"...It's not just advertisers. Tick off your sources, and they stop talking. It's exacerbated in a small town, as there are a very limited number of sources," per Dennis Dugan in a comment on this blog.
So we need to realize, when we read the Express, that reporters won't ask tough questions of regular "sources" because that might make them mad, and then they will refuse to talk to the reporters in the future.
This is a cop out: The sources need the paper as much as the paper needs them. I say, "Go ahead! Piss them off!" Then if they refuse to comment for future stories, just write that they refused to comment! They would look petty and manipulative, as some of them no-doubt are!
How would they look if these were actual (they are not) quotes in Express stories"
"Jim Robinson refused to comment when asked about proposed school district budget changes."
"Steve Kelley refused to comment when asked about the high school lockdown last week."
"District Office administrator Ticked-off Tommy refused to comment on reports he was angry after the last board meeting."
"Polly put-off declined to talk to an Express reporter, saying she was mad about last week's story on the school district."
These power-brokers in Lebanon NEED the Express as much as the Express needs them. This may also be true of advertisers, now that I think of it.
So the bottom line here is: Read The Express with 5 grains of salt -- Know that reporters and the editor are most likely careful to print stories that favor the current power brokers. The stories are not likely to be objective, thoughtful accounts of events or issues facing this community.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Asking tough questions and not angering sources are two very different things. Don't conflate them - it is possible to do both.
A source, by the way, is anyone who gives information to the paper, on or off the record. There's no reason to put the word in scare quotes... except, perhaps, to spin something.
Your conclusion, by the way, is not at all supported by your evidence. There's a world of difference between "not asking tough questions" (which isn't necessarily true) and "printing stories that favor power brokers." The leap is a nice rhetorical trick, but it's still rhetoric.
IE,the claims made in this post are very insulting to the staff of the Express. I'm sure you're not surprised that this makes me a little angry.
I can understand you being angry, Dennis. Sometimes what one person believes is insulting to another. We both know you have voiced opinions that have been insulting to me as well, but that's part of sharing ideas and beliefs, and challenging our own ideas.
Can you recall one story or editorial that seriously challenges Robinson's behavior or decisions, in all the years he's been here?
Why would a story challenge Robinson's behavior or decisions? A (news) story should not.
An editorial, on the other hand, certainly could, and I'm not aware of any.
On the other hand, I'm not sure Robinson has done anything particularly illegal, except for maybe the asbestos removal thing. Unethical and objectionable, definitely, at least from the point of view of many. Abrasive? Surely. Illegal? Eh, not so much.... unless you have an example I'm unaware of.
Dennis -- We agree that stories should be objective -- and decisions about what to feature, what to leave out, who to interview and about what, etc. all color how objective the story is.
Well, let's see...seems like Robinson was determined to be illegal when he told Kim she couldn't exercise her right to free speech and talk directly with school board members. And Robinson's decisions around contracting out custodians were illegal. Were there editorials pointed out his illegal behaviors? I think not.
Hee. Did you just imply that the Express should have called out Robinson on a policy that was not, in fact, illegal until the ruling? Or should the Express have condemned after the ruling?
Certainly KF disagreed with the communications policy, and rightly so. It was a stupid policy as far as I'm concerned. But there was no reason to think it was all that out of line in comparison to other districts, or even controversial. Heck, maybe the Express agreed with the policy. I don't know.
Second, I also think the custodial thing was a bad move on Robinson's part. Not only did he lose the legal fight, I disagree with his proposed course of action in the first place. That said, again, it wasn't a particularly unheard of move. Outsourcing labor and bypassing a union is practically an American pastime these days.
You might also consider who owns the Lebanon Express when you make statements about the editorial stances they take (or don't take, as the case may be). I would not be surprised to find out that the positions taken by the paper are influenced by people who have never set foot in Oregon, much less Lebanon. The highly corporatized newspaper industry is funny like that.
Something is not illegal until ruled so? We better tell LT, as she/he has been throwing that charge around alot RE people she/he doesn't agree with.
Yes, I would imagine corporate owners tell local managers not to upset any powerful localcrats. So, again, we all have to keep that in mind as we read the Express, and take reports there with 5 grains of salt.
Yes, that's correct - in some cases. Many things are not 'illegal' until a person or group of people makes the decision to declare them illegal. Where do you think laws come from, anyway?
Robinson's policy was not already illegal, otherwise he would have never put it into place. The ERB (I think it was the ERB) had simply never made a ruling one way or another regarding that particular policy. That's how new policies and regulations often come into being, after all.
Well I think it's easy to make excuses for potentially illegal behavior by one we support, and to cry illegal and foul (when no rulings have been made) on those we distain.
That's fine, IE, but notice that in both instances you mention I disagreed with Robinson's actions in the first place, illegal or no.... and that I was not blogging when they occurred.
Also notice that I do provide supporting evidence when I criticize decisions made by, say, Alexander or Wineteer, and that I am careful to indicate when I think someone might have broken a law or code and when I think they have merely behaved in a way that hurts the district.
If your comment is in regards to LT, you should take that up with LT directly. If you've noticed, I tend to leave my disagreements with LT in the comments to their blog.
Dennis -- Fair enough on the LT reference. I do probably lump you together at times, as you both seem to generally support the current administration and have opposed a changing of the guard there.
It may be that you are more careful about screaming "illegal" about actions by board members you disrespect, and that I have unfairly lumped you in with the rants of LT.
It does seem you guys generally sing harmony on the same songs, though I am recalling times you have disagreed with LT, and that you once called LT on a point of arrogance around the view one needs a graduate education to have a valid opinion on educational matters.
I have posted several times in the past on LT's blog, though not recently. Guess it seemed there was no point as LT's views seem rigidly held and defended.
I did start this blog to provide a rational view of issues around education in Lebanon, and an alternate place for people to post on this topic.
I should probably add this disclaimer, too, since I haven't in some time: I speak for me and me only. My opinions surrounding the Express are limited to those I can devise using publicly available knowledge, and are my own. They are not based on secret information.
And no, I was not made to write that. I just don't want anyone assuming I know something other people don't.
Post a Comment