BlueOregon is a political blog where many Democrats get their
daily fix. The website’s original posts and links to reporting from
numerous media outlets make it, as BlueOregon itself says, “the water
cooler around which Oregon progressives will gather.”
“Lots of politicians and their staffs and lobbyists and
advocates read BlueOregon daily,” says Kari Chisholm, the site’s
co-editor and owner. “It’s a regular stop for them.”
He should know. Chisholm’s company, Mandate Media, creates
websites for all the Democratic members of Oregon’s congressional
delegation; for Gov. John Kitzhaber and Oregon Treasurer Ted Wheeler;
and for state lawmakers and local elected officials too numerous to
list.
Chisholm has been paid nearly $400,000 by Democratic
candidates in state and local races since 2006. His business has grown
steadily, and Chisholm says he brings in nearly as much from federal
candidates and nonprofits as from state and local candidates.
His dual role as BlueOregon editor and paid consultant
creates a conflict of interest. Chisholm says the conflict—running a
news website while being paid by candidates he writes about—is not a
problem. “I’m not a journalist and don’t pretend to be,” he says. “But I
work hard to get all voices out there.”
WW’s analysis of BlueOregon’s recent coverage, however,
suggests favoritism toward at least one Chisholm client—Labor
Commissioner Brad Avakian, who’s running for the Democratic nomination
in the special 1st Congressional District election to replace U.S. Rep.
David Wu.
Avakian’s chief rival in the race is state Sen. Suzanne
Bonamici (D-Beaverton), who’s found herself on the sharp end of
BlueOregon posts.
On Sept. 28, Chisholm attacked Bonamici for refusing to tell
the AFL-CIO where she stands on proposed U.S. trade pacts with South
Korea, Colombia and Panama. Avakian said he opposed them, as did the
third major Democratic candidate, state Rep. Brad Witt (D-Clatskanie).
Chisholm’s post: “While Bonamici dithers on trade, Witt and Avakian
stake out strong, progressive stands.”
“[I]f you believe that these trade deals are unequivocally
bad deals for Oregon workers, then it seems to me that your candidate is
one of the two guys named Brad,” Chisholm wrote. “Meanwhile, I guess
we’ll just wait for Suzanne Bonamici to figure out what her position
is.”
Chisholm usually includes a comment to relevant posts
disclosing a politician is one of his clients. He says his writings are
not part of a quid pro quo. “It shouldn’t be a surprise that I write
about the things I care about,” he says.
“[BlueOregon] presents itself as a forum and a tool for
advocating Democratic interests generally,” says state Rep. Chris
Garrett (D-Lake Oswego), a Chisholm client who supports Bonamici. “When
it is then used to attack certain Democrats on behalf of others who are
paying clients, that creates a real tension.”
BlueOregon has recently ignored a raft of unflattering news
about Avakian. The site’s news scroller, “Water Cooler: Oregon News
Headlines,” links to political news reported by Oregon media outlets.
But in August, Oregonian columnist Steve Duin wrote two
columns alleging dirty tricks against Bonamici on the part of the
Avakian campaign.
On BlueOregon? No mention of, or link to Duin’s column.
Chisholm says Duin’s columns were about campaign staffers. “We don’t
usually cover those,” he says.
But there’s more. On Sept. 8, The Oregonian’s Jeff Mapes
reported unflattering behind-the-scenes machinations aimed at gaining
Avakian a coveted labor endorsement. No BlueOregon link.
On Sept. 14, WW reported that creditors have sued Avakian
four times, that the Internal Revenue Service filed a $13,120 lien
against him in 2005, and that while a state legislator, he hit up
lobbyists for a job (“Not Paying His Dues, WW, Sept. 14, 2011).
No BlueOregon link to that story, or to a Sept. 19 National
Journal report that Avakian still hadn’t paid off his student loans 21
years after finishing law school. Nor did BlueOregon link to a Sept. 20
Oregonian Politifact story by Janie Har that labeled as “false”
Avakian’s claims about how many housing discrimination cases his agency
investigates each year.
Chisholm denies censoring anti-Avakian reporting on
BlueOregon. He faced similar criticism during the bruising 2008 U.S.
Senate primary between Jeff Merkley (a Mandate Media client and the
eventual winner) and rabble-rouser Steve Novick.
Novick, a BlueOregon contributor who is now running for
Portland City Council, says Chisholm’s website pounded him when he faced
Merkley.
“BlueOregon looks like it’s supposed to be independent,”
Novick says. “I think Kari should acknowledge that he does use
BlueOregon to the benefit of his clients.”
FACT: Sitemeter.com says bojack.org gets more
traffic than BlueOregon, but Chisholm says his site takes the lead
during campaign season.
Let me make it clear: BlueOregon is a blog. It is not, despite what Jaquiss asserts, a "news site". I am not a journalist. It should not be shocking to anyone that a political blog is going to be full of advocacy posts. It is, after all, the whole point.
Like the rest of the activist blogosphere, neither I - nor anyone else who writes at BlueOregon - is under any legal or ethical requirement to be fair, to be balanced, to give equal time, or do any such thing. But we choose to try. Are we perfect? No. Do we make dumb mistakes? You bet. But, we work pretty hard to make it an open platform for Democrats.
A few facts worth noting:
1. I am not the only writer at BlueOregon. There are some 50 individuals with passwords, which they can use to post anything they want. There are quite a few supporters of Bonamici and Witt on the roster (as there were for Novick.) Presumably, those campaigns are doing Blog Outreach 101 and seeking out bloggers that are favorable to their cause and asking them to write stories. If they're not, well, wishing ain't working.
2. The article asserts that I've been "paid nearly $400,000". That implies that my firm earned $400k. It's worth noting that a huge amount of those funds are checks cut to us that we then use to buy banner ads. We serve as an online ad agency for our clients.
3. Jaquiss is correct that the news items he mentions didn't get posted in our dumb little sidebar news ticker (that, despite my best efforts, nobody reads.) But it's also true that some pro-Avakian stuff didn't make it either - like "Brad Avakian Assembles Political Team to Challenge Wu". And plenty of pro-Bonamici stuff and pro-Witt stuff has appeared. For example, "Emily's List endorses Bonamici in major fundraising boost" and Democrat Brad Witt wins a trio of union endorsements in congressional race.
http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-26915-brad_avakian_assembles_political_team_to_challenge_wu.html
http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2011/08/emilys_list_endorses_bonamici.html
http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2011/08/democrat_brad_witt_wins_a_trio.html
4. Yes, I "attacked Bonamici for refusing to tell the AFL-CIO where she stands on proposed U.S. trade pacts". And I think it was TOTALLY warranted. Whether you're for 'em or against 'em, these trade deals are critically important to our region. Bonamici took a pass, saying "Obviously, I'll have a position on that at some point." No apologies here.
5. As Jaquiss knows, but chose not to report, I have explicitly offered Bonamici and Witt full access to BlueOregon's editors and contributors. They are welcome to submit guest columns, or ask supporters to submit guest columns, or invite our writers to write about their campaigns. They can send submissions to editors that are not me, who will make their own decisions about what's worthy of posting. That they have not (to my knowledge), is not my fault. Campaigning 101, folks. (By contrast, check out the BlueOregon coverage of Jefferson Smith's campaign for mayor. I'm working with Eileen Brady, but there's lots of Jefferson Smith stuff - presumably because he's actually working hard at getting coverage.)
6. And finally, the reason that people are able to know and complain about my clients is that I fully disclose ON EVERY POST in which I write about someone who happens to be a client. I suppose that I could be all secretive about it, but then that would make life hard for reporters like Nigel Jaquiss.
No one with any sense pays any attention to Blue Oregon. It's been known that the site is just a front for Kari's clients for over 5 years now. Someone will call him out on his shit, he'll post his perfunctory "nuh-uh", and life goes on. There's no news there, and certainly no pretense of objectivity. It's just the political underclass fondling each other's balls and congratulating themselves for being totally inside the system. I think Kari secretly loves bullshit like this because then he gets to post his client list and humblebrag about what a banner ad-buying PLAYER he is around town.
Attacking Kari is like attacking Mark Weiner - do so at your own peril. They have decided which progressive will win, all others will be trashed and defeated. Blue Oregon has many editors, but one decider. Pretty defensive post Kari.
I read BlueOregon all the time. Sometimes I agree with posts and commenters, sometimes I don't. It's most always an interesting discussion. And I've always thought Kari was over-the-top at announcing his affiliations in any given race. In my view, this only becomes a story if someone identifies a legitimate post that was rejected by a BlueOregon writer.
Blueoregon is 100% a vehicle for the candidates that Chisholm/Burr/Cornett/Axtman support. Whether you can find a direct quid pro quo, maybe not, but there's no doubt that they hope to cultivate those quid pro quos as a result of their blog.
The good news? It's been at least half a decade since the site was a "regular stop" for politicians, staffers and lobbyists, as Chisholm claims. Nobody who needs solid information relies on Blue Oregon. It's only the "watercooler" for a rump group of wannabes who haven't yet realized that they aren't the players they thought they were. (Exhibit A: Jesse Cornett, 8%)
After his loss in the CD1 primary, Kari's up to his old tricks again. This time he's being called out for not being willing to honestly shill and tell when it comes to stumping for his client, Portland Business Alliance endorsed mayoral candidate (and supposed co-founder of New Seasons), Eileen Brady. Again already?
"
Here's a radical thought: put the disclaimer in the posts themselves, so that they show up for people who don't read comments - the majority of your readers.
(Full disclosure: I'm Charlie Hales' campaign manager)"~Jessica Moskovitz
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-g4g0iah0Ac4/TxomzTa94WI/AAAAAAAAC8c/mpo9Qzd9vxg/s1600/Kari%2Bfull%2Bdisclosure.jpg
Love is in the air! Looks like someone at the WW has got a huge crush on Kari.
BO's offers to Witt and Bonamici are pure BS.
Back in '08 Steve Novick's campaign manager described BlueOregon as a "rigged game" involving sockpuppetting bloggers like Kevin Kamberg and Tom Powers orchestrating a series of "lies, fabrications, smears and innuendos." I get turned off by candidates who keep Chisholm on their payroll. To be blunt, I like Brad but won't vote for him given his support for Mandate Media. It's a character issue for me.
In response to Hans:
1. Hans misunderstands the meaning of "sockpuppet". In a blog context, that means creating multiple fake identities and talking to (agreeing with yourself).
2. Tom Powers never wrote for BlueOregon. I have no idea what Hans is talking about. Back when Tom had a blog, it was anonymous, and I had no idea who wrote it.
3. I'll let Jake Weigler, Novick's '08 manager, speak for himself. But it's worth noting that he's Brad Avakian's general consultant, and we work together every day.
Great. Let's Quibble, Kari.
1. Your professional brand of sock puppetry didn't involve simply a single campaign friend. You had a handful of your buddies, singing in chorus as various entities on BO, Loaded Orygun, OregonLive and WW. At least 2 blogs were created with the sole purpose of forming your echo chamber, Forward Oregon (initiated by a college staffer) and Beaver Boundary, the one time secret blog of insider pretender and Greenlick staffer, Tom Powers aka "Taoiseach." Powers, worked for Greenlick who authored the swiftboat attack on Novick frontpaged on BlueO, "Smearing Jeff Merkley with GOP talking points."
2. "Tom Powers never wrote for BlueOregon." Bullshit. Not only did you introduce Tom's Blog on BO, you linked to it over a dozen times in the course of the 2008 Senate campaign. He came up with the insider anonymous attacks and you simply pointed traffic in his direction.
3. "I'll let Jake Weigler, Novick's '08 manager, speak for himself." Jake did, calling your business a "rigged game." http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2008/03/blue_oregon_a_little_black_and.html
4. "I post my disclosure on every blog post I write - and on every comment that I post on anyone else's blog. Seriously" (KFC, 1/22/08) Bullshit. Yes you usually bury your conflict of interest in the comments section, but want a list of sinful omissions? You were also caught making a few misleading edits in a supposedly neutral "in the news" post on BO. First you intimated some other BO editor was responsible. After a Novick supporter found you be the author in question (pesky interwebs), you removed the ability for anyone to see which BO editor was writing "in the news." This took Charlie Burr by surprise when he tried to support you after your Rogue of the Week induction for "excessive use of bullshit in his mud-slinging." (http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-7524-kari_chisholm.html) You also often forget to disclose your conflicts of interest during your weekly radio spots on KPOJ.
Oh, Hans, your crush on me is so adorable. But a little boring.
1. That's not sock puppetry, that's called "organizing". Look it up.
2. "Linked to it" is not the same as "wrote for." For a linguist, you sure have trouble with language.
3. Like I said, Jake and I work together nearly every day now, and have since sometime in 2009. Whatever gripe you've got, he and I have long since buried.
4. Having posted my disclosure over 1300 times, is it possible I've missed a few times? Sure. You continue to deliberately misunderstand what happened with the RSS feed. But whatever, it was over three years ago.
As a BlueOregon contributor, I'd note we're all volunteer bloggers - this isn't a paid news organization. We write about what we care about, and sometimes things aren't covered. That's why I support news organizations who are paid to cover a broader spectrum of news.
I appreciate Kari and his co-editors have created a valuable site allowing us to discuss issues, and spend hours of upkeep making sure it works. Given the ad rates on it, I can't believe it pays for itself.
As far as bias, there are simply too many political stories for BlueOregon to link to them all. Some of the stories that appear seem not newsworthy, or not that interesting. I, for one, am most interested in the Congressional District 1 race being about the issues so don't really care about the status of someone's student loans.
Sometimes we're simply busy doing our day jobs or out of town, so we don't get to linking everything. Links to pro-Bonamici stories have appeared (such as the one showing her dramatically leading in the polls), as has a flattering profile of Bonamici. And I linked to the Duin column in a comment on BlueOregon -- no one censored it. In fact, BlueOregon's system made it more prominent, as a lot of readers liked it.
Finally, there are a host of guest columns that appear. Often candidates in prominent races are invited to contribute their own columns on a equal footing, with no favoritism to Mandate Media clients. Similarly, pro-Bonamici or pro-Witt folks are invited to submit guest columns. No newspaper runs all the op-eds or letters it receives, but BlueOregon does a great job of posting a variety of voices.
"we work pretty hard to make it an open platform for Democrats."
BWA-HA-HA!!! You mean the ones that hire Chisholm to do their website?
WHy anyone would take BlueOregon as serious or impartial or more than the equivalent of a posted notice by any campaing is beyond me.
BlueOregon is a censored site that serves the interests of its developers. Read at your own risk.