The Oregonian‘s Editorial Page Editor has followed his publisher’s lead in hitting back at allegations made by the Measure 66 and 67 campaign over the weekend.
![CALDWELL: PURE B.S THAT HE IS TERRIFIED FOR [HIS] JOB...](https://i0.wp.com/media1.fdncms.com/portmerc/imager/caldwell-pure-bs-that-he-is-terrified-for-his-job/u/original/2429735/1264455557-small_caldwell.jpg?resize=150%2C225&ssl=1 "CALDWELL: PURE B.S THAT HE IS TERRIFIED FOR [HIS] JOB...")
- CALDWELL: “PURE B.S” THAT HE IS “TERRIFIED FOR [HIS] JOB…”
The paper’s new publisher, N.Christian Anderson III wrote in a publisher’s note yesterday that he is “not” a “right-wing nut.”
Meanwhile Editorial Page Editor Bob Caldwell—who now reports directly to Anderson, and not editor Peter Bhatia, under a change instituted by Anderson when he joined the paper last year—has refuted claims by “Yes on 66/67” campaign director Kevin Looper that he is “terrified for [his] job.” From Saturday:
To be clear, Looper is not accusing Anderson of “overruling the editorial board” on Measures 66 and 67, he says. “There was no vote. But I think Anderson had a conversation with the editorial board director and said this is how it’s going to be, and so [editorial page director] Bob Caldwell went in and made that happen. We had the majority of them on our side, before. We know that. But they’re all terrified for their jobs.”
“Chris Anderson’s Sunday column pretty much covered the editorial board’s role,” writes Caldwell, in an email response this morning to my request for comment. “The “terrified for their jobs” comment is pure b.s.”
I replied:
“So it’s fair to quote you as saying it’s “pure b.s” that you’re “terrified for your job?” And that you would have stood up to Anderson, on principle, over the 66/67 endorsement if you’d felt he was wrong?”
His response:
“As we mentioned in our Sunday editorial, we’ve had a problem with the way the Legislature has approached the issue since last summer, when we first mentioned it in an editorial. I discussed it with Chris on one or two occasions when he came to the paper. He was not part of the editorial board discussions on the topic. There was nothing to “stand up” over because we didn’t disagree with each other in the first place. To put in terms like that would be seriously mischaracterizing things. The “pure b.s.” comment, which you can quote or not, as you wish, referred to your earlier comment that anyone here (including me) would be “terrified for [his or her] job” over this.”
It’s poll time. BOB CALDWELL:
One other possibility Matt, (and I know that this sounds completely outlandish), is that just maybe, there are reasonable people out there who happen to disagree with you on these measures.
I know that it’s not as thrilling as resorting to conspiracy theories about dirty ad campaigns and evil conservative media barons, but it is a possibility.
Couldn’t agree more, the blab. I had lunch with a couple on Sunday. When I mentioned that I’d been writing a lot about the campaigns they said “we voted no—we don’t like that the yes campaign is suggesting that most people will never get taxed.”
I didn’t poison their food or kick them out, or even get indignant, really. They’re old friends and I respect their point of view.
But this story on the Oregonian publisher is interesting, purely because the “Yes” campaign seems so convinced that they had the board on their side before Anderson joined. Also, because the Oregonian seems to be responding to the criticism. Which in public relations terms, suggests either that they resent the criticism because it’s not true, or that they’re being plain-old defensive.
Either way I’ve done my best to cover this angle of the story, about the O’s endorsement, while being fair on both sides, and bearing in mind our own editorial stance on the measures. I think it would be disingenuous of me now to start acting like I thought the corporate lobbyists supporting the “no” side had a legitimate case. That would be a case of “faux-jectivity.” The kind the Oregonian seems to have been practicing over these measures.
Also, this post wins for “Most Punctuation In A Single Headline.”
@Reymont: Sorry, man. It’s only fair to use quote marks when the dude is being quoted. And if I didn’t use all this, I could be accused of taking things out of context. As it is, I’m simply taking the most inflammatory things people have said and using them to top the article. Which is obviously not ideal, but when you’re documenting a fight…
I think it is safe to say, regardless of this bit, the guy is terrified for his job. The average Oregonian reader is getting older and doesn’t know how to use a computer, (not that their website is usable for people that do know how to use one either.) If they want to keep their subscribers for a few more years, they’ll produce a large print edition, but since newsprint prices are high that will be difficult. In the long term their subscribers will die out, and that will be pretty much it for the paper, and therefor, his job…
Maybe they should do something to appeal to a younger demographic or something. If anyone has any ideas, I’d like to say that, “they’d love to hear them,” but I think it is safe to say that they don’t really.
He looks like he’s terrified that he might not find another Burgerville bacon cheddar cheeseburger.
And yes, Matthew is right. The print Oregonian’s going away and oregonlive is completely unusable.
Those who’ve been in Portland more than a few years know how having the editorial board report directly to the publisher is NOT a new thing… in years past, Bill Hilliard ran the newsroom, Bob Landauer the editorial board, and both reported to Fred Stickel.
Of course, let’s not let the facts get in the way of some hand wringing…
Blagojevich threatened Editors at the Sun-Times before he was impeached, saying he would fire them if they didn’t write positive things about him.
This guy can try to strong-arm his staff all he wants, but we can clearly read through the lines.
Blagojevich threatened Editors at the Sun-Times in Chicago before he was impeached, saying he would fire them if they didn’t write positive things about him.
This guy can try to strong-arm his staff all he wants, but we can clearly read through the lines. I applaud journalists who search for the truth and have integrity.