2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

   What I am saying is that being not respected in their own community as a quality newspaper certainly does help them fall faster....

   They aren't great.  They aren't even fair....  This city is full of fairly intellectual people, they definitely have lots of room to improve in terms of their quality and journalistic integrity.

jeff

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

 I disagree with the original comment stating the Oregonian would still have a hard time regardless, etc...

   Yes, the Oregonian would still have a difficult transition to the "digital age" - but it would certainly be much better off if it was of better quality and were more respected in the community as a whole.

   As a sidenote, The NY Times does fairly well in the Portland area due to the poor quality of the Oregonian.  I see alot of NY Times delivery boxes on mailboxes in my neighborhood...

jeff

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

 Very well said - and I strongly agree with you on all three of your major points. 

  When I first moved here from Seattle 20 years ago - it really struck me that some articles on page 2, 3 or 4 expressed opinion very strongly and weren't on the editorial page.  After a while, I suppose I became accustomed to it.

  It was a big step down from the Seattle Times.

jeff

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

   I guess it's all relative, but the quality of the oregonian is fairly poor.   A good paper strives to be unbiased, rather than just claming to be.   Particularly, the state political reporting is abysmal.   Regardless of the content, most pieces are poorly written.   I, for one, am not sorry to see them fall on hard times;

    As a sidenote,  I commend the Willamette Week for stepping up and filling the void when the Oregonian was soft pedaling the Goldschmidt Pedophilia Story as "an affair with a 14 year old";  Viewing an older man in power having sexual contact with a 14 year old as anything but a criminal act is disgusting.   I boycotted the Oregonian, both print and on-line after that.

jeff

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context