Links to Me
Currently
Latest Review
No reviews yet!
Recent Comments
Re: “Calling Bullshit On The Recall Recall”
I remember quite well. The sum total of the Mercury's "investigative reporting" on the Ruiz matter was interviewing Tom Miller and reprinting his claim that he hired Ruiz without even consulting Sam. You can google all day long and never find a Mercury article that explores the impact of Ruiz's duplicity on the paper's news coverage.
The larger point is that the Mayor and the Mercury have a common interest here. The Mercury's 10-month editorial stance of "nothing to see here, no scandal, move along now..." is as transparently self-serving as the Mayor's various lies have been. Both would like nothing more than for the community to forget all about their ethical breaches.
And the implication of Stu's above post is that the Mercury's issues somehow parallel similar ones at the Willamette Week, and that deserves a rebuttal. Whatever you may think of them, I guarantee if a WW reporter acted similarly, Mark Zusman would be out front, taking every imaginable step to protect his paper's reputation as a credible news source.
The Mercury makes no such pretense. It brushes off the topic with snide comments like the one Matt posted above. What he really means when trying to be funny is that readers should look to the Mercury when they want to know what dj is spinning records at what club Friday night, but the "news" stories are all pretty much a joke that nobody sould expect a whole lot from.
Re: “Calling Bullshit On The Recall Recall”
I don't doubt that that's true, Matt.
Stu: You might have a perfectly valid compaint about Nigel, but what you're describing isn't a conflict of interest. It's a major stretch to say that keeping the story alive is, in itself, a conflict, unless you think that without this story, news would dry up and WW would lay off it's entire news staff.
Amy was the Mercury's reporter at City Hall and was working on many stories on various issues relating to the Mayor --Beau being only one of them --while submitting a resume and going through interviews for a very high-paying job in the Mayor's office.
Your comment suggests that her superiors at the Mercury were unaware that this was going on. If that's true her integrity is in serious question, but we don't know whether it's true, because the Mercury has never said either way. If they were in the dark about it, they would surely say so, because their objectivity as journalists hangs in the balance.
Instead, they've said nothing about this issue, and have actually used their platform to obfuscate and change the subject. This makes it a *continuing* conflict of interest, even with Amy long gone. Their silence confirms their complicity and makes suspect every statement they make about this story.
Re: “Calling Bullshit On The Recall Recall”
Funny stuff! If you can find a conflict of interest in the Willy Week's coverage, let's hear some more about it. Until then, you're just changing the subject, albeit in a hee-larious way.
Re: “Calling Bullshit On The Recall Recall”
What's really getting tiresome is The Mercury's constant rewrite of the same editorial. Hardly a day has passed in the last 10 months without yet another piece from you trashing the recall, defending Sam Adams and claiming there's nothing to the criticisms but homophobia.
The reason is clear as day: Your paper's journalistic integrity --pretty slim to begin with -- went into the shitter when your management allowed your reporting to take a backseat to a reporters' desire for a cushy job at the city. Oddly enough, none of your diatribes ever seem to mention your complicity in all this.
So as long as we're going around calling bullshit on stuff, how about this: I call bullshit on the Mercury's sactimonious, predictable and self-serving editorial stance on the Sam Adams issue.
Re: “Vote For The Best New Leaders”
Measure 49 was two years ago.
Re: “NYT Gets Woofy On Pearl District Dogs”
The NYT scooped you in your own backyard on the dog poop in the Safeway story. Hopefully you are professionally embarassed.
Actually you should be professionally embarassed by the fact that you're covering the New York Times covering a story about dog poop in the Safeway. (But you're not, I know.)
Re: “Tomorrow! The PDX Adult Soapbox Derby!”
"really spotlights what we're all about"
What WE'RE all about? In what possible way could your sleazy, smelly, greasy excuse for a newspaper even SUGGEST an association with something as cool as the soap box derby?
Step aside, fakers!
Collections
About Portland Mercury
RSSGoing to Seattle?
Working, working, working.