(Updated) 'Oregonian' Abuses Its Op-Ed Responsibilities
Exerts Firm Control Over JTTF Debate, While Pretending To Be Balanced
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
The normal company line from mainstream newspapers is at least twofold. First, they claim to be committed to a balanced presentation of the issues facing the public. Second, they argue that there is a wall between the editorial and news operations.
As to the first, while we question the legitimacy of the concept of balance, insofar as it too often is taken to an extreme "he said/she said" variety which actually undercuts the public's understanding, our central issue with balance is that we want media outlets to be up front about their policies and biases. In other words: No pretense of balance where there obviously is none.
As to the second, opinions differ. While there indeed may be that much-vaunted wall between editorial and news functions, there isn't necessarily one which prevents a newspaper from exerting editorial will over the content of its op-ed pages in order to buttress the arguments of its own editorials.
Our case in point is today's edition of The Oregonian, in which the paper uses its editorial power to place more weight behind its own stance regarding the Joint Terrorism Task Force. Relegating a short response from Commissioner Randy Leonard to the letters to the editor section, the paper gives over precious op-ed inches to a longer commentary by James B. Jeddeloh, chairman of the so-called Citizens Crime Commission (an arm of the Portland Business Alliance).
Here's the journalistic crime being committed by The Oregonian when it handles the matter in this way without being up front about using its editorial power to weight the debate in its own favor.
First, Jeddeloh's piece is very nearly a carbon copy of the paper's own most-recent editorial, almost to the point where if it wasn't appearing in The Oregonian, the paper might have grounds to complain of plagiarism.
Second, the paper rejected a longer item from Leonard (pdf) intended for the very "In My Opinion" section which the paper gave over to Jeddeloh's parrotting of the paper's own opinion.
For weeks now, the paper's editorial board has been hammering home its own position regarding the JTTF, usually disregarding inconvenient facts and sometimes (as was the case most recently) misinforming its readers. Not content with those disservices, they've now made use of their op-ed page to relegate JTTF critics to the letters page, while granting prime commentary space to someone who was content merely, in essence, to repeat the paper's own editorial but sign his name to it.
For the sake of insider context, we await a response from Michael Arietta-Walden, the paper's public editor, regarding what he sees as the paper's op-ed responsibilities.
Update
Because our Internet connection is in serious flakage mode at the moment, we didn't notice that Leonard posted his own response to this matter over at BlueOregon.
February 23, 2005 at 02:18 PM
It really chaps my hide to read lies about the oath of office our Commissioners took. One more time, it's NOT public safety they swore to, it's maintaining out rights. From Portlandonline,
I , (name), do solemnly (affirm or swear) I will support the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Oregon; Charter of the City of Portland and its laws; I will faithfully, honestly and ethically perform my duties as (Mayor/Commissioner/Auditor); I have no undisclosed financial interest in any business located in Portland or having contracts with the City; I hold no other office or position of profit; and I am not a member of any partisan political committee (; so help me God).
I think our Commissioners are just (and courageously) doing their job when they demand proper oversight.
February 25, 2005 at 10:37 PM
It really chaps my hide to read lies about the oath of office our Commissioners took. One more time, it's NOT public safety they swore to, it's maintaining out rights. From Portlandonline,
It really "piss's me off too William, your dead wrong, and if your dead, who cares about your rights.
As I said......what laws? This town and you "people" take great pride in breaking laws, Stop signs with bikes...public property, ie. building ledges/Trey Arrow...riots just because Bush 41-43 is in town. I'm sick of it too.
There is a cold fact you miss, it is the first job of any elected from the president on down to Randy Leonard, and he is doing a crap job of it by playing politics, and that is all it is.
February 27, 2005 at 11:17 PM
Jack, I'm trying to have intelligent debate with you here, but you really put a damper on that with all the "you people" stuff that simply doesn't apply to me or most of the liberals I know.
Now, if you think Randy's job #1 is to keep us safe then show me where it says that. His swearing in oath doesn't say a thing about it. Sorry, but your opinion just doesn't cut it if you can't back it up.
As to your "dead wrong" comment, I wish you'd be a bit more of a patriot. When the Declaration of Independence was signed, those who signed it recognized the grave risk to their safety, the safety of their family, and the safety to others who opposed the tyranny of the Brits and the East India Company. They recognized, thankfully, that job #1 is about our rights and NOT safety--one of them had such a level of disdain for people like you that he went so far as to say you were licking the master's boots. I don't say that as an insult, but just as something to get you thinking; what is it about your position that could engender such loathing from our founding fathers?
Quite frankly, putting safety over freedom just isn't patriotic. At all. I recognize that you want to do what's best for this country but I can't cut you any slack just because you're a vet. As far as this particular thread goes, I'm done. I'll be focusing on our other current thread as time allows.