|
GRAND THEFT
Virtually every self-respecting newspaper in America gives credit when other organizations break news stories. Not Portland's daily.
Could it be that Portland's monopoly daily newspaper is a tad insecure?
How else to explain the following:
Two weeks ago, WW published a story by reporter Bob Young about the November crash of a C-130 Air Force plane in the Pacific Ocean in which 10 reservists lost their lives ("Why Did These 10 Men Die?" WW, June 18, 1997). The article authoritatively challenged the results of the inconclusive Air Force investigation of the crash and forwarded what many think is its real cause. The story was the most important piece of journalism we have published in some time; that view was supported by the wide publicity it received on TV and radio stations across the state. Citing Young's story, U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith called for an investigation into the flawed Air Force inquiry.
The response of our daily newspaper? The Oregonian gave wide coverage to the questions we raised about the C-130 crash. Not once, however, has Portland's daily given credit to Young for his extraordinary work.
Usually, we grin and bear The Oregonian's unwillingness to do what virtually every other credible newspaper in America does: give credit where credit is due. For two reasons, however, we've decided not to keep quiet about this one. We hope this doesn't sound like sour grapes, for it represents serious criticism of the professional and ethical standards of those in charge of this city's daily.
First, dozens of people outside this newspaper, including reporters at other organizations, urged us to address The Oregonian's conduct in this matter. A reporter for the Boston Globe who has been writing extensively about non-combat casualties in the military called us to congratulate Young on his story. "I thought you did a great job," he said. "I hope your editor is raising hell that they didn't credit you guys."
Even rank-and-file reporters from the daily itself privately shared with us their embarrassment.
One reporter who has sought to pursue this matter is Dan Cook, the new editor of the Portland Business Journal (which, by the way, is owned by the same company that owns The Oregonian). Earlier this week, Cook called Oregonian editor Sandra Rowe. Rowe brushed off the question of what some see as a blatant ripoff. Her response, according to Cook: "I don't read Willamette Week. I don't find them to be a reliable publication."
The other reason we decided to speak out is that this is not the first time in recent years The Oregonian has been unwilling to give credit.
This space leaves room for but one example.
Earlier this year--Sunday, April 13, 1997--The Oregonian published a front-page feature story entitled "Memory therapy turns woman's life into nightmare." The article was about Jennifer Fultz, an Aloha woman whose life had been all but destroyed after two crackpot psychologists falsely convinced her that she had been a victim of a satanic cult and had been abused by her parents and siblings.
It was a fascinating tale--except that the same story, using the same sources and similar quotes, had been published on the cover of Willamette Week on Sept. 25, 1996--six months earlier--under Maureen O'Hagan's byline. The Oregonian made no mention of our article.
Afterwards, we provided a copy of our story to Michele McLellan, The Oregonian's "public editor," whose job it is to field complaints. After a week of deliberation and speaking to several people in the newsroom, she told us that she saw no reason to question her paper's conduct. The Oregonian was able to independently verify all facts, she explained, and therefore there was no need to acknowledge Willamette Week or O'Hagan.
Though The Oregonian has more than 300 editorial staffers and we have 13, we understand that we are competitors. We don't hesitate to take shots at the daily for its many foibles. But we also congratulate the paper and its reporters for their successes and acknowledge their reporting when it breaks new ground. In our minds, this conduct is standard behavior for any publication that wants to maintain journalistic integrity. |
|
