OBAMA KEEPS JOB: Headline writers at the Oregonian suck

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

Stumbling to my front door this morning, I was looking forward to grabbing the Oregonian and sharing the historic headline with my four-year-old son - who's been terribly concerned about the president's campaign.

I shouldn't be surprised anymore, but "OBAMA KEEPS JOB" is really one of the lamest headlines ever. I've been convinced for years that there's a headline writer at the O with his thumb on the scale. I remember back in 2008 and 2010, there would be hard-hitting stories about Gordon Smith and Chris Dudley written by Oregonian reporters that would get these milquetoast headlines.

The Oregonian just posted and tweeted a selection of newspaper front pages from around the country. Even a regular Sesame Street viewer could tell that one of these things is not like the others. Am I wrong?

Comments

    • (Show?)

      That was really the best part - Montana, Tennessee, West Virginia, Kentucky and Georgia were blue, but somehow it still added up to 303?

    • (Show?)

      I hadn't noticed the map, but I dug it out of the recycling last night - and holy cow, you're right.

      How does that happen?!

  • (Show?)

    The headline?? The Oregonian sucks!!! Period Time to give it an indecent burial.

  • (Show?)

    What a sad headline Kari. One of those things is not like the others. We did not get the paper today (it's their fault) and I'm so glad you posted that. Even at $3/week, it's not worth the time it takes to recycle.

    • (Show?)

      I enjoy the reporting, but read it online, so what's the point of subscribing, is my point. That, plus the other.

      • (Show?)

        There's reporting? I thought it was all pulp to incite flamewars on OLive and drive up pageviews, and fill column inches, both with the ultimate purpose for selling ads for Depends and Fixodent.

  • (Show?)

    All those newspapers are well and fine, but how does it compare to the New Zealand Herald's headline (at least on their website for a period of time)?

  • (Show?)

    Kari, that was exactly my reaction when I picked up the O this morning.

    What a difference from four years ago, when the paper ran a full page photo of Obama.

    The only reason why I keep subscribing to this rag is that I need something for my cat and me to read in the morning over coffee.

  • (Show?)

    I giggled with glee when I found this little gem from the O in their election aftermath reporting: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/11/oregon_lawmakers_should_take_u.html

  • (Show?)

    Is the Oregonian the best that Portland can do?? Isn't there some alternative, or another choice for a news outlet and community forum?

  • (Show?)

    I think that Richard Meeker's article is apropos to the discussion about newspapers in Portland.

    http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-19873-a_note_from_the_publisher.html

  • (Show?)

    I cancelled my subscription to the Oregonian when I lived in Portland. It's terrible.

  • (Show?)

    Kari ~ Thanks so much for pointing this out. Lame doesn't even begin to describe the Oregonian. Glad you're there to fill in the blanks.

  • (Show?)

    Not surprising. They suck at pretty much everything. Worked at Oregon Live (and then Advanced Internet when they merged all the operations) for quite some time and they can't even get labor law right (we were employees, not contractors, but guess who got stuck with that tax bill?).

  • (Show?)

    I really like the Las Vegas paper.

  • (Show?)

    "Obama Again" at L.A. Times is sort of comparable, possibly worse depending on what inflection you give it.

    But consider the The Spokesman Review from Spokane, owned by the conservative Coe family. Or better yet, The Arizona Republic, which is not generally considered a liberal torch-bearer.

    There is a generosity and a sense of decent nationhood (as opposed to cramped, xenophobic or jingoistic nationalism) in their responses. The O by contrast shows narrow vision and smallness of mind and spirit. It's not necessitated by the new editorial regime being conservative. Rather it seems to be a bellwether that the new regime is choosing among the lesser of conservatism's possibilities.

  • (Show?)

    Why The Oregonian is no longer a great newspaper, in one lacklustre headline.

    It's bad enough that The Big O didn't have the courage to choose to endorse between a candidate on 'their' side that they didn't like and a candidate on 'our' side that they apparently dispised. The only thing I'm not is surprised, but coupled with the cowardice that was their non-endorsement for President ("We sure wish someone else was running instead of Romney") I'd say the Oregonian has really hit a low point.

    What we need now is a good liberal newspaper in town. Too bad print is dying.

  • (Show?)

    Hey, it's got to be a tough job, trying to push super-right ideologies in a very-liberal market. I bet that the headline was the one they eventually decided upon after arguing all night about it.

  • (Show?)

    I have been astonished for a long time that this is the big paper in Multnomah Co and held to be the biggie in Oregon. yeah, I also wonder how long it took them to decide on that headline...

  • (Show?)

    Thanks to Nick Wirth for the New Zealand Herald headline : "Once you go black, you never go back!" I am dismayed that the Oregonian doesn't reflect the population of Oregon. It might be suitable in Cave Junction (no offense to them) but not Portland, our shining star of liberal thinking in Oregon. A great victory happened despite all the money thrown at the President. Not being defeated isn't quite the same as a great victory.

connect with blueoregon