The New Journalism: Wall-to-wall opinion?
Even more troubling is how the story was covered in The Oregonian. Or I should say, how it wasn’t covered.
Instead the story “broke” in an Oregonian Op-Ed opinion piece opposing the project. The “Guest Column” was written by former HAP Commissioner Ray Hallberg. His strong opposition to the project was the opening volley in a ping-pong match of biased rebuttals and letters to the editor.
The Oregonian was satisfied to let advocates and critics thrash away at the issue from their opposing and biased perspectives.
On the paper’s web, OregonLive, the back and forth continued, but without the writers’ own conflicts of interest ever being revealed.
The Oregonian offered nary a story about Hillsdale Terrace. Zilch. No neutral voices, no experts and no Hillsdale Terrace residents were heard from. In essence the issue was treated like some kind of bloggers’ dust-up or TV chat show shouting match.
If the Hillsdale Terrace boondoggle (my bias) is worthy of so much space on the Op-Ed page, doesn't it deserve some real reporting and a story?
Is this kind of “coverage” we can expect from the journalism of the future?