And I'm sure if I sent a similarly well reasoned critique titled "Blue Oregon's Sour Grapes", you'd publish my letter, right?

That the Bend Bulletin didn't publish this proves nothing. The Oregonian receives a ton of letters every day and can only publish so many. I'm sure it's a similar situation with the Bend Bulletin. Whereas, The Source Weekly probably gets far fewer letters and couldn't resist publishing this one that attacked the Bend Bulletin.

As Blue Oregon isn't a newspaper and doesn't publish anyone's critical letters about this web site, I find your criticism of the Bend Bulletin a little hollow. I'll bet if they'd been pro Measure 66/67, you wouldn't care at all about the letter in question.

Again, one anecdotal case proves nothing.

Um, ikeonice. Just "refresh" your screen, and I think you'll find that BlueOregon just did publish what you wrote, regardless of the fact that it makes no sense.

What a one trick pony! Abandon hope all ye that thought, "at last this crap is over"!

This is rich. Kari just got done saying how BO doesn't have an editorial position, that it is just a collection of pixels and bits. Were no "no on the measures" posts ever submitted? How is your choice of what to publish not an editorial statement? That's your point, isn't it, contrary to what Kari says.

I took it that your ignoring my submission and calling me a sock puppet- did they diss the 'dissenting voice' WITHOUT publishing him?- without bothering to contact the email address I supplied or the phone number was simply petty, personal viciousness. I didn't take it that you have an editorial position on population control. Does this guy have a history with them? Apply your critique of "nothing wrong with it" to my submission. Let's all analyze how it reflects on BO's editorial policy! "Hypocrite" does not begin to cover the bases.

We all heard the proclamation that you don't labor under the same standards. Does being print journ mean that they have to represent the community, because "Bend" is in the name, but BO doesn't, because it's a blog? I can't see the diff. Kevin suggested that we mosey along if we didn't like it, so why is that not equally applicable to your dislike of the Bend paper?

But perhaps you should bother to spend some time reading at Blue Oregon first.

There's no editorial board. Blue Oregon's publisher does not issue endorsements. If you do some reading, you'll see that the author of the present article (Carla) is officially neutral on the Bradbury/Kitzhaber race, while Kari Chisolm, who authors a lot of the content here, supports Kitzhaber (but Kari is also fairminded and posts comments responding to idiotic and inaccurate statements about Bradbury). You're tilting at windmills.

A letter to the editor at Blue Oregon is your comment posted above. As long as it even remotely addresses the topic, it will get posted. It's extraordinarily rare that an off-topic comment gets deleted at Blue Oregon. So please, post your "Blue Oregon's Sour Grapes" critique. And take your time with it -- there's no 150 word limit like with letters to the editor to the Oregonian -- so say your piece.

As to Milo Thornberry of Bend...THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU. That's a great letter, particularly the second paragraph statements on the sacred trust of government, and the sacred task of the press. Haven't heard it put better in a long, long time. Those words have power, and speak truth. I suspect that's why the Bulletin was afraid to print them.

Amen, Amen, Amen, Hallelujah! Milo Thornberry,of Bend!

She managed to define the core truth of our median nationally, and locally in a few paragraphs. Sign Her up!

"Washington and Salem must take steps to increase credibility and transparency"

I see the birth of a new bureaucracy -- the Department of Truth.

Orwell would not be surprised.

G

Posted by: Geoffrey Ludt | Feb 3, 2010 1:40:35 PM

Orwellian?! Seriously, Geoffrey where have you been? The Public Airways, the common sense restrictions our grandparents put on press ownership, and the restraints the acknowledge would have to exist to protect democracy where the acts of fools? The corporate complete control of our nations media and newspapers aren't disturbing to you, just when somebody should have the temerity to call them out? Orwell would be censored in today's corporate environment! Crawl out of that cavern you find yourself! Either both sides of an argument is heard, or you information is censored by those whom care little about you and everything about their message to manipulate you. Whichever way you lean, you must know that a free press means at least both side of a two party system is heard equally. Happy Thoughts; Tim

Carla,

As a daily reader of The Bulletin, there were numerous dissenting letters against the editorial board's position on measures 66/67. The Bulletin, like all other papers, also has a policy that limits the amount of times an individual's op-ed gets print, so as to allow other voices. I would suspect that Milo's letter was among hundreds received by the paper, and he may have recently opined. Just sayin'...

There were very eloquent letters written from both perspectives, and I firmly believe that The Bulletin gave both sides equal footing in the editorial section. Unless there's proof The Bulletin specifically singled out Milo and threw aside his letter, I'm not understanding the point of this post???

I don't necessarily disagree, Carla. I'm not aware of the situation, so of course I'm just throwing out possibilities. The Bulletin has been conservative as long as I can remember, so it wouldn't surprise me.

I think we need to know more about what you mean by "rejected." Did they simply not publish it? Or did they tell the author that they would not publish it? Huge difference....

Slow news day at Blue Oregon, eh?

To be fair, while there is no doubt The Bulletin is firmly entrenched in the conservative/pro-business camp and it fails on occasions to publish letters contrary to its own editorials, it does publish oppositional letters, including some that are strongly so. I have had several published that opposed what the editors supported. One problem I have with The Bully is that they don't publish letters that are in rebuttal to a letter that criticizes an earlier letter. While The Source Weekly is closer to my political philosophy, it has failed to publish letters I have submitted, a practice I have discontinued except occasionally on line.

I've had a few letters published and even more rejected by the Bulletin. In my experience, it seems that letters that criticize the newspaper directly are usually rejected. For example:

The Bulletin: False Advertising

It's a dam' shame BendBubble2 is no longer publishing his blog (which was at http://bendbubble2.blogspot.com. It now redirects to BendBlogs). If you wanted hyperbolic speak – man could he hyperbole. And it would have been a hell of a read too.

Slow news day at BlueO. Sure.

Carla posts something about conservative publishers acting conservatively, and the consistency hobgoblins come out, missing the point entirely.

Same-old, same-old.

I've lived in Oregon for 53 years. I don't recall ever seeing a copy of The Bend Bulletin anywhere. Please don't make them feel like they actually have any influence here.

I've been on quite a streak with the Bulletin lately having 4 to 5 of my letters printed within the past calender year. As many of you probably know my letters never agree with the Bulletin's Editors. Sometimes they e-mail me back and explain a reason they're not printing my letter which are always over sources not content. I rewrite the letter with the proper source or reference and they print it. Persistence pays off. But their real subterfuge which is insidious and extremely aggravating is timing. They will write and editorial, you respond that day and your letter is printed two weeks later. The moment has passed. Or if it really calls them or their point of view they will print it on Saturday the worst day to have your letter printed because folks usually read the sports and comics and pass on the Editorial page. The other problem with the Bulletin's Editorial page is the syndicated columns they choose to run. If you like Victor David Hanson, Brooks and Krauthammer you will love the Bulletin.

FYI The Bulletin Editorial in Question.

Make new taxes truly temporary Published: January 28. 2010 4:00AM PST

Tuesday’s election was a triumph for lawmakers, like Bend’s Judy Stiegler, who voted to raise taxes. It was also a victory for public employee unions, whose members will pocket much of the new money and, as always, funnel plenty of it to the campaigns of lawmakers who stoke their unsustainable gravy train. Welcome to the great state of Orefornia — half Oregon, half California, all messed up.

Fortunately, the very Legislature that gave Oregonians the tax package can amend it. Oregon just needs a few new legislators.

Tuesday’s vote says one thing and one thing only: Oregonians prefer the Legislature’s tax increases to the only alternative on the ballot, which was no tax increases. Their preference, meanwhile, was fairly tepid. About 1.2 million votes were cast for Measure 67, the corporate tax hike. If only 37,100 of those voting “yes” had voted “no,” it would have failed.

We wouldn’t be surprised if Oregonians, given the chance, would choose truly temporary tax increases. These would end after a couple of years, returning the state’s tax code to its pre-2009 condition. Moderating Measures 66 and 67 in this fashion would allow the state to patch its current budget hole without scaring away businesses and successful professionals over the long term. Challengers to pro-tax incumbents like Stiegler should offer voters such a middle ground.

Assuming the Legislature had the votes to do it, reining in Measures 66 and 67 would be straightforward.

Measure 66 raises tax dramatically on income over $125,000 for single filers. Such income, previously taxed at 9 percent, will be taxed at no less than 10.8 percent. Beginning in tax year 2012, the rate will drop to 9.9 percent and stay there. The Legislature should change the law and drop the rate all the way back down to 9 percent in 2012. By national standards, that’s still very high.

If the Legislature makes no other change to Measure 66, it should at least index the top-tax threshold to inflation. A permanent $125,000 threshold will serve as a stealth tax hike, allowing inflation to push hundreds, if not thousands, of people into the high-tax bracket every year.

Measure 67 raises business taxes in a number of ways, but none of the changes are as damaging as those affecting C corporations. Their minimum tax will now be based on gross Oregon sales, which isn’t a reflection of profitability. This element of the tax code, too, should disappear when the recession ends.

In addition to hiking the corporate minimum, Measure 67 raises taxes on net income. Though the new income tax rate steps down gradually over the next few years, a higher rate will remain for net income above $10 million. As with Measure 66, corporate income tax rates should return eventually to their pre-2009 levels.

Tuesday’s election was disappointing, but it shouldn’t end Oregon’s fiscal debate. The Legislature raised taxes permanently in the midst of a temporary, if painful, recession. Would-be lawmakers this year should make the case for rendering the tax increases themselves temporary.

youbetcha The Bulletin just can't stand the fact a Democrat represents Bend in Salem.

By the by - you'll should see the expression on the Editorial staffs face when as a candidate you present a liberal progressive point of view. It's great fun.

I remember following a friend's campaign in the Bulletin in the early 90s. Not satisfied with editorial comment, there were news stories which sounded pretty close to "this candidate, who has a lot of stupid ideas, said today...".

No action of the legislature is truly permanent. If that were true, Karen Minnis would have been bound by the actions of Vera Katz, the first woman Speaker.

"Or maybe it used to be true and isn't anymore." I think - it ain't true no more.

Most of the people I know tend to take their news online from the wire services, and then peruse the various blogs. This way we can pick out a few blogs where we know the spin. Read a few left, right, and center to see how things are shakin' out.

Though a few friends still have a newspaper subscription (which the rest of mooch on occasion), generally I don't think their reputation is quite what it used to be...

The Sandy Post, published by Pamplin, has a similar editorial policy when it comes to articles about the police.

There has been a number of issues with the local LE in our part of Clackamas County of late (5 or 6 lawsuits for excessive force - including the Kaady suit which Sandy just settled for $1 million, 2 cops being forced to resign, etc.). Until about a year ago, these articles always inspired the most comments - most of which criticized the police. A lot of them criticized the Post's reporting.

Since then, the Post hasn't allowed comments on any article about the police, even the one about Sandy's Chief of Police retiring. Until, that is, the city won one of those lawsuits. The headline oh-so-impartially bleats that the police were "vindicated." And magically, comments are now allowed.

I submitted a comment taking the Post to task for this inconsistent editorial policy. They nixed it and it never appeared online.

Censorship is alive and well right here in the metro area.

I'm not understanding the point of this post???

I think the previous comment, pretty well covered that.

What a one trick pony!

I take it in context. Carla Lee is Bruce Lee's daughter. It's all FU fighting. I wasn't very impressed with Enter the Snark (though I like the idea). Stuck in these interminable sequels to "Fingers of Fury", it would be nice to see another style in the sequel. Okinawan tae kwon do?

"What makes this particular letter interesting is the strong case it lays out against the paper itself, including what the author seems to believe is guided by a lack of independence from those who write checks for advertising."

Carla: The Bulletin has published letters that strongly criticized its editorial opinions, not as crudely as some Blue Oregon contributors might be when they criticize others but tantamount to saying the Bulletin was doing a lousy job.

I might add that on a couple of occasions when it looked like the Bulletin wasn't going to publish letters in which I disagreed with their editorials I had to bring the Statement of Ethical Principles of the Associated Press Managing Editors to their attention.

Someone is rhapsodically enamored with one particular letter to the editor not printed by The Bend Bulletin and we're supposed to believe there's some great conspiracy afoot to suppress dissenting voices?

I might add that on a couple of occasions when it looked like the Bulletin wasn't going to publish letters in which I disagreed with their editorials I had to bring the Statement of Ethical Principles of the Associated Press Managing Editors to their attention.

So, why not have BO advance blogging by adopting its own such code, going beyond the original intent of a blog, to simply regurg whatever was on the mind that day.

Carla's just old school!

Posted by: alcatross | Feb 4, 2010 12:39:04 PM

Someone is rhapsodically enamored with one particular letter to the editor not printed by The Bend Bulletin and we're supposed to believe there's some great conspiracy afoot to suppress dissenting voices?

We're supposed to believe it, get aroused, and shout insults in unison, or we're not down with the progressive agenda. Probably trolls. Meanwhile, we're supposed to ignore the people that are kidnapped by our government everyday, using our tax dollars (and recreational drug money), in violation of international and local law. No, my sense of social justice just burns to think the Bend paper might have an editorial bias!

You might read something that doesn't seem fair. My friends in NE Pakistan might have a hellfire missile come through their kitchen window. Sounds about even. That would be because we're a more advanced society, no doubt. But no, there are concrete things everyone can do. For starters, we can make sure the Oregon lege high-fives the poops in the Gulf every session. That's being progressive!

There is an underlying theme here that is common to many other debates on Blue Oregon and other media. That is, to portray the object being discussed in the starkest terms; either black or white instead of a more likely gray. If someone criticizes some aspect of a person or group, this is all too often taken as absolute condemnation and responders commonly go on to say how he or she or the organization is a model of virtue approaching perfection, despite the human element being involved. As long as we run to the outer fringes - whether left or right, red or blue - we'll create a probability of never finding the common ground in between.

The Source is an alt weekly that lives to tweak it's nose at the Bulletin. They are constantly on the look-out for ways to one-up the daily. Carla, you fell for a big non-story here. This is as much a story as BO not publishing some of my stuff. No Big Deal

This is as much a story as BO not publishing some of my stuff. No Big Deal

It is. That's not an editorial policy? The pixels and bits decided not to publish it? Let me guess; no reason given? What else is it but editorial policy? I have no doubt it was better than a lot of the measures stuff that got tossed up here.

Point being, like you said, we all take it and say "no big deal". I understand the difference between a paper and a blog. That's why I mentioned maybe raising this a level by putting out BO's own code of conduct.

Zarathustra commented: No, my sense of social justice just burns to think the Bend paper might have an editorial bias!

As if The Oregonian hasn't had an editorial bias for YEARS... so much so that a few recent conservative signals is seen here at Blue Oregon as heresy. How dare The Oregonian desert the one true blue religion to occasionally consort with the enemy!

"As if The Oregonian hasn't had an editorial bias for YEARS..."

Is there any other newspaper or other form of media without a bias?

Just had to say, "pablum puking liberals"! You really bleed for anyone that wants to kill us.

OK, SHOT is over, time to refocus on shooting dirty bearded men in the face. What are you gonna do to help win the GWOT? As my good friend Dave says we can do it "one round at a time".

It is obvious this publication does not serve the public interest. If the public interest is not served, then the advertisers need not be used by readers which I believe would lead to a withdrawal of advertising dollars. Without advertising dollars a newspaper cannot continue to publish.

<h2>This is a knowable thing. When letters are rejected, the reason is given. There are guidelines printed on the editorial page that outline what will and won't be published, along with other restrictions, like word counts. Did anyone ask The Bully, or the writer of the letter, what the reason given was?</h2>