Open Letter To Michael Arrieta-Walden, 'Oregonian' Public Editor
Please Explain Your Paper's JTTF Coverage
In today's Sunday Oregonian, the paper's public editor considers blogs and their role in the world of journalism. It's a generally positive view, so that's not our issue. But given some of what he writes, we need to issue a public challenge.
Arrieta-Walden discusses a couple of national stories regarding the media itself which were much discussed amongst blogs, but never covered in the news pages of The Oregonian. However, he says, they were discussed in the paper's editorial pages. All of which prompts him to make an observation.
That is evidence of the lack of influence of the newsroom on editorial or editorial writers on news stories. More important to this debate, it also symbolizes the gulf between bloggers and newsrooms.
We've made reference to that wall recently, not to question it, but to ask about the existence of another wall -- namely, whether or not the editorial board is supposed to exert influence over the use and content of the paper's op-ed pages, as appears to be the case (see this item as well) at The Oregonian.
When we wrote the just-linked item, we wrote Arrieta-Walden and asked him what he viewed as the role of a newspaper's op-ed pages. What we were trying to get at was whether or not it was appropriate to use them to give greater play to echoes of the editorial board's own opinions, while at the same time pretending the newspaper is fair and "objective".
We never received a reply. So here is our dual challenge to Arrieta-Walden.
First, please answer our original question: What is the role of the newspaper op-ed pages? Here's a starting point, which suggests that "[u]nlike a newspaper's signature editorial page where the discourse agenda is set by the editorial gatekeepers, the op-ed page is the one place in the paper where public discourse, through the mediation of a service editor, can emerge unfettered."
Second, you suggest some ways that newspapers could make use of the work of blogs, including "reporters and editors more routinely checking blogs as tip sheets" or "devoting a reporter or editor to monitor blogs for a column that could point readers to the wheat and warn them about the chaff".
So, if you would, take a look at our own reporting here on this blog and explain why The Oregonian -- whose editorial board has consistently misrepresented the debate over the Joint Terrorism Task Force in an effort to undercut legitimate debate -- has never once reported on the reality of Portland's participation or on the specific details (meaning, beyond generalities) of how current oversight procedures work.
February 27, 2005 at 12:34 PM
Mr. Arrieta-Walden,
If you're reading this Communique post, count me in as a signatory of their open letter to you.
Regards.
February 27, 2005 at 10:27 PM
Dear public editor for the paper.... GREAT JOB!
February 27, 2005 at 10:59 PM
So in other words, Jack, you're so scared that you'd lose the fight if Oregonians were allowed to know the facts, that you congratulate the newspaper for ignoring, distorting, or dismissing those facts, in the name of winning the debate.
Nice.
February 27, 2005 at 11:03 PM
Dear Mr. Arrieta-Walden,
I would love to see a detailed response to the above charges, because I am losing respect for the Oregonian as time goes on. I've seen several blatant examples of bias in the past few months--usually erring towards what the popular viewpoint is. Whether people agree with your editorial's position or not is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not your paper has behaved with integrity.
February 28, 2005 at 05:37 AM
Hey, they are right on the story you were upset over. Your right on the lack of response, HELL! you do a better job. Your too far left, more then they are,but the Public-editor has no guts, and you do. So stay after them.
March 01, 2005 at 12:29 AM
I would not count on Arrieta-Walden giving you anything more than a canned, straight from the editors response. I had the opportunity to question him in person regarding the horrible timing of his rag's coverage of the David Wu "scandal" and how it coincided with the paper's political endorsement of his opponent Goli Ameri right after it occured. He fed me some line of shit and then made a comment in private, off the record, about how he felt it was unfortunate how it was handled but that it was a decision the editorial staff made, they had the info regarding the "scandal" way before they endorsed Ameri but conviniently could not verify it until JUST AFTER their endorsement of Ameri. He is a tool. More so than he should be. At least he recognizes the level to which the Oregonian is corrupt.
March 03, 2005 at 02:30 PM
Yes Arrieta-Walden is a tool of an editorial crowd that works for an elite and is so agenda oriented that it can often undermine itself, plummeting the paper's credibility. While this is laughable in a way, it is mostly infuriating, especially when one considers that the public is being misled on community issues. Too many reporters act like a little family protected by their parental editors, who , no matter what anyone says, are into promoting agenda in terms of the news stories they select and will allow. I will post a more visible comment giving an example - a fiasco I endured with the paper at a later time. The firewall of which Arrieta-Walden speaks is more mythical than he cares to admit-at least on the record. But in his heart, he knows that the place is little more than propaganda central for the Good Old establishment.