Another chapter in the controversy over the Oregonian‘s endorsement of a “no” vote on measures 66 and 67.
The Mercury has been hearing strange tips this afternoon from deep throat sources. We’ve been told, somewhat unreliably as far as sources go, that the effort to push for the Measure 66/67 ad originated with the paper’s General Advertising Manager Debi Walery. The rumor as it stands: Walery, it’s understood, suggested the “no on 66/67” ad idea to the “no” campaign. As I say, that’s on pretty shaky ground, in terms of factual accuracy, because our source is hardly rock solid. Walery is also on a plane right now, according to her assistant, and so, we can’t ask her personally whether our deep throat is full of it. So take this paragraph for what it’s worth, and we’ll get back to you with Walery’s response as soon as we have it.
Nevertheless there is a remarkably close relationship between Walery and the “no on 66/67” campaign, that bears printing without caveats. You may be interested to know that Walery is on the board of the Northwest Grocery Association, which paid for the ad. Here’s the association’s 2008 tax return:
- IRS RETURN FOR NORTHWEST GROCER’S ASSOCIATION
- FEATURING BOARD MEMBER, DEBI WALERY
The Northwest Grocery Association, which just confirmed that Walery is still on its board, is also the top contributor to the “no” campaign, giving $356,700 so far, according to records tracked by Oregon Common Cause. We also have a call in to Oregonian publisher N.Christian Anderson III seeking comment. So, what do you think: Is the connection between Walery, the Oregonian, and the “no” campaign, ethical? Or not?
I guess it’s a bit strange, but I would think that part of her job as “general advertising manager” is trying to sell lucrative ads in the Oregonian. I’m sure she must go over ad options with a lot of people.
Her connection to the Grocery Association looks a little off, but it’s not as if the the “No” campaign wasn’t going to buy ads in the Oregonian anyway. If they weren’t dealing with her at the O, or if the Grocers weren’t their biggest contributor, the campaign would still be buying advertising in the Oregonian one would think.
Yeah, I mean, if I were networking to sell ads, I’d join the boards of as many professional organizations as I could to get my feet in the checkbook. I’d make a great ad sales rep. I’ve always thought so. Might have to avoid insulting quite so many people and mouthing off, of course, but…well…okay. Forget it.
But when you’re talking about changing the paper’s lifelong policy on accepting political ads, the close relationship between the general ad sales manager and the political campaign, and its funder, does seem to be a significant issue.
I think the ethical angle Matt is implying is that the O (presumably through her approval) chose to run an ad full of lies for the “no” side, yet then justified censoring the “yes” side’s corrections because it didn’t pass, ahem, “fact-checking.”
Ethical? Maybe. Shady? Definitely.
Interesting. Matt, I can see the paper trail showing that Walery is on the NGA board, but can you clarify how you know that the NGA paid for the Oregonian spadeas? I can’t find a reference to that in prior stories. Where is that info made public, and so quickly?
Thanks!