Oregonian Editor Commentary: Anyone see it??

[TheRogue]

Today's Oregonian commentary section had a column from the Editor....I'm not sure if it was good or bad, but it did touch upon the problems many of us pointed out from Mr. Brinckmans "article" about hatchery costs. The column seems to say many of us over-reacted and read too much into the hatchery cost article, but it does also appear to acknowledge that the article itself was not well written, and slanted in a way to cause some misunderstanding.

Power of the internet, I fully believe the only reason there was any sort of response at all is because of Ifish.net, and the knowledgeable people involved.

Now, if they'll just work on a large piece to get all the information, not just what they've blurted out, and maybe also get it back into the Metro or Main section, not buried in the Commentary??

TR

[fishisabonus]

Bill, are you out there? He has a point. Can, or could the Oregonian write something like. Can you use some of your pull?????

The Rouge writes:
Now, if they'll just work on a large piece to get all the information, not just what they've blurted out, and maybe also get it back into the Metro or Main section, not buried in the Commentary??

[Hogmaster]

Yep, TR, Pete had a thread on this early this am...

Click here... (http://www.ifish.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=017462)

Thanks for the assist in this!

:cheers:

[TheRogue]

Ooops, you're right!! I checked, but missed it. Left early this morning to feed the 20" sturgeon smelt and shrimp all day :wink: :wink: :wink:

The editor had responded back to me a few days ago and said he was pondering doing a piece on it.

TR

[ 11-24-2002, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: TheRogue ]

[GutshotApe]

TR et al - I can't remember any similalr previous public admission of what amounts to poor reporting coming from The Oregonian.....or any other paper. You guys must have pushed the right buttons somewhere in your emails! I appreciate what Mr.Hortsch said about being under deadline pressure and believe that was probably the main reason for the faux pas, more so than anti-hatchery bias, anyhow.

Well done. :cheers:

[Bill Monroe]

There are a couple of things at work here...

First, it's not the power of the Internet, but rather of readers. You just happened to be among the most vocal...there were plenty of others on the phone and mail, too.

More than that, though, our editor created that position (Dan's got it now, but his term will be up soon and someone else gets thrown into the barrel) to get through to readers that this is their paper, too...we're doing our best to be responsive and own up to our shortcomings...I don't think you'll see that in other media.

And yes, we're (I'm) starting work on looking at economics...but remember, we're going to objectively report that as well...whether or not it's something we all like or agree with.

The important thing is that everyone at the paper, from Jonathan to me to Dan to the editor, try our best every day...sometimes it works better than others...

[Hogmaster]

:cheers:

Thanks for that Bill. And standing up and pointing out positives about your organization.

Most really want balance, at least I believe that, so thanks for supporting the idea of getting the truest picture possible!

[STGRule]

GSA: Actually that Sunday column by the editor is there every Sunday. It is very common for him to explain/apologize/rationalize/standfirm for actions of writers and editors in that column.

[GutshotApe]

STG - Yeah, I've seen the column before but can't recall a similar admission. But then, I can't recall what I had for lunch, so that's not saying a lot. :whazzup:

It would be really remarkable to see the Eugene R-G :shocked: admit to such a mistake as openly as the Oregonian did.

Even though their circulation dept. leaves a lot to be desired, I've read the Oregonian for years and my respect for the paper has risen a notch. :cheers:

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

The following is a link to a different perspective of the same audit.

web page (http://znetprime.znetsolutions.com/cbb.nsf/18adc0bb1cff03ec88256815005bc818/73be4be86c1700ac88256c7900807d7f?OpenDocument)

*** Clerk

[Straydog]

Thanks ***!

Interesting contrast.

The question begging for an answer is how does the department intend for this audit to measure cost "effectiveness" when it does not address economic and other societal benefits in the equation?

[GutshotApe]

Just read the report at the link on ***'s post and have one word in response: Dudetax! :wink: