notes, content is key. Care to do a count of how many negative posts have been made about Novick (or his campaign)? Since I should be working now, I don't have the time, but my best recollection tells me this number is greater than two and less than ten. As for negative coverage of Merkley, well, I can't think of any.
Now Kari may complain that this is simply because the Novick supporters don't really care enough to use BO as a was to spread attacks about Merkley, but I think it's simply because most of the other front-pagers (including other Merkley supporters) don't feel that BO is the place to tear down other Democrats. Would that Kari felt the same way...
Posted by: pam | Mar 11, 2008 3:20:22 PM
Oy! Pleeeeeze! This is a democracy. Free speech. Novick's geeks have high jacked thread after thread with their knee erk blaming, flaming and sophmoric attempts to twist any and all columns and comments that even slightly commend Merkley.
There is an assumption that readers and commenters will allow themselves to be defined by the media, a statewide blog or whatever. Get over it. We think for ourselves.
Go ahead and try to marginalize the man who made Blue Oregon what it is..messy, fun, and unrepentent.I've got news for you, Kari ain't going away. Nice try.
Posted by: Larry McD | Mar 11, 2008 3:20:53 PM
Is this not a little more than disingenuous, Kari?
On the jump, I've posted a complete listing of the Merkley and Novick news coverage since April 18, 2007 - the day that Steve got in the race. I invite you to review it for yourself.
I'm not going to waste time counting and comparing numbers but a startling number of oranges show up in your count of apples. Alan Bates, John Frohnmayer, and Gordon Smith (repeatedly) among others show up as the topics on your list.
I have too much respect for your wordsmithing to think that you didn't consciously choose to describe the list as "Merkley and Novick" coverage when, in fact, you were listing postings on the whole race for the senate and all the players and commentators that includes. Intentional or not, throwing in all those oranges certainly makes it harder to sort through the apples for the rotten ones... and we know there's at least one of those.
Posted by: petrichor | Mar 11, 2008 3:28:01 PM
quote "Kari stated that I post around 80% of the in the news and elsewhere stories. Kari posts some of the others, as do Jeff and Charlie."
nick,
if those posts were signed by the authors, then we would not been in the dark as to who is responsible for what.
and fwiw,
"i normally try to avoid the debates that take place over the perceived injustices of BlueOregon, they're silly, often far-fetched, and ultimately pointless."
nice way to start out your first contribution, then, by brazenly writing off the concerns of your readers.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 11, 2008 3:28:46 PM
You're right, Larry. I tried to include all the coverage about the Senate race. The alternative would be to get accused of leaving stuff out! I did color-code Merkley and Novick.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 11, 2008 3:29:39 PM
Thanks, Pam, whoever you are!
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 11, 2008 3:31:00 PM
Petrichor... Thanks for your suggestion. We're taking it under advisement and discussing here.
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Mar 11, 2008 3:32:41 PM
As a Republican interloper who no doubt infringes on people's patience too much already, I think Kari is getting a bum rap here. BlueOregon is a blog. That basically means it's an open forum, not a neutral discussion board mediated to assure balance. If Novick backers think they're underrepresented on what now is being called the "front page," the remedy is to write more items for Novick.
The truth is ("truth" in this case being a code word for my opinion) LoadedOrygun was giving BlueOregon a run for its money when Carla was still writing for it. When she went to work for Merkley, it seemed to me that the originality and actual news left with her. So BlueOregon is left as the premier forum for Oregon Democrats (and Republican troublemakers like me).
I like it for its breaking political news coverage and lively discussions. Obviously, I'm not reading it to reinforce my personal views. I assume other people feel the same way. And again, if you don't like the current poltical balance, write more!
Posted by: BCM | Mar 11, 2008 3:34:07 PM
Kevin, I'm not accusing you of bias. You have every right to be. Editorials are meant to be biased. Kari is correct in that assertion.
I am concerned that Kari's bia$ is hurting the BlueOregon ethos: that everyone should have a fair shake. The "in the news pieces" and even Kari's editorials are highly misleading.
In many, but not all, of his pieces, he has no disclaimer saying that he works for the Merkley campaign. The fact that he is receiving money from them might, in some way, cloud his judgment. Moreover, even though Kari has tangible bia$ for Merkley, he maintains a solid check over what content makes it, or doesn't make it, on to BO, including news.
We get on FoxNews for putting a slant in their news pieces and then we allow it to happen here too. I don't know about you guys, but when I hear news I think of at least some attempt to remove bias. There needs to be a disclaimer about that 'mustard' so people are not confused into thinking BO news is purely neutral.
Posted by: petrichor | Mar 11, 2008 3:35:35 PM
kari,
thanks for finally responding, i seriously hope you guys decide to change that policy for the better.
Posted by: Daniel F | Mar 11, 2008 3:37:46 PM
I've been on this blog fairly consistently for the past few years (though I rarely post) and I have to say Kari, in my opinion you have been disingenuous with the way you have handled, or covered candidates that you aren't working for.
To call this site neutral and progressive is laughable when it is painfully obvious when reading your coverage to see which ones you work for. And you don't need a disclaimer (if you put them on there) to figure it out. It's like this with every candidate you work for. If it's not, then why don't you ever put out positive information about opposing candidates? Is it because you only choose to work for the "good candidates," and there is absolutely no positive kudos to give out to opponents?
Kari, don't project on us. You get called out regularly because it is obvious to many readers.
Now, don't take this the wrong way, I love this site and I come here often. And we all appreciate your work, Kari. I just believe the time has come to broach this important subject because in my opinion, and many others, this conversation is a bit overdue.
Posted by: petrichor | Mar 11, 2008 3:39:58 PM
also, i would hope that in considering this policy of complete transparency you also add "update" information, so in the case were one person post something, and then another edits the title, that edit is noted somewhere in the body of the post. (as in this post)
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 11, 2008 3:49:57 PM
nick, you don't tell reporters what to print, you just decide whather YOU will print it. Despite many opportunities, I'm still waiting for the first one reporting on something critical of Merkley.
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 11, 2008 4:05:24 PM
There needs to be a disclaimer about that 'mustard' so people are not confused into thinking BO news is purely neutral.
Honestly, anyone reading blogs expecting unbiased news is living a life of self-delusion.
Political blogs are the 21st Century version of the political pamphlets cranked out on basement printing presses when our nation was founded. Those pamphlets were far from unbiased. Hell, most of them were extremely biased!
As a society we hold the professional media to a higher standard than we do the individual for a variety of very good reasons, mostly involving freedom of association and freedom of expression. Conflating and confusing the professional ethos and an individual's right to public dissent/assent via whatever medium (pamphlets, blogs, faxes, whatever) does a gross disservice to all involved. Frankly, doing so actually plays into the hand of the "corporations are citizens" crowd.
Posted by: JTT | Mar 11, 2008 4:08:22 PM
The petty bickering between Merkley and Novick partisans has left a VERY bitter after taste for me. I will be voting for Novick, however not lending him any money or time or energy because of his rapid supporters' behavior. I have a feeling that both camps have spoiled an opportunity in a good year for a progressive to take down another Bush-loving, progressive-obstructionist...Gordon Smith...through their behavior and campaign rhetoric. If that's true than I think that we as Democrats get what we deserve. Just a bit of advice for folks (in both camps) who can get a little overly worked up (e.g. TJ, Kevin, Kari)...consider eating a piece of shut-the-hell-up pie as the best thing you can do to promote your own candidate.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Mar 11, 2008 4:09:15 PM
One comment, and then I'll bow out. As Michael Clayton said, "I'm not hear to argue with you, I'm here to tell you how it is."
People have accused BlueOregon of being a mouthpiece for Mandate Media's clients many times. I resent that.
I'll echo that, Nick. People who have a problem with Kari (they are VERY few and VERY well-represented in the thousands of comments they've posted, mostly repetitiously, over the past six months) over-credit his influence. Obviously, this post will be used as a forum for those same folks to rehash (again!) the same charges they've made against him. But his point will go unchallenged: as a blog, we bend over backward to post diverse views.
One thing Kari didn't mention is that we haven't just waited around for Novick's supporters to post--we've actively solicited them from our own writers and in the form of guest posts from others. Obviously, that doesn't fit the argument that Kari is an all-powerful blog god, so no one will comment on it. But it speaks for itself.
Finally, and it really will be finally from my side, here's something that's rarely mentioned: the reason you can all charge Kari with crimes of heinous bias is because he offers full disclosure. You know who he is, how to contact him, where to find him (on line and in real life), and how to reconcile his client base with his advocacy.
We do a great job of offering disclosure here. At the end of the day, what people are whingeing about is content, not disclosure. You don't like what Kari writes. Fair enough, but don't accuse him (and Nick, Charlie, the rest of BlueOregon's bloggers, and me) of somehow "rigging the system." It ain't.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Mar 11, 2008 4:10:41 PM
"here," not hear. D'oh!
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Mar 11, 2008 4:19:15 PM
Remember: BlueOregon is just a blog, read by less than 2% of the readership of the Oregonian's website (and they have a daily newsprint edition too!).
While I generally agree with your defense, Kari, I really do have to point out you're comparing apples and oranges here. The Oregonian website is for their entire news section. Their blogs, quite frankly, look like somebody's master's thesis on poor website design. You can't compare the traffic for people reading the sports scores to a political blog.
It's especially true when you're talking progressive politics. So don't go trying to pretend this website is less influential than it actually is. It detracts from the rest of the article.
Posted by: petrichor | Mar 11, 2008 4:27:51 PM
jeff,
"We do a great job of offering disclosure here. At the end of the day, what people are whingeing [sic] about is content, not disclosure... "
that is just not true, i, for one, have been pretty darn consistent in my complaints about lack of transparency, and the problems that creates for the proclaimed neutrality of certain parts of the site (as have others, hubbird comes to mind).
however, since it is not gettign through, i'll say it once again:
it's not the content, it's the transparency. though, i will admit, i think the content has been pretty bad in certain regards, but hey, if kari wants to put sleazy content on this site, that is his perogative.
Posted by: John Mulvey | Mar 11, 2008 4:31:52 PM
Maybe I missed something: Is BCM in charge of Blue Oregon now? (I hope he pays you well, Kari... he sounds like a classic "bad boss.")
John
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Mar 11, 2008 4:58:29 PM
Okay I will comment again to defend my grammar. Petrichor quotes me and uses a "[sic]" after my use of "whingeing." Whinge, which is principally a British idiom, is spelled with an e in England. Example, from the Beeb:
Insiders are allowed to moan because they know what's going on; outsiders who criticise - and many people criticise British High Street banks - are resented and opposed by bank staff.Nor are complainers necessarily identifying real faults: in the same way that people talk about the weather without really meaning it, whingeing is a sociable activity.
My whinge is now complete. Carry on.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Mar 11, 2008 5:00:22 PM
Isn't "Little Whingeing" the town Harry Potter's aunt and uncle live in?
%^>
Posted by: BCM | Mar 11, 2008 5:11:17 PM
Maybe I missed something: Is BCM in charge of Blue Oregon now? (I hope he pays you well, Kari... he sounds like a classic "bad boss.")
I'm just trying to be the ombudsman. Which is, in my opinion, a role BlueOregon should create considering the fact that this issue has simmered for almost a year now.
Honestly, anyone reading blogs expecting unbiased news is living a life of self-delusion.
I don't mind bias in the news as long as I know where it's coming from.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Mar 11, 2008 5:24:21 PM
Blue Oregon editor Charlie Burr hits the nail on the head:
"This site has Novick and Merkley supporters, but I'm hard pressed to think of a single post on Blue Oregon -- comments section aside -- since this race began that lays a finger on Jeff."
And it's not like there haven't been plenty of mainstream media reports to choose from that did "lay a finger" on Merkley. The only time those reports are mentioned on BlueOregon's front page are as part of a reaction piece defending Kari's client.
But there's clearly a different standard for Novick (not kari's client). He's been repeatedly dogged by negative stories splashed across Bo's front page.
But you'd never know it from reading Kari's not-so-comprehensive list posted above.
It conveniently excludes:
* The Greenlick/Nolan hit piece on Novick.
* The four-part hit piece Kari himself authored about the trumped up PDA-gate.
* The list Doesn't even include Kevin Kamberg's most recent hit piece; Oregon Senate Race - The OEA Endorsement
...and there's
* Republicans, Novick press attack on Merkley
* Beaver Boundary: Novick and Taxes
* Could Steve Novick's height cost him the election?
Kari's comparison is nothing but spin, and he knows it. Could that be why he was unusually breathless on KPOJ this morning when pressed to defend some of the Merkley campaign's actions this past week.?
Charlie Burr is being honest.
Meanwhile, fellow BlueOregon editor Jeff Alworth has been reduced to that little dog in the cartoon following his big bullying buddy "butch" around saying', "What are we gonna do now, Butch huh, huh? Ya wanna go turn over a garbage can, Butch, huh, huh, Do ya do ya?"
Posted by: Mike Schryver | Mar 11, 2008 5:34:34 PM
I think the biggest problem for Kari and Blue Oregon is that it has become the "blog of record" for political discussion in Oregon. As such, the bigger Blue Oregon gets, these kinds of disputes and accusations are only going to intensify.
As a disinterested party in the Novick/Merkley race, I can't say that I've noticed a bias in either direction, but then, I'm not dissecting every article looking for it.
As I've mentioned before, it's the petty bickering here that gets to me. The people who've tried to make bias the main subject discussed have been somewhat successful. Blue Oregon is itself the subject, rather than the issues. And that's not very interesting at all.
Posted by: Larry McD | Mar 11, 2008 5:36:10 PM
Jeez... thanks, Pat. Here I thought I was color blind because I couldn't find the rotten apples among the oranges.
Oh Dummy Me! It was because they were cleverly disguised as Asian Pears and then kept under the counter.
Posted by: BCM | Mar 11, 2008 5:45:47 PM
Just to respond to the 'it's a blog!' line of thinking:
BO is indeed a blog. Blogs are centered around opinion. But, that shouldn't mean that BO ignores citing bias. For example, BO noted when Josh Kardon wrote a pro-Clinton piece that he was her state chair because that obviously weighed heavily on his opinion.
Everyone has biases, but not all are concrete. Kari's is a bia$. He is paid by Jeff Merkley. Yet his posts, both anonymous and not, don't always make this bia$ obvious. I'm not asking BO to put disclaimers up of who supports who, unless they are actually working for that person or cause. Then I find it only prudent and fair that that connection is made clear.
Certainly BO is welcoming to Steve Novick posts. This is not a matter of censorship, it is a matter of spin: using "in the news" authority to post about the senate campaign without telling us who (and whose bias) is framing the piece. It is a matter of Kari not telling us that he works for Jeff Merkley on every one of his posts about the election. Hatchet jobs like this go without a disclaimer.
I'm not saying biases should be removed, but they must be acknowledged. Hiding behind anonymous "in the news" posts and posting without a disclaimer even though you have a tangible bia$ should not be welcome.
Posted by: James X. | Mar 11, 2008 5:45:53 PM
I apologize if this has been mentioned before, because I was only able to read halfway through the comments. Who the **** cares if a blog is biased? They're completely allowed to be. Absolutely, completely, allowed to have any point of view. And if a blog only wants to allow supporters of one candidate or another to contribute, they're completely, absolutely, and unimpeachably able to do so. And politicians really should not get themselves involved in "playing the refs" with blogs, because it smacks as attempting to limit the freedom of speech and association of private citizens expressing their opinions.
Posted by: Bert Lowry | Mar 11, 2008 6:02:08 PM
Yikes. This is crazy. And what concerns me more is the Novick supporters on this thread seem, well, unhinged.
This is important: BCM and others are reflecting poorly on Steve Novick and his campaign. You guys are coming across as angry, petty, small and argumentative. Even if you're right about the bias (which doesn't seem egregious to me), you're harming your candidate.
By acting this way, you can't destroy either Kari Chisholm or Jeff Merkley. You won't persuade the persuadables. And you're harming your chances in the general election. No one wants to join a campaign filled with irate bickerers.
Stop now before you alienate those of us who will work for you in the general election.
Posted by: BCM | Mar 11, 2008 6:15:50 PM
Bert, please don't exteriorize this discussion by making it personal. Character attacks are really not necessary. Feel free to counter any of my points, but please don't attack me for holding an opinion -- it's very un-democratic.
I'm not trying to 'destoy' Jeff Merkley or Kari. You can re-evaluate my posts if you disagree, you'll find that I have presented only criticisms, not body blows like you. In fact, I haven't even criticized Jeff Merkley once today.
Labels like 'unhinged' are really synonymous with 'I'm incapable of responding to his points.' If you are, I'd love to be corrected.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: BCM | Mar 11, 2008 2:32:46 PM
This isn't about BlueOregon, Kari, it's about you. You have used your position here to elevate Merkley and oppress Novick. I might point out this particularly egregious set of posts you made in January, all in a row:
January 22, 2008 - Even Novick's supporters are worried about the Kimmerly fake-endorsement debacle
January 20, 2008 - On Saturday night, Liz Kimmerly continues to pretend she doesn't work for Novick
January 18, 2008 - Fake endorsement backfires on Novick campaign operative
You can go through Kari's post history here to find countless more examples of him abusing his power on BlueOregon in favor of Jeff Merkley. We shouldn't allow BlueOregon to be treated like this.
Kari, will you recuse yourself from all posts having to do with Novick-Merkley until after the primary?