Yeah, I'm wondering where Beth Slovic the reporter

http://wweek.com/editorial/3522/12407/

ends and Beth Slovic the editorializer

http://wweek.com/editorial/3522/12408/

begins.

I'm also curious as to your policy of your reporters making their biases clear in other people's articles (see Ben Waterhouse here)

http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2009/04/07/adams-announces-proposed-locations-for-baseball-bye-bye-memorial-coliseum/

Because I see the Willamette Week *reporting* less and giving more of a *I was there and this is what I think* feel.

All 3 articles are rife with non-neutral language ("assumption", "shoehorn", "on the hook", "factoid", "inane"). This is not a question of whether I agree or disagree with the author, but whether it's your intention to pivot the paper into a journal of opinion.

To say attempts at objective journalism have recently been mixed is to put it mildly.

 

Dave,

This is a good question; one that I have addressed before but can never explain enough.

Unlike our daily newspaper, for example, WW makes no pretense at objectivity. It is frankly, a shibboleth that deserves burial. We encourage our reporters to gather information, think intelligently about that information, and then share it with readers along with the appropriate context and even, god forbid, point of view. If part of our charge is to help readers make sense of the world, we believe it is our obligation to provide the critical thinking that often leads to a point of view.

But here is an important difference between WW and other publications(The Nation on the left and The National Review on the right, for example). It is a job requirement that our reporters make up their mind AFTER they have completed their reporting, rather than before. In this way, we believe our subjectivity is driven by our reporting rather than the other way around. It is also why we often infuriate all sides of the political spectrum, because we tend to have no ideological ax to grind other than the aggressive pursuit of the truth.

All that said, to take Beth's coverage of the Chavez hearing as one example, readers may disagree with us. Beth characterized as inane some of the reasons given for opposing renaming 39th to Chavez (One man said that the first gas-powered bus route traversed 39th Avenue; one woman claimed the French knew 39thAvenue was the entrance to Laurelhurst Park.) Readers may think that these are entirely legitimate arguments.

Hope this helps explain things a bit better.

 

Mark,

"...aggressive pursuit of the truth" is a noble calling indeed. But encourage your reporters to accept and struggle with this fundamental "truth": those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still. Orthodoxy, even liberal orthodoxy, is the enemy of enlightenment

 

Bad tattoo contest huh ?

What I saw was the cutest mickey you could find .... and after all the crappy ones that really needed to be removed, this is your choice?

By the way.. If I hear one more thing about Storm Large or the purl (so I can't spell) district I am going to gouge my eyes out with a fork!!!Our city is NOT defined by them!!

 

i've lived here about 5 yrs so i'm not up on how portland does business (i'm almost too old to do business), however, recently i've started paying closer attention when i noticed education was getting screwed while sports agendas are kicking ass and taking names...what gives? portland's future rest on the level of education or am i old school? please help me to understand so i can let it go...