MODA: a local case study in exorbitant executive compensation

Any CEO who accepts or demands exorbitant compensation, particularly in comparison to the compensation of the company's line workers, should be considered unfit to lead.

Such grotesque inequitable compensation should be outlawed.

Consider the case here in Portland of the publicly-supported Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU), its questionable financial dealings with the private MODA Health Plan and the compensation of MODA CEO Robert Gootee.

A little background:

The Oregonian reported on Nov. 6 that OHSU lent MODA Health Plan, $50 million at the end of last year. Suffice to say that the two institutions do a lot of business together.

So much so that MODA, according to OHSU officials, is yet another one of those private institutions “too big to fail.” And so the public’s subsidy money gets shoveled to MODA, via OHSU.

It turns out that if MODA does fail, we, fellow taxpayer take the hit. OHSU, Portland’s largest employer, is really, REALLY too big to fail.

OHSU’s board of directors approved the loan last December. A month after the vote, OHSU president Joe Robertson joined MODA’s board. He was paid $26,000 for his services, according to the Oregonian, before leaving the board in two months ago, when MODA’s most recent financial problems came to light.

The paper also reported that Robertson donated his MODA fees to OHSU. One wonders what the money will be used for. Part of another loan to MODA perhaps?

The Oregonian story is long at 36 paragraphs. But it’s not until paragraph 30 that we find out that in 2013 MODA’s CEO Robert Gootee was paid $13 million. Of that $8.9 million was a “one-time” payment for “a terminated retirement plan and deferred compensation he has not yet received.” But in 2012, Gootee received $10.4 million 2012.

Why didn’t Gootee simply drop his shameful compensation to help MODA financially?

The Oregonian apparently didn't ask for an explanation or was refused one, but reporter Jeff Manning does write, “OHSU, meanwhile, still collects millions of dollars a year from Oregon taxpayers. Last spring, weeks after the MODA loan, the Oregon Legislature approved another $270 million for the institution,” which is a public corporation.

The lead to this story could easily have been: “Oregon taxpayers helped OHSU lend health insurance company MODA $50 million last year, one year after, MODA paid its CEO $13 million.”

Kudos to The Oregonian and Manning for revealing the the taxpayer-backed loan, but a juicy rotten tomato for not spotlighting Gootee compensation package…and delving into the question of conflicts of interest and a culture in which executive compensation and greed come first.

Footnote: The MODA in question is the same outfit that has slapped its name on what was once “The Rose Garden." The cost of the glitzy naming rights has been put at $40 million over 10 years.

MODA officials say the number is too high but won’t disclose what it is.

One wonders why....

Update: Today it was reported that OHSU will convert its $50 million loan into a a 25 percent stake in MODA Health Plan.  Question: what will it pay the "new" MODA's CEO?

Metaphors we die by....

I sent a shorter version of my "Speaking of offensive names, drop 'The Civil War'" post to The Oregonian as a letter to the editor after the paper editorialized in favor of the recent State Board of Education decision to force high schools do drop stereotyping names for sports teams.

Much to my surprise the editorial page editors printed my 150-word letter on Thursday. And to my equal surprise only one friend and my mother-in-law (who is, I should be quick to note, is also a friend) mentioned seeing it.

I think this speaks to the demise of the print medium. Or to my demise in reaching out to friends.

I actually addressed my comments to The Oregonian editors. I noted the media's role in perpetuating the use of "Civil War" to describe a mere collegiate rivalry. Sure, I wanted the paper's readers to mull over my modest proposal, but I really, REALLY, did want The Oregonian editors to consider dropping the term, just as they took the lead 20 years ago in dropping the use of Native-American names that describe sports teams.

Perhaps the most notable example is the "Washington Red Skins." Sports fans here have managed somehow with having Washington's NFL team referred to simply as "Washington" on the Oregonian's sports page.

So, in the few years left in which The Oregonian still clings to relevance as a means of communication, it could once again lead us to stop equating athletic rivalries with war.

While its editors are at it, they might look at the use of war terminology to describe political campaigns (war rooms, attack ads, war chests etc.) and government programs (War on Drugs, War on Poverty etc.)

Sadly metaphors have a way of unrealistically defining our expectations. Wars, government programs and political campaigns are won or lost...or so we are led to believe. There is no in-between. But were the Korean, Vietnam and Iraq wars won or lost? What of Afghanistan two years from now? And do wars ever really end for those who fight in them or are victims of them? Consider the rate of suicides among returning Iraq veterans....just for starters. Wars kill long after they "end" or are "won" or "lost."

And because of the flood of war imagery in our discourse is it wonder that compromise becomes increasingly difficult in our impressionable, emotional society?

The Oregonian, and the media in general, need to choose metaphors far more carefully. Who knows, it might even help them survive....

P.S. in today's Oregonian (5/28) is a letter supporting my letter. It is from William C. Woodcock of McMinnville.

Willamette Week gets the rest of the Caldwell story

The Caldwell story just gets worse and worse. Much worse than depicted in my earlier post.

And the egg piles up on the face of The Oregonian and its editors.

The current Willamette Week has vaporized the yarn about Caldwell's helping a poor PCC student buy books and pay the bills in exchange for sexual favors. Turns out the 23-year-old was a well-known on-line hooker.

Sadly, there's more. Here's the link to the WW story.

From Neil Goldschmidt raping the babysitter to Bob Caldwell's illicit sex life and unreported DUI, it makes you wonder what else the paper is hiding.

Where would we be without Willamette Week!

Backing into Caldwell scandal story at The Oregonian

In a front page story on Monday, The Oregonian reported the death of its Editorial Page Editor Bob Caldwell. In the story, editors and publishers praised the popular 63-year-old editor, who had helped guide two Oregonian editorial writers to a Pulitzer.

Then, after the story appeared, the circumstances surrounding his death revealed another side to Caldwell. He had died after having sex with a 23-year-old PCC student in her Tigard apartment.

The Oregonian rightly printed a story today, but they did so in a manner that revealed how agonizingly difficult it was for the paper's staff to face and report the facts.

The story (shown here. Click on it to make it bigger.) painfully backs into the embarrassing news.

As they say in the business, the lead is buried.

The headline tells us that Caldwell died in a Tigard apartment. Is that news?

The subhead tells us that he died after “a woman called 9-1-1 to report he was unresponsive.” Is that news?

The lead tells us that Caldwell was in the woman’s apartment and that she was 23 years old.

We’re getting warmer....

Finally, in the second paragraph we learn “The woman called 9-1-1 to report that Caldwell, 63, was coughing and unresponsive after a sex act.”

Presumably with her.

The story goes on from there. “The woman told deputies she met Caldwell about a year ago at Portland Community College. Caldwell, she said, knew she didn’t have much money so he provided her cash for books and other things for school in exchange for sex acts in her apartment.”

Any freshman journalism student would recognize where the news is in the story and write a headline and lead to reflect it.

(A sodden thought: One wonders how Caldwell, once the paper's 'public editor,' himself would have written such a story involving a top Oregonian editor. Fate spared him the task. The public editor, by the way, often dealt with matters of journalistic ethics and definitions of "the news." The paper dropped the position some years ago. It seems to be time to restore it.)

The on-line commentary about today’s article raises the usual ethical arguments. “Let him rest in peace.” “Is this news?” “Is he a public figure?” “Does it matter?”

Yes, this is news, sad and embarrassing as it is. Yes, as one comment notes, the editorial page editor of the state’s largest newspaper is indeed a public figure. And, yes, it does matter.

There’s another story here and it has to do with PCC and, more generally, the plight of college students. For six years I taught journalism at PCC. Many of the students are in desperate financial straits. My guess is that this young woman was not — and is not — alone in her desperation. That's a story that still needs telling.

That Caldwell would take advantage of this student's plight is deplorable...and, yes, newsworthy.

Babcockery

I'm struck by the frequently shallow thinking of those who post spontaneous, often vitriolic comments to on-line news stories.

Could there be a hip-shot pathology at work?

For reasons you will learn in a moment, I call the phenomenon "Babcockery."

What prompts my sharing this thought is a near-instantaneous response to an on-line Oregonian story involving me. The first (and so far, only) comment on the story labels me a "socialist."

I can live with that, however untrue — or true, but it does make me curious about the mind set of my accuser.

The story that prompted the "socialist" charge is by Oregonian stringer Rebecca Koffman. The reporting was posted just an hour ago and immediately drew the "socialist" accusation from one "Babcock."

The story is about a petition drive intended to discourage Chase Bank from opening another branch in Hillsdale. I am correctly cited and quoted as the drive's organizer. You can read Koffman's story HERE. Babcock's comment is at the bottom of it.

By the way, if you live in or near near Hillsdale, you can sign the petition at the new Tré Bone pet supply around the corner from the Post Office and next to the Chinese restaurant.

Back to "Babcock" and "Babcockery".....

Apparently opposing JPMorganChase Bank, certainly a capitalistic icon (recently saved by the American taxpayer) makes me a "socialist."

The term "socialism" is notoriously hard to pin down. HERE is Wikipedia's attempt, which comes with a host of caveats. I'm certain some part of the term fits me. And probably you. I dare say that a sizable portion of "Babcock" is socialistic. Did he go to public school? Does he drive on the public streets? Is he protected by the police? By our military?

I also happen to be a capitalist in that I publish a little on-line newspaper. It is modestly supported by my fellow capitalistic Hillsdale sponsors and by community good will. In my semi-retirement, I volunteer my time to it and give most of the money it generates back to the community. No government money comes in the door. You can see The Hillsdale News HERE.

I'll add that some of my dearest colleagues are, well, capitalists. I venture that most who have signed the dread "socialistic" petition are too.

So where does that leave the likes of "Babcock"? Consider the "socialistic" military.

As I look around at our economy for signs of socialism, the one that jumps out at me is our military-industrial complex. Strangely the Babcocks of the world give the military and defense contractors a free pass.

Why don't they attach dashed-off comments to stories about defense contracts? "Clearly Boeing is run by socialists." "The joint chiefs of staff are all socialists." "If you enlist in the armed forces, you are an obvious socialist."

I have no explanation for Babcockery. I hope a "Babcock" will read this and explain. I also hope that my new term for this behavior enters the language.

What is "Babcockery"? Definition: "Reactionary, ill-considered, accusatory (and frequently ad hominem) on-line responses to news or opinion."

The costs of media's concocted political 'wars'

When historians write about the incivility of American politics in the early 21st Century, they need look no farther than this nation’s media.

Indeed they need look no farther the relatively staid Oregonian. Today’s front page will do. Here's the headline on a major story there:

Political
ad wars
target
your TV

Cornilles and Bonamici
fire a fusillade of 1st
District commercials for
the holiday season

Here’s the story's lead, “The ad wars have started in Oregonian’s special congressional election, with plenty of hard-hitting political commercials in store for Portland-area voters over the holiday season.”

Sure, things may get nasty on your living room screen, but war? Targets? Fusillades?

Once again, the mainstream media roll out their tired old “war” metaphor to describe politics in this country.

Shame!

On the front page, the story to the immediate right of this one tells of real war.

More Oregon soldiers home for Christmas
The Guard’s Mideast presence nears a 10-year low as Iraq War ends

Welcome home, the paper seems to be saying. Welcome home to another war. The one we at The Oregonian have created to tell the story of American politics. Perhaps you, soldier, would like to end this one too.

My advice is this: It’s easy. Just stop reading the newspaper...and watching TV.

Stay away from the message that democracy American style is as bad as war.

Perhaps we all should declare peace and have nothing to do with the "democratic" fighting. Funny thing is that most of the voting age population does just that.

Surprised?

Could it have to do with the desire for peace and civic sanity?

The problem is that if those who value peace and sanity turn their backs on democracy, who ends up running the country?

Answer: those who are infatuated by or profit from war. Those who control the media. Those whose being is defined by conflict, inflated egos and a distorted sense of patriotic superiority.

Meanwhile, the Occupy Movement, dedicated to non-violence, gets trashed by the politicians, the ones whom the media tell us are waging “war” with each other to get elected.

Mixed in with the Occupy crowds are the cast-off veterans of real wars, those life-destroying conflicts declared by the ruling class with its insatiable need for oil, power and third homes in the Bahamas.

Do I roam too widely here? Perhaps; perhaps not. I hope these thoughts and my anger take you beyond the headlines of this morning’s newspaper.

If only we could change the story line and the metaphors of tomorrow’s reporting and headlines.

Would someone in management at The Oregonian at least send around a memo to the headline writers. “Lighten up! We are talking about an election, not a bloody war.”

Thorns and Roses for Oregonian's PERS inequity scoop

"Top PERS payout: $41,342 a month"

There's a story to "occupy" your mind and your conscience.

And the top pensioner is none other than Mike Bellotti, the former University of Oregon football coach. What's that say about values at Oregon's, ahem, "institutions of higher learning"?

Why is it there's a whiff of Phil Knight to all of this? "I'm a billionaire. Why shouldn't Bellotti be one too?" On the state dole, no less....

How will this tale of greed register with all those Duck graduates saddled with debt and unable to find work? It's enough to drive a person to demonstrate and occupy a campus. Oh, wait, that was happening, even before The Oregonian broke the story.

Talk about "higher education."

Too much of the text of the Oregonian story is about how very, very, very difficult it was for the newspaper's attorneys to wrest from PERS the damning data about the top-most pigs at the PERS trough. Yes, it is outrageous that PERS fought tooth and nail to hide the list from the public. And yes, it is great that The Oregonian the Salem Statesman Journal fought back and prevailed.

But try to find in the story something about how it came to pass that Bellotti and a bunch of other high-paid state employees (many OHSU professors and administrators) got such largesse. It's not in the story.

Who is responsible for such inequity? It's not in the story.

How do they justify it? It's not in the story.

Will it be reported on later? One would hope.

Related: The Huffington Post has listed the University of Oregon on the top-ten list of campuses with the worst professors. Could that have something to do with what football coaches are paid in Eugene and what professors aren't?

Could it be that the more competitive you are in the NCAA football, the lower you fall in academics?

And, if so, is Stanford the exception that proves a rule? How so?

Just askin'.....

The difference a day makes at The Oregonian

The front page headline on today's Oregonian took an entirely different slant than yesterday's (see previous post.) Today's read:

U.S. revises details of killing

You will recall that yesterday's headline was:

How we got bin Laden

"We" has become the "U.S." and "got" is now "kill."

If I had the time or desire, I'd call the big O to find out if there was a different headline writer on duty for today's paper or whether the order came down from on high to get real.

Wonder what tomorrow will bring....

The "K" word and who "got" bin Laden?

I nearly gagged on my coffee this morning when I opened the Oregonian and was hit with the paper's front-page banner headline:

How we got bin Laden

The only thing lacking was an exclamation mark.

"We"? Is that the editorial "we"? The editorial board "got" bin Laden?

Is that "we," as in "We, the People"? American citizens? I suppose our taxes had something to do with "the getting." Don't they always? Do we hold ourselves accountable? Do we take pride in "our" accomplishment? Was this really money well spent in our names? One wonders how much it cost? Billions certainly.

A more precise description of events leading up to what happened early Monday morning in Abbottabad would highlight the work of a few dozen brave Navy Seals and a small army of intelligence officers. Might they be a tad more "deserving of the credit" (if those are the right words) than "we" are?

Then there's the little matter of the verb "got."

"How we got bin Laden."

If we "got" him, where is he?

No, let's face it, "got" is a euphemism for "killed." During the Vietnam War the military used "neutralized," but they weren't fooling anyone. "Got" is just as bad.

Why couldn't The Oregonian bring itself to write the truth? "How the US stalked and killed bin Laden."

On the next page, on a "FactCheck" column, appropriately enough, the headline writer gets it right, sort of.

Operation began years ago, but credit Obama for the kill

If I'm not mistaken, the use of the word "kill" as a noun appears in stories about fighter pilots in combat. They get credited for "kills." Technically Obama shouldn't get that credit. He didn't literally pull the trigger although he certainly ordered that it be pulled.

Clearly the assassination of Osama bin Laden has put many of us in alien rhetorical and moral territory.

The Oregonian, like us, is groping for words to describe a looking glass world of death, subterfuge and destruction.

On-line news network: more news than you need

This afternoon I joined about 20 Portland “newsbloggers” at a meeting convened by The Oregonian at its downtown offices on SW Broadway.

A rag-tag crew, we assembled around the long news conference table where top editors routinely decide how the news of the day will be played on newsprint.

The big metro, which is fading as a print publication, is trying to find an on-line journalism model that will ensure its survival into the rest of the 21st Century.

The newsblogger meeting was the newspaper’s effort to pull together a one-year “pilot project” called “The Oregonian News Network.”

I was at the meeting to see whether my on-line publication, The Hillsdale News, might fit into the plan.

The Oregonian is using a grant from the J-Lab Institute for Interactive Journalism at American University in D.C. to pay for seven $2,500 grants to local newsbloggers.

In exchange, the chosen few will participate in a hyperlocal newsgathering effort.

Tellingly, the money does not come from The Oregonian or on-line advertising revenues. The bankrolling comes from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, which has paid for similar experiments in a few other cities, including Seattle.

I quickly concluded The Hillsdale News is not a candidate for the program, which calls for posting as many as five “hyper-local” news stories a week. I publish three to five stories every two or three weeks.

The Oregonian's working assumption is that small communities like ours really want to know about breaking, “hyperlocal” news, 24-7.

Do folks in Hillsdale really care about every fender bender, shoplifting or brush fire here?

Call me crazy, but I don’t think so.

And if they do, that’s someone else's problem. I’ve got other stories to write that won’t be hauled off by a wrecker, investigated by the police or drenched by the fire bureau.

By not applying for a grant, I’ll be missing out on technical advice, which I could use in the warp-speed change of the internet world.

But feeding the insatiable maw of the internet is too high a price to pay.

Thoreau’s comment about the newly invented telegraph applies equally to the web:

"We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas, but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate."

I’ll venture that The Oregonian’s effort will burn out after a year. No representative of the paper had a clue as to how the “News Network” could be made self-sufficient after the Knight money runs out.

“We’re working on that,” said one lamely.

The other problem is that The Oregonian still doesn’t have control over its news web site, OregonLive. The on-line operation isn’t even in The Oregonian’s building. No one seemed quite sure where it is. OregonLive is some kind of organizational Frankenstein that only a corporate insider at Advance Publications back in New York could love — and apparently locate.

The Oregonian’s management has simply thrown up its hands in defeat and unveiled frustration at trying to wrest on-line control from “corporate.”

The meeting wasn’t a complete loss for me. It crystalized what The Hillsdale News is: an on-line news and news analysis magazine for in a hyperlocal market of 7,000 neighbors in Southwest Portland.

Until today, I’d never seen The News as a magazine with relatively leisurely deadlines. I variously and mistakenly referred to it as an on-line newspaper or newsletter.

The Oregonian’s presentation forced me to see my publication for what it isn’t and what it is.

I consider that two-hours well spent.

As for the “newsbloggers” in the room, I suspect some will take the J-Lab money and chase fire engines and patrol cars for the next year.

I wish them well.

The corrosive drip of violent media metaphors

There’s a lot of talk in the news these days about politicians toning down their rhetoric following the Tucson shootings. Some of the talk was on page 2 of today’s Oregonian in a story headlined “Lawmakers take steps toward civility.”

The new speaker of the house, John Boehner, is reported as substituting “job-destroying” for “job-killing” in describing the Democrats’ health reforms. Never mind that there’s no evidence that the reforms either kill or destroy jobs.

This all sounds like just another contrivance of the Republican word-twisting consultant Frank Luntz, infamous for his “death panels (they were never proposed but they sound scary as hell),” “death taxes (aka inheritance taxes),” and “climate change (aka global warming).”

(Oregonians will remember “job killing” from the “Job-killing Taxes” campaign against measures 66 and 67 a year ago. The business-funded organization opposing the taxes even called itself “Oregonians against Job-Killing Taxes.”)

Back to Boehner. In fact, a reversal of the health care reforms, as advocated by Boehner and fellow Republicans could be literally “people-killing” for those without health insurance.

Ooooops. Make that “people-destroying.”

Come to think of it, what’s worse?

But I digress because this is a post about media rhetoric not about politicians defanging (softening?) their pronouncements.

When I say “media” I’m not “taking aim at” (see how easy this is?) FOX commentators exclusively. I’m talking about the likes of the Oregonian sub-editor who wrote the largest headline on today’s front page.

“Battle over Bioswales and Bikes” was clearly written by some over-reaching desk jockey unwilling or unable to take a lesson from Boehner and the suddenly civil. If you read the story bearing this over-blown headline, you will discover it has nothing whatsoever to do with a “battle” over bioswales and bikes.

The operative word in the story is “bungling,” as in Mayor Sam Adams’ bungling his promotion and financing of bioswales and bikeways (not "bikes," as stated in the headline).

Any high school journalism student could find the obvious headline: “Adams bungles bioswales and bikeways.”

But oh no, we need to wage war here (readers love conflict, even if it doesn’t exist, right?), so let’s up the ante to “Battle over Bioswales and Bikes.”

Headlines like this are just one more example of media exaggeration reliant on fabricated, violent metaphors. It is part of the slow, daily drip of “information” and "news" eroding civility in our culture.

On starting the day: Good faith or a dancer's lost limb?

I’ve often wondered about how I start my days. Today was pretty typical.

I put the water on for the coffee then retrieved the newspapers from the stoop. I’m an old-fashioned guy, but I could have easily clicked in to the computer. Later I did just that.

As usual, the headlines set the tone for my Wheaties and Grapenuts.

“Employers’ health care maze” read the Oregonian’s main headline.

Another read, ambiguously, “Vatican reveals its procedures for abuse.”

The front of the New York Times offered:

“Civilians Killed as U.S. Troops Hit Afghan Bus”

“Leg Lost, Dancer Is Caught Between Caregivers.”

All this before my first cup of coffee. Bitter stuff.

It took Thomas Jefferson to bring me around.

Today is Jefferson’s birthday, a matter of singular note in Garrison Keillor’s Writer’s Almanac. The Almanac’s extended entry quoted Jefferson, writing John Adams, on the very topic of how to start my day.

"I have given up newspapers in exchange for Tacitus (“A desire to resist oppression is implanted in the nature of man”) and Thucydides (“Justice will not come to Athens until those who are not injured are as indignant as those who are injured”), for Newton and Euclid; and I find myself much the happier."

As substitutes for The Times and The Oregonian, I’ve considered Marcus Aurelius and Lao Tzu, among others.

Imagine starting the day with one of these:

Here’s Aurelius: “Whenever you notice someone else going astray, immediately turn and examine how you yourself have gone astray” or “For each thing you do, stop and ask yourself if death is to be feared because it deprives you of this.”

Try Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching: “Those who are of good faith I have faith in. Those who are lacking in good faith I also have faith in. In so doing I gain in good faith.” Or “Much speech leads inevitably to silence. Better to hold fast to the void.”

We can be grateful that Jefferson, born on this day in 1743, chose to live at great distance from “Leg Lost, Dancer Is Caught Between Caregivers.”

We should be equally grateful for following his path.

Spadea decision: dumb and dumber

Today’s “Yes on 66 & 67” spadea begins thus:

“This is the wrong place for a political ad . . .
But we have to correct the record. . . .”

In other words, the ends justify the means.

The spadea slippery slope just got more slippery.

And just how did this ad appear in The Oregonian? Was it, per chance, invited in the name of "fairness" following "No" spadeas earlier in the week? Was it sold at a "fairness" discount rate? (According to Oregon Media Central, the going spadea price in a non-Sunday paper is $19,750.)

I wouldn’t normally ask such impertinent questions except that the hanky-panky surrounding the whole spadea fiasco has left me deeply suspicious.

There's another reason a discount might be in order.

Just how much good will today’s "Yes" ad do at this late date? The actual news on today’s front page (which we reveal after peeling back the spadea husks) tells us that 840,000 of Oregon’s 2 million registered voters have already mailed in their ballots. Remember, the election is three days away. Given that turnout will be well short of 100 percent, a last-minute Saturday spadea doesn't have many minds left to change.

Oregonian publisher Chris Anderson's decision to allow the dueling political spadea ads has now dragged The Oregonian, its ad policy, its reporting, its editorial position and Anderson himself into the political campaign.

The “Yes on 66 & 67” ad in this week’s Willamette Week begins with the headline:

“Wondering what’s happened to the Oregonian?
You’re not alone.”

That seems like an odd opening line to introduce the issues of taxes, inequity, job preservation, “job killing,” social services etc.

Deeper into the ad, the “Yes” campaign purports to explain “what’s happened to the Oregonian.”

The answer: Last October, the ad tells us, “The Oregonian’s out-of-state corporate owners named a new publisher for the paper, N. Christian Anderson III. For 27 years Anderson helped run two of the most conservative papers in the country, the Orange County Register…and the Colorado Springs Gazette.”

The ad invites us — now that we are armed with that factoid — to decide for ourselves whether Anderson has steered The Oregonian to the Right. The thrust of the rest of the WW ad is that “The Oregonian” is out to burden the lower and middle classes.

This ad, like those of the opposite side, plays on the public's media illiteracy. The fact is that “The Oregonian” is an entire newspaper with many moving parts. The Op-Ed page and the paper’s editorials are but one part.

The problem is that Anderson has permitted political, front page-engulfing spadea ads whose content is riveted on Oregonian editorial positions. It's a toxic brew of news content, advertising and editorial opinion. The foul swill is certain to drive more and more readers away.

More on the Spadea controversy

The web site Oregon Media Central has a solid report by Mitch Nolan on the machinations at The Oregonian regarding recent front page spadea ads opposing Measures 66 and 67.

Seems that at one point the Oregonian's ad department informed the "No" campaign's ad buyers that wrap-around spadea are off-limits to political content. It was new publisher Chris Anderson who opened the gates to essentially front-page political display ads.

What we have is the odd scenario of the the director of ad sales and marketing, Mario van Dongen, maintaining the fire wall between advertising and editorial while a publisher is tearing it down.

Oregon Media Central quotes van Dongen as opposing political spadeas because "a political ad might take advantage of the placement and make it look like it's a newspaper statement."

Exactly. Especially when the ad's content banners the paper's editorial position.

By the way, Anderson is quoted as saying he believes that if the spadea had favored the two measures, rather than opposing them, there wouldn't be such an outcry.

Perhaps, but Anderson misses the point. This is about journalistic integrity. So far, Anderson seems tone-deaf on the topic.

Note in passing: If you think this is bad, wait until the Big Money is unleashed this fall, thanks to yesterday's Supreme Court decision. Expect a plague of political spadea — and, Mr. Anderson, a mass exodus of Oregonian subscribers.

Oregonian tinkers with spadea ad

This morning’s Oregonian “spadea” (the splashy half-wrap ad starting on the front page) provides graphic proof that, contrary to his "To our readers" note from Sunday, Publisher Chris Anderson has had concerns about how the huge front-page-engulfing ad appeared on Sunday.

See my earlier post HERE.

The evidence is three changes in today’s version of the ad. They are exactly the kind that only a publisher with misgivings would require of an advertiser.

The ad has been tinkered with to make it more clear that it isn’t, repeat is NOT, an Oregonian house ad for its editorial board position opposing measures 66 and 67.

The “Paid Advertising” notice at the top of the anti-measure 66 and 67 ad has been increased in type size and weight. (See side-by-side comparison above.)

That change still assumes that readers know what “Paid Advertising” means. Don’t count on it.

Some, perhaps many, might think this ad, which fits hand in glove with the paper’s editorial board position, is simply a “house” ad. That’s advertising in which the newspaper advertises itself. Could this be one of those? Such advertising presumably "costs" the paper in space that might otherwise be sold. In a sense it is “paid” for by the paper.

Readers simply don’t know enough about these distinctions, especially when the very first line of the ad reads “The Oregonian’s editorial board urges voters to VOTE NO on Measures 66 and 67.”

Whose voice is that? Sure sounds like The Oregonian’s.

Another change. The quote from the Oregonian editorial is no longer “boxed” with a color background. Now it is depicted as a torn-out clipping with a ragged “torn” border. (See above photo comparison.) Presumably the new graphic device is to indicate that the advertisers have torn out and are “using” the editorial. The earlier boxed version might have suggested collusion with the paper.

And yet another change. At the bottom of each page of today’s version is the line reading “Paid for by Oregonians against Job-Killing taxes.” On Sunday, the ID was limited to the last page.

Why these changes? Why were they needed, especially after Anderson so unequivocally defended the spadea in his Sunday note “To our readers.”

Could Anderson’s reader-blind decision-making and these unacknowledged tinkerings be signs of more trouble ahead for the beleaguered Oregonian?

Note: Several readers have written Anderson on-line to say the line between advertising and editorial content has been breached and that they are canceling their home subscriptions.

Red Flag at The Oregonian

When a newspaper publisher is compelled to explain an advertisement to readers, it should serve as a red flag that something is wrong.

In yesterday’s Oregonian, publisher Chris Anderson explained why the paper had sold space on a front-page wrapper (called a “spadea”) to a political campaign, in this case to the anti-measure 66 and 67 campaign. The ad was larded with quotes from a supportive Oregonian editorial.

A truncated version of his "To our readers" column appears HERE, along with more than 100 reader comments.

The whole "spadea" device is intrusive — by design. And, yes, I know that newspapers are in crisis and desperately need the kind of revenue this sort of sleight-of-hand advertising can produce.

Long-term, these slippery devices may simply hasten the exodus of readers. It makes matters worse when they effectively turn over the public face of The Oregonian to political advertising. Worse still, the advertising's content is the product of the Oregonian's own editorial board.

Sure, the top of the ad says "paid advertisement," but readers are utterly confused by what is and is not advertising, thanks in large measure to newspapers' blurring the lines. Take the Saturday "Autos" section, whose scant editorial content is pure puffery that leads into a section that is a blatant a vehicle for car dealer ads.

Given the spadia's appearance, content and placement, the "paid advertising" label might lead readers to assume that the ad was paid for by The Oregonian itself.

Anderson's anticipation of concerns like mine is no doubt why he felt compelled to write his "To our readers" column. If so, he failed to allay those concerns and simply alerted us to his need to try to write his way out of a deeply flawed editorial decision.

The New Journalism: Wall-to-wall opinion?

The Housing Authority of Portland’s campaign to spend $40.5 million to raze and rebuild Hillsdale Terrace in a dank, nearby gully is troubling enough.

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?

Healthcare reform worthy of Kennedy's name

I’m sure a few thousand have already suggested that new health reform legislation be named for Senator Ted Kennedy. Fixing our broken healthcare system was his passion.

One condition: name it for Kennedy only if the legislation is worthy of his name and truly reforms the system down to its bones.

If it is simply a sop, forget it. Name it "Blue Dog."

Memo to Jack Ohman at the Oregonian: An editorial cartoon came to me about Kennedy this morning. There he is in the clouds with Bobby and Jack. The three are playing touch football, just as they did when they were kids.

Jack and Teddy are huddling, and Bobby is lined up on defense.

Jack, the quarterback, calls the play for his youngest brother.

The caption reads “Go long.”

As we know, he did.

Optional caption for Catholics: “Hail Mary!”

A different kind of bad news

Has this ever been a bad news day!

No, I’m not talking about just Iranian election results or more car bombs in Pakistan.

The bad news started with an Oregonian’s front-page story telling me that “more than 2 million households are in danger of seeing their major broadcast TV channels disappear into a fuzz of static when analog service ends Friday.”

Danger? Did I read “danger”?

What’s the danger? Suddenly 2 million people have to eat dinner together and converse. The real danger is that a reporter could write such non-sense. Try replacing “in danger of” with “will be inconvenienced by” or possibly “will be irked by.” I personally like "will be potentially enriched by."

Next it is on to my daily feed of Garrison Keillor’s Writer’s Almanac. There I’m told that it is the birthday of Anne Frank and that her Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl has sold more than 25 million copies, and it is “the second-best-selling nonfiction book in history, after the Bible.”

The Bible non-fiction? It certainly has its much-heralded truths, but really, non-fiction?

Parting the Red Sea, the virgin birth, feeding the multitudes, walking on water? Suddenly overheated, mythological metaphor becomes "non-fiction," and no one blinks.

Not even Garrison Keillor.

So it’s now the end of the day and I finally get to New York Times columnist David Brooks. His subject is our stampeding American debt. He writes: “The ratio of debt-to-personal-disposable income was 55 percent in 1960.” He goes on to tell us that “it” (presumably this “ratio”) grew to 133 percent in 2007.

What ratio?

Here’s one of our brainiest columnists writing in one of the world’s most respected newspapers,and he doesn’t know the difference between ratio and percentage.

Worse, neither do his New York Times editors.

All three stories had news, all right. None of it reassuring.

Maybe the food additives and pollution are finally getting to us.

Compare and Contrast

Willamette Week and The Oregonian have always been studies in contrast. The scrappy alternative weekly routinely scoops and embarrasses the big, cautious daily.

Think Neil Goldschmidt and Sam Adams sex stories, both WW scoops.

Today both papers ran stories about the resignation of Matthew Hanly, the headmaster of Oregon Episcopal School. You can read the Willamette Week version here and The Oregonian story here.

In its story the weekly reports that it published events leading to Monday’s resignation in a story on-line last week.

Which raises the question of whether The Oregonian would have printed the “resignation” story if Willamette Week hadn’t published its prelude.

Someone hacked e-mails that Hanly foolishly wrote on his school computer. Then the messages were anonymously sent to the papers.

The papers handled the e-mail contents in a markedly different way.

The e-mails revealed Hanly, who has been separated from his wife since September, to be gay. More than that, the e-mail correspondence included some on-line “pillow talk” between Hanly and Michael Hulshoff-Schmidt, the headmaster of the International High School in Portland.

Willamette Week chose to share explicit content with its readers in a graphic — to which I say, “Give us (to say nothing of Hanly and Hulshoff-Schmidt) a break!”

The Oregonian simply referred to the content as “flirtatious conversations with a man.” Unlike Willamette Week, The Oregonian didn’t name the man.

The resignation and the reason for it was news enough. Which is pretty much the way The Oregonian played it.

Still, curious minds wonder about The Oregonian’s omission of Hulshoff-Schmidt, who was e-mailing from work too.

The other major difference between the coverage is that Willamette Week included Hanly’s eyebrow-raising salary: $243,500 a year. No salary figure was given for Hulshoff-Schmidt.

When the dust settles from this tabloidesque yarn, it would be instructive to see how the salary of the headmaster of a private school compares to that of public school principals.

Now that has the whiff of serious news.