Comments

1
Good idea. You can title your manifesto "How To Ensure Nobody Who Might Become A Source Will Ever Talk To Me Professionally Ever Again And I'll Be Run Out Of A Job And Living On My Mum's Couch Again By Boxing Day." A little wordy, but maybe you can ask the journalists at the Merc to edit it down for you.
2
Keep us posted when you get the syllabus together for your j-school class on how self-important abrasive assholery gets you all the big scoops. Seems you don't know what you don't know. Do people even return your calls?
3
Treating the press like co-dependent spouses has been a Republican strategy for years. Fear of losing "access" kept the New York Times from publishing all sorts of negative stories about the Bush administration - I can't remember the exact story but the NYT admitted to holding on to one story (I think it was on the illegal wiretapping) that they originally broke prior to the election in '04. And McCain has called the media his "base", and they travel with him. It's a great strategy if you want to keep the public from knowing what you're up to.
4
You know, almost nothing of any value I ever did with Portland Communique (depending on one's view of "value") happened because of sources. Any time a source was talking to me, I was getting played by their own agenda (or, they hoped I was). Sources are irrelevant unless they're merely the spark pointing you in a particularly fruitful direction for your own investigating and research. Sources taken on their own are just shilling an opinion or an agenda, and should never (or at least very very very rarely) be treated as sacred.
5
So far that's two votes for self-important abrasive assholery, and two against. The two for, I notice, had the guts to say who they were. The two against, I also notice, work for other local newspapers, and have stayed anonymous. Save your self-important abrasive assholery for your sources, guys. Like I said.
6
Though Jaynes' comments could be taken in a more general context, he was specifically referring to sports journalism, where inside sources are incredibly important (in as much as sports are "important"). To me, it sounds like Jaynes' is trying to spin the reasons why no one in the Trib sports department has broken any story worth a damn. Not to mention it's probably no coincidence that Dwight has more respect for online media now that the Trib is only publishing once a week.
7
By the way, a good journalist will strike a balance between writing what needs to be written and courting sources. Only hacks view it as an either/or proposition.
8
Offending your sources on purpose is probably not a great strategy.
9
Either/or! Either/or!
10
Here's another example of a gray area: deliberately trying to offend a "source" (which is just a fancy word for "someone with a story to tell" is a far cry from fact-checking someone. If calling out a lie "offends" someone, particularly an elected official or some manager wielding petty power, then the "source" is either way too sensitive to hold office, or is hiding somethin'. Oh, wait, I made it black and white instead of gray. That's how I roll, yo.
11
this is a topic/quandary I have (and continue) to think long and hard about. I believe it's delicate balance...especially if you care about (and sometimes advocate for) the issue you are covering. i have come to learn that it is definitely possible to get too close to sources. i get the sense sometimes that my sources think of me as being on "the team" and that's not a good position for a good journalist to be in. ... but then again, being on the team gives you certain access that can be important to learning what's going on... but you can't really see what's going on if you're afraid to make the team answer the hard questions and potentially hurt their chances of winning. thanks for the reminder to keep it real Matt.
12
Clearly, there's a difference between 1.) calling public officials out on their bullshit and 2.) intentionally setting out just to offend them. The purpose for the first is to hold officials accountable and protect the public good; the purpose for the second is to inflate the writer's ego and conflate "annoying" with "important." Matt's never figured out/cared about the distinction.
13
Do the six items on the Manifesto apply also to the Mercury's coverage of the incoming Adams' Mayoral administration?
14
What is the point of having sources and talking to people who know what is going on if in the end you can't use the information because it will make them or their institution look bad? How long can you sit on good stuff just with the hope that you'll get more stuff you can't use later?
15
Jonathan @11: Now would be a good time to spill all those juicy bike-oriented stories you've been sitting on...mdavis@portlandmercury.com Eggs @12: Larry, if you're going to continue reading me so intently and then pretending to hate what I do, that's fine with me. Just identify yourself honestly and I'll stop calling you out. Shann @ 13: Yes. Categorically yes. If only you knew... Stupie @ 14: There's no point. Most stories die within 3 weeks so if you don't use what you have, when you have it, you're wasting your access and splooging all over your responsibility in the name of being part of the club. You've fallen victim to bullying.
16
The top three items on Matt's priority list as a journalist are to offend people. Nothing about critiquing, investigating, holding people accountable, exhaustive research, etc. Nope. Top of the list is simply to offend. Just thought that was interesting. I'd also be interested to hear Humpty and Amy speak up to say whether they would agree that the Mercury's single primary objective should be to offend.
17
Also, does playing Encyclopaedia Gordon Brown with all of the posters create an atmosphere that's good for the blog?
18
Jon: The impulse to offend you is pretty strong, but I'll address your comment instead. "Exhaustive research" is often an act, put on by journalists too scared to write offensive stories. Holding people accountable IS offensive to them, especially in a city that isn't used to it. And critiquing? I guess that's offensive, too. Bottom line: Be offensive. Toast: "an atmosphere that's good for the blog." I think writing about what's happening in Portland is good for the blog. I think doing so with verve and energy and guts is good for the blog. I think I'm good for the blog. Although I accept that 50% of my readers disagree. And that's good for the blog.
19
Hmmm... Matt is impressed with himself.
20
Damn right. If you were me, so would you be.
21
Well, I guess someone has to be.
22
Don't you people have pictures of cats to go look at?
23
Mr. Davis you did a damn good job of stirring the pot on this one, and I have seen you in way too many meetings, the majority of media ignore, to think you don't do your home work.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.