Oregonian Outdoor Coverage ... A CALL FOR ACTION!

[Pete]

The Oregonian reduced fishing and outdoor reporting to almost nothing!

I read my paper this morning, looking for the usual Thursday section on fishing. I discovered, to my frustration, that it shrank to almost nothing. I e-mailed the Sports Editor ... his reply does nothing to ease my frustration.

PLEASE E-MAIL THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE TO VOICE YOUR OPINION!

- Dennis Peck, Sports Editor
dennispeck@news.oregonian.com
- Sandra Rowe, Editor
srowe@news.oregonian.com

__Pete's e-mail to the Oregonian's sports editor:_____

Mr. Peck,

I'm mystified. I live in Oregon and subscribe to the Oregonian newspaper. Oregon is a state where more fishing licenses are issued than driver's licenses. Oregon is a state where hundreds of millions of dollars a year are spent by sportfishers in pursuit of their sport. The Oregonian is a newspaper which publishes full page ads purchased by Fisherman's Marine and G I Joe's. Yet, the editorial policy focuses sports coverage in the Oregonian narrowly on passive, stadium-sports, wire service sports and golf. What am I missing?

It isn't advertising that drives coverage, the motor sports coverage proves that. It isn't number of readers involved the sport that drives coverage, there aren't nearly as many golfers in Oregon as there are sportfishers. It isn't for lack of subject matter: the Columbia is in the midst of the most prolific return of hatchery salmon in 65 years, boats are sinking, a 99.125 pound world record salmon was landed this week in British Columbia, steelheading on the Deschutes is as good as it ever gets, sea run cutthroat fishing is at its annual apex, a world record walleye was rumored caught in the Columbia this week ... so what is it? What about camping, hiking, white water rafting, kayaking, mountaineering, orienteering, bicycling, wind surfing, ocean surfing, rock climbing? Certainly there is no shortage of stories and no shortage of writers ready and willing to tell the tales and no shortage of businesses willing to provide advertising revenue. Why does the Oregonian provide so little coverage of active sports?

Would receiving e-mail from a thousand or more individuals who would like to see adequate coverage of sportfishing make a difference? I bet I could make that happen, but I don't know what it would accomplish.


__Dennis Peck's reply:_____

Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 09:33:05 -0700
From: "Dennis Peck" <dennispeck@news.oregonian.com>
To: Pete@mcube.net
Subject: Re: Outdoor Section

Mr. Morris:
I have seen the readership studies, the surveys, even the number of fishing licenses (which has declined the past 10 years). But the bottom line is, readers (at least those in the surveys) want spectator sports in their sports sections, by an overwhelming margin. We tried an outdoors section about a half-dozen years ago, filled with fishing and kayaking and hiking and windsurfing. It was named the best outdoors section in the country for two straight years, then it died because NOBODY would advertise. Even the big outdoors companies wanted to be in the main sports section, with the traditional sports readers, not in an outdoors section. So we cut outdoors from 8 pages to 2 and moved it back into sports. Nobody complained (much to my chagrine). When the newsprint prices went through the roof, outdoors went from 2 pages to 1. Nobody complained. Now, there's no outdoors page. There's a listing of events and we do outdoors features on an average of twice a month. A&E handles much of the participatory endeavours, with contributions from us. Our hiking/skiiing/sailing writer moved upstairs to Travel, where he writes about places to go "ing." And still, nobody has complained. And the fact of the matter is, by now if you were able to get 1,000 people to say they want more hiking news in the sports section, I would be hard-pressed to find either A) the person on staff to do it or B) what I would remove from the section to get it in.
I don't imagine this is going to convince you, but I hope at least you understand how we have reached this point.

Dennis Peck
Sports Editor
The Oregonian
(503) 221-8164

[garyk]

Welcome to Sandra Rowe's world, Pete. She's singlehandedly just about killed that paper.

First went the good reporters and writers, now whole sections, as you pointed out, have been deleted.

Soon, it'll just be 4 sections of Meier&Frank ads and classifieds.

Fortunately, places like ifish exist, and the Boregonian becomes less and less relevant.

Like the saying went a few years back -- "If It Matters to Oregonians, It's in the Washington Post"

[brshooter]

Mr. Peck knows how to score points doesn't he? I was suprised as well to see the fishing section reduced to an outdoor calendar about the size of a post card. It usually was about a quarter page with a small feature article or two.

As long as we are dropping a line to the Oregonian, maybe we should contact the Portland Tribune to see if they have any interest.

[Stz ll]

I just sent the Oregonian my 2 cents worth. I commented on how they can justify 3 pages on a stupid game like golf and not even have a fishing forcast. (Sorry for my opinion on golf to those of you who play the game). Actually if more people played golf there would not be so many boats on the water.

[img]images/icons/frown.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/frown.gif[/img]

I sent my opinion in too Pete. Fat lot of good it's going to do but that's what happens when you only have one newspaper. I expect to see Bill Monroe flipping burgers to make up for the loss of income. Thank God for ifish!!!

[Pete]

I agree, Gary and Stew, the Sandra Lowe homogonization of the Oregonian is unlikely to change, but I think this isn't an issue of reader marketing surveys so much as it's one of Northwest culture. We live in a region where salmon have been the central factor in culture and biology for longer than time. I don't know what the solution is, but I am outraged that some prissy lady from Newport News Virginia thinks she should be judging what is important for us to know based on a random sample of a few hundred people. Was it a survey of remaining readers or did it include people who have cancelled their subscriptions? Either way, her conclussions are wrong.

[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: Pete ]

[Gooseman]

I agree 100%!! I grew so tired of the Snore-Oregonian, that now I only get it on Sundays. The other 6 days, I've switched to the Columbian. Want to read the latest "outdoors" news releases, and some good reports? Give them a try online. http://www.columbian.com/sports/outdoors/

[wobble-wacker]

Pete

You are correct and finger pointing is required. Where does she think newsprint come from and the heritage of the region associated with wood chips along with the unique richness of this wonderous natural outdoors region.

Dick

[Gregotis98]

I'm sick of it and will cancel my subscription at the end of the month. I doubt if will help but wrote an e-mail to the Tribune requesting a fishing and hunting section. Glad to finally be done with this piece of *** wipe.

[Jennie@ifish]

I'm going to write, Bill's going to write.
I like The Daily Oregonian, and I want fight to keep it.
Newspaper... ahhhhh.. I couldn't live without it.
Ifish and internet is great, but there is just something about a piece of newspaper and coffee....
Jen

[WaterDog]

I agree with the rest of you that the Oregonian isnt outdoor friendly. BUT, with resouces like ifish, TGF, STS who needs it? If I want up to the minute info, it's only a click away. [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] And lets face it, over the last 10-15 years the people here in Oregon have changed. With all the growth Oregon has experienced most of the folks are yuppies for lack of a better term. [img]images/icons/frown.gif[/img] Us fishermen and hunters will always be around doing our thing, we just wont get much press. How many times have you been going home from a trip and had to wade through a bike race or a running race. Look around, Oregon is not the rough, individualist, outdoor, west coast boot hickery shirt wearing place it used to be. [img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif[/img] It's just a sign of the times. Yes its sad. [img]images/icons/frown.gif[/img]

So to folks like Jen, Frank Amato, Bob Rees, and Michael Teague, I say thanks. [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] The Oregonian can just go away! [img]images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]

[Silent Lucidity]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Even the big outdoors companies wanted to be in the main sports section, with the traditional sports readers, not in an outdoors section.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the drift away from fishing equipment by G.I. Joes is probably what he is referring to here.

[Whalerman]

If you want timely reports and info on fishing, in my opinion, the Vancouver, Columbian is hard to beat. The Oregonian, is a good newspaper otherwise, its a shame the outdoor reporting is lacking.

Whalerman

[Phish_on]

Looks like a lost cause to me. Take your "readership" elsewhere. They could have just written: "Dear Pete, we don't give a rip what you think, shut up."

I usually pick up the Sunday Oregonian so I can read Dilbert and Dave Barry, cruise the classifieds ... it provides some entertainment throughout the week.

I get my news from OPB/NPR ...

And for fishing reports, it's Ifish.net and "that other one" and some others.

In Salem, the Statesman-Journal just prints the ODFW reports, which can go all summer without changing ... completely useless.

[Silent Lucidity]

Phish:

Drop the Oregonian entirely. The Miami Herald has Dave's column online, and The Dilbert Zone carries the daily Dilbert as well as a four week archive. You can also cruise the classifieds here.

In short, if you don't like it don't pay for it. You CAN get it elsewhere for free.

[Bounty Hunter]

OK Everyone, let's not get too carried away. I dropped the following email to the above Oregonian addresses and this is how things went:

Mr. Peck and Ms. Rowe,

I want to let you know how disappointed I am at the lack of information in Thursday's fishing/outdoor section. That is one of the few pages of your paper that myself and my father regularly read. I understand that there might be a lack of sponsorship interest for that area of the sports section, but I feel think your paper should consider the interest of the readers as well. I may be naive, but I would think that the information that you have typically included in the fishing/outdoor section doesn't take much time to retrieve in this day and age. I am not going to waste your time with the insignificant threat of canceling my subscription, but I am disappointed that during the best salmon fishing time of one of the best years on record you decide to cut my favorite section of the newspaper back even more. (I am aware of the shrinking history the fishing section has had).

Please include more information next week.

Wade Strange

Reply:

We didn't cut you back deliberately this week. A last-minute emergency took our outdoors writer out of state temporarily and we had no one else to fill in. The report will return next week.

Dennis Peck
Sports Editor
The Oregonian

Thank you for the quick reply and explanation in response to my email. There were rumors circulating that the situation was more dire. I'll be looking forward to next week's edition.

Wade Strange

Reply

Please let anyone you know what I have told you, too. We're very sorry we couldn't react as quickly as we would have liked.

Dennis Peck
Sports Editor
The Oregonian