one of the major indications that you have hit the target is when your opponent is left with no rational response and is reduced to using the "racist" epithet. that is the modern version of "so's your old man".
Ms. Shumway cannot report without getting a paycheck. Who it comes from has always been an issue in journalism, along with the old saying, "Freedom of the press depends on who owns one." She is owned, just like any other wage-slave. Recognizing this fact of life can be terribly upsetting to the journalistic ego, which is always surrounded by a very thin skin.
Ms. Shumway faces problems that are endemic to the news biz: access and confusion.
Access: If the progressive machine decides to freeze Ms. Shumway out, she won't get any "news." Or the "news" will be handed to someone else (better known as the Crombie Effect) who can carry the water for the leaker. This is all well known within the journalism bubble.
Confusion is an analog of "regulatory capture," the way that, for example, cop reporters start thinking like cops. Or a political reporter beginning to think that she is part of the political class and has real power, usually amplified by late-evening kanoodling over drinks in a favorite, dark, lobbyists' bar.
Thus her reaction, akin to the dead frog being animated by a jolt of voltage when presented with reality.
She's been around approximately forever, bathed in SPJ mush and the silly idea that the news biz is a "profession." Tell me where journalists are licensed and how they might be disbarred and I'll believe it.
Great article Jeff! More folks need to understand bias and how impacts the world we live in. Typical progressive response, your evil for representing a point of view that is different from theirs and they are the righteous ones defending right and wrong…
You certainly are not racist. However, these days any comment that opposes the Progressive narrative is so labeled. Racism is a form of collectivism; therefore, an individualist cannot be a racist. (I came up with that one during a discussion with some left-leaning social workers many years ago.)
While I understand the inclination to respond to baseless hit pieces from the left, I wonder if acknowledging them (as they disappear) simply gives them the exposure that is dwindling with their readership. This is the best any of them have now. "I don't like what you said. You're a racist." Seriously, how tiresome. I feel the same way when I see conservatives quoting Bill Maher or "The View." If we didn't quote them their viewership would be reduced to a tiny segment of low IQ shrews. (I guess that makes me a sexist.)
Shumway is a nobody. And not even good at that.
The Dems needed one more seat. Like magic, at the last minute in a district with a high concentration of what will certainly contain illegals, the votes appeared. Odd how the last minute votes never go to conservatives. We KNOW they are cheating. They TOLD us they are cheating. The only question is by how many we don't know about yet.
Hey, Kevin. I thought it was worth writing about because it is instructive about the Oregon news media environment, not because I think her claims are legitimate.
I do not know whether or not you are a racist but I assume you are not. You've given readers of Oregon Roundup no reason to think you are.
I can no longer access Twitter, so I can't evaluate whatever Ms. Schumway said in support of her contention that you are one. Frankly, it seems that what she did was shake the SPJ Code of Ethics at you without specifying which section or sections you allegedly violated and how. That is not a persuasive way to make a reasoned argument that stands up to scrutiny, but it's a great way to smear someone. That's especially true if Ms. Schumway's audience consists of lay people who do not extend intellectual charity to of conservative media figures generally. One of the cheapest tricks in the progressive playbook is to call those who disagree with you "racist."
However, I do have a question about a passage in last week's piece ("Shock Dem surge roils Oregon" 15 November 2024) that also appeared in the November 2 edition, "Election boss against denying ballot 'for any reason whatsoever' just before noncitizen voting disclosure."
It is:
"In a video released weeks before Oregon acknowledged its motor voter system had illegally registered noncitizens, over 1,500 of them at latest count, the state’s Elections Director Molly Woon said, 'To me, it is really unfortunate if someone is prevented from getting a ballot for any reason whatsoever.' "
I responded to that by posing the following question in the comments:
"Is this meant to imply that Woon believes noncitizens should receive ballots? Context is important. Given that it is illegal for noncitizens to vote and Woon is the state's election director, it seems improbable that she would have been flouting the law so grievously. Yes, the Dems have sleaze on their hands for sweeping the illegal $500,000 contribution under the rug with the help of the ODOJ. But if the intent here is to suggest that Woon was advocating facilitating voting by noncitizens, what facts back that up? "
You replied:
"My intent was to provide evidence, previously unreported, that the elections director believed it was “unfortunate” to deny ballots to anyone, including people not legally entitled to receive and vote a ballot. Part of her job is to deny legally unqualified people ballots. Her department does zero verification of legal qualifications. If I had evidence Woon knowingly registered legally unqualified people to vote this would be a very different article. "
I didn't see the reply until today. Can you articulate how this is "evidence?" What facts support your view that Ms. Woon believed it was “unfortunate” to deny ballots specifically to people not legally entitled to receive and vote a ballot?
I viewed the video which, as you say, was released weeks before Oregon "acknowledged its motor voter system had illegally registered noncitizens" as a result of bureaucratic mismanagement. The quotation in the November 2 article is only part of what Ms. Woon said on the video. This is the entirety of what she said:
"I think it is really important that everybody has the opportunity to participate in their government. You know, nobody is required to vote, but to me it is really unfortunate if someone is prevented from getting a ballot for any reason whatsoever."
The subject of illegally registered voters didn't come up in the video and Woon did not mention it. Given her job as Oregon's election director, Woon can be expected to have known that non-citizens, like people incarcerated for a committing a felony, cannot vote. Ms. Woon has surely taken an oath of office to the effect that she would fully and faithfully discharge the duties of her office.
Under these circumstances, it would have been improbable for Woon to have spelled out: "it is really unfortunate if someone is prevented from getting a ballot for any reason whatsoever unless they are currently incarcerated for having committed a felony or are a noncitizen." The last clause can be taken for granted.
Similarly, absent other facts, it is improbable that when Ms. Woon said: "It is really unfortunate if someone is prevented from getting a ballot for any reason whatsoever" what she really meant was "it is really unfortunate if someone is prevented from getting a ballot for any reason whatsoever even if they are non-citizens."
Where is the evidence that this is what Ms. Woon meant? Has she actually said this elsewhere? Frankly, it seems impossible to reach that conclusion without imputing motives to Ms. Woon for which there is no direct factual basis. The logic behind the claim seems to be since some Oregon Democratic operatives are sleazy, and since Ms. Woon was once a Democratic operative, then she is sleazy enough to be charged with wishing for an outcome - illegal voting by noncitizens - that would be contrary to Oregon law. Is that the process by which a statement in which Ms. Woon didn't say what you said she meant becomes "evidence"?
In closing, I am willing to stipulate that the host of the video in question is insufferable.
Good questions, Ollie. I didn't include the whole quote from the video because forcing people to vote is not at issue, and doesn't change the meaning of the part I quoted. I don't know whether Woon knew SOS was registering noncitizens. I do know that she stands astride a voting system that makes noncitizen voting VERY LIKELY, and NOW CONFIRMED and further appears in a video extolling the virtues of that system that very publicly failed in its obligation to prevent noncitizens from registering, and from voting. It's an odd sentiment under the circumstances. I suspect she truly believes it's unfortunate for anyone to be denied a ballot for any reason, as she says in the video. That is consistent with the way her department conducted itself (under her and prior directors) until the noncitizen registration matter was made public, but inconsistent with the law she is supposed to enforce. I dunno, seems newsworthy on its face to me.
Well written, Jeff. I agree with things that you find interesting or important for those of us who loved and really miss the old Oregon. I'm in my mid-70's and am blessed to still be able to live in the little home I built back in the early 1980's, due to getting a Reverse Mortgage. Sure never thought I would be needing to do that to stay in my home until I pass, but we never know what the future may bring, do we? If I were still young and had a life partner, I would likely have moved on to Idaho years ago, but I'll be here, an old-fashioned conservative and loyal Oregonian for the rest of my life. God bless, and thanks again for your Oregon Roundup.
Just guessing, Ms. Schumway is full tilt DEI which is inherently racist and only thriving in media and government. I gave up print and television 'news' long ago as it has devolved into opinion articles. For that reason I now pick which opinion I allow in my eyes and ears through the marvel of internet.Thanks for being here Mr. Eager.
Ms Shumway demonstrates her own bias by assuming the illegal immigrant voter are Latinos. Do we know that? She clearly has no concerns about the dangers of a lopsided government in control of Oregon or the danger of a compromised voting system but would rather focus on name-calling rather than the substance of your article. If the extra votes cast were illegal votes and the oversight checking to assure only legal votes are counted are complicit in allowing illegal votes to occur in the first place the integrity of Oregons voting system needs to be investigated by the feds. Ms Shumway does not address that larger issue. Why did Oregon govt only discover illegal voting after it was reported by journalists. I think Oregon needs an electoral college to prevent the Portland-Eugene domination over Oregon governance. Govt cannot be held accountable when it is in lockdown and can count illegal votes to keep its super majority. I know for a fact that my non-resident relatives who left Oregon were sent ballots from Oregon even though their Oregon licenses expired and they are licensed in other states. After advocating on behalf of IDD people in Oregon I not only do not want this OR government in charge of my life and actually fear it now. The last election shows how out of step Oregon is from the rest of the U.S. Yet when I talk with ordinary people even in Portland they are not as left leaning as our legislature. That leads me to believe that our voting system is corrupt and that is not a racist issue unless Ms Shumway knows (somehow) that the illegal votes were all from a minority race. Thank you for helping bring attention to Oregons failed voting system. I hope it gets fixed.
Julia Shumway, deputy editor for Oregon Capital Chronicle, Capitol press corps president and board member for the Oregon chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, is clearly qualified to deliver the highest in journalistic standards which these days carries as much esteem as that of a senator or congressman or governor or district attorney, the highest company one can keep in society. Therefore, Mr Eager, I believe Ms Shumway when she says you are racist, especially being part of the white patriarchy of which you obviously are, and of which the leadership of our great, non-racist, BIPOC state of Oregon would be keen to take offense. As a fellow Oregonian of yours, therefore, I am shocked that it would take Ms Shumway’s heroic journalistic instincts to publicly call you out for your not having already publicly confessed of this racist truth of yourself. Repent, Mr Eager, and ye shall find solace in the transparent, loving, BIPOC-bosom of the state of Oregon as well as in the heart of each and every one of your fellow, non-racist Oregonians. Godspeed, Sir.
Technically, anything posted to twitter/x is published, so if she wants to be a "real reporter" maybe what she publishes to twitter should meet the SPJ code of ethics.
I reject the formulation, deployed so aggressively first from team Obama and his cohort, that you are not allowed to have a substantive and reasoned position on an issue if it at all is tangentially related to an identity which The Left has staked a position on.
Having read the article I am at a complete loss as to what would qualify you as a racist except prehaps it arrose from the fever swamp of a mind apparently
one of the major indications that you have hit the target is when your opponent is left with no rational response and is reduced to using the "racist" epithet. that is the modern version of "so's your old man".
Ad hominem argument, in other words.
She’s a warrior princess, sitting on the right side of God.
She doesn’t even understand (and you can’t tell her; I tried) that “Latino” is not a race or racial classification.
So who’s the actual racist, Jeff?
Ms. Shumway cannot report without getting a paycheck. Who it comes from has always been an issue in journalism, along with the old saying, "Freedom of the press depends on who owns one." She is owned, just like any other wage-slave. Recognizing this fact of life can be terribly upsetting to the journalistic ego, which is always surrounded by a very thin skin.
Ms. Shumway faces problems that are endemic to the news biz: access and confusion.
Access: If the progressive machine decides to freeze Ms. Shumway out, she won't get any "news." Or the "news" will be handed to someone else (better known as the Crombie Effect) who can carry the water for the leaker. This is all well known within the journalism bubble.
Confusion is an analog of "regulatory capture," the way that, for example, cop reporters start thinking like cops. Or a political reporter beginning to think that she is part of the political class and has real power, usually amplified by late-evening kanoodling over drinks in a favorite, dark, lobbyists' bar.
Thus her reaction, akin to the dead frog being animated by a jolt of voltage when presented with reality.
She's been around approximately forever, bathed in SPJ mush and the silly idea that the news biz is a "profession." Tell me where journalists are licensed and how they might be disbarred and I'll believe it.
Thanks, Richard. Your thought about (no) journalist licensure had occurred to me. I guess she seeks vigilante journalist "disbarment."
Great article Jeff! More folks need to understand bias and how impacts the world we live in. Typical progressive response, your evil for representing a point of view that is different from theirs and they are the righteous ones defending right and wrong…
Thx, Shayne!
You certainly are not racist. However, these days any comment that opposes the Progressive narrative is so labeled. Racism is a form of collectivism; therefore, an individualist cannot be a racist. (I came up with that one during a discussion with some left-leaning social workers many years ago.)
While I understand the inclination to respond to baseless hit pieces from the left, I wonder if acknowledging them (as they disappear) simply gives them the exposure that is dwindling with their readership. This is the best any of them have now. "I don't like what you said. You're a racist." Seriously, how tiresome. I feel the same way when I see conservatives quoting Bill Maher or "The View." If we didn't quote them their viewership would be reduced to a tiny segment of low IQ shrews. (I guess that makes me a sexist.)
Shumway is a nobody. And not even good at that.
The Dems needed one more seat. Like magic, at the last minute in a district with a high concentration of what will certainly contain illegals, the votes appeared. Odd how the last minute votes never go to conservatives. We KNOW they are cheating. They TOLD us they are cheating. The only question is by how many we don't know about yet.
Hey, Kevin. I thought it was worth writing about because it is instructive about the Oregon news media environment, not because I think her claims are legitimate.
I do not know whether or not you are a racist but I assume you are not. You've given readers of Oregon Roundup no reason to think you are.
I can no longer access Twitter, so I can't evaluate whatever Ms. Schumway said in support of her contention that you are one. Frankly, it seems that what she did was shake the SPJ Code of Ethics at you without specifying which section or sections you allegedly violated and how. That is not a persuasive way to make a reasoned argument that stands up to scrutiny, but it's a great way to smear someone. That's especially true if Ms. Schumway's audience consists of lay people who do not extend intellectual charity to of conservative media figures generally. One of the cheapest tricks in the progressive playbook is to call those who disagree with you "racist."
However, I do have a question about a passage in last week's piece ("Shock Dem surge roils Oregon" 15 November 2024) that also appeared in the November 2 edition, "Election boss against denying ballot 'for any reason whatsoever' just before noncitizen voting disclosure."
It is:
"In a video released weeks before Oregon acknowledged its motor voter system had illegally registered noncitizens, over 1,500 of them at latest count, the state’s Elections Director Molly Woon said, 'To me, it is really unfortunate if someone is prevented from getting a ballot for any reason whatsoever.' "
I responded to that by posing the following question in the comments:
"Is this meant to imply that Woon believes noncitizens should receive ballots? Context is important. Given that it is illegal for noncitizens to vote and Woon is the state's election director, it seems improbable that she would have been flouting the law so grievously. Yes, the Dems have sleaze on their hands for sweeping the illegal $500,000 contribution under the rug with the help of the ODOJ. But if the intent here is to suggest that Woon was advocating facilitating voting by noncitizens, what facts back that up? "
You replied:
"My intent was to provide evidence, previously unreported, that the elections director believed it was “unfortunate” to deny ballots to anyone, including people not legally entitled to receive and vote a ballot. Part of her job is to deny legally unqualified people ballots. Her department does zero verification of legal qualifications. If I had evidence Woon knowingly registered legally unqualified people to vote this would be a very different article. "
I didn't see the reply until today. Can you articulate how this is "evidence?" What facts support your view that Ms. Woon believed it was “unfortunate” to deny ballots specifically to people not legally entitled to receive and vote a ballot?
I viewed the video which, as you say, was released weeks before Oregon "acknowledged its motor voter system had illegally registered noncitizens" as a result of bureaucratic mismanagement. The quotation in the November 2 article is only part of what Ms. Woon said on the video. This is the entirety of what she said:
"I think it is really important that everybody has the opportunity to participate in their government. You know, nobody is required to vote, but to me it is really unfortunate if someone is prevented from getting a ballot for any reason whatsoever."
The subject of illegally registered voters didn't come up in the video and Woon did not mention it. Given her job as Oregon's election director, Woon can be expected to have known that non-citizens, like people incarcerated for a committing a felony, cannot vote. Ms. Woon has surely taken an oath of office to the effect that she would fully and faithfully discharge the duties of her office.
Under these circumstances, it would have been improbable for Woon to have spelled out: "it is really unfortunate if someone is prevented from getting a ballot for any reason whatsoever unless they are currently incarcerated for having committed a felony or are a noncitizen." The last clause can be taken for granted.
Similarly, absent other facts, it is improbable that when Ms. Woon said: "It is really unfortunate if someone is prevented from getting a ballot for any reason whatsoever" what she really meant was "it is really unfortunate if someone is prevented from getting a ballot for any reason whatsoever even if they are non-citizens."
Where is the evidence that this is what Ms. Woon meant? Has she actually said this elsewhere? Frankly, it seems impossible to reach that conclusion without imputing motives to Ms. Woon for which there is no direct factual basis. The logic behind the claim seems to be since some Oregon Democratic operatives are sleazy, and since Ms. Woon was once a Democratic operative, then she is sleazy enough to be charged with wishing for an outcome - illegal voting by noncitizens - that would be contrary to Oregon law. Is that the process by which a statement in which Ms. Woon didn't say what you said she meant becomes "evidence"?
In closing, I am willing to stipulate that the host of the video in question is insufferable.
Good questions, Ollie. I didn't include the whole quote from the video because forcing people to vote is not at issue, and doesn't change the meaning of the part I quoted. I don't know whether Woon knew SOS was registering noncitizens. I do know that she stands astride a voting system that makes noncitizen voting VERY LIKELY, and NOW CONFIRMED and further appears in a video extolling the virtues of that system that very publicly failed in its obligation to prevent noncitizens from registering, and from voting. It's an odd sentiment under the circumstances. I suspect she truly believes it's unfortunate for anyone to be denied a ballot for any reason, as she says in the video. That is consistent with the way her department conducted itself (under her and prior directors) until the noncitizen registration matter was made public, but inconsistent with the law she is supposed to enforce. I dunno, seems newsworthy on its face to me.
Well written, Jeff. I agree with things that you find interesting or important for those of us who loved and really miss the old Oregon. I'm in my mid-70's and am blessed to still be able to live in the little home I built back in the early 1980's, due to getting a Reverse Mortgage. Sure never thought I would be needing to do that to stay in my home until I pass, but we never know what the future may bring, do we? If I were still young and had a life partner, I would likely have moved on to Idaho years ago, but I'll be here, an old-fashioned conservative and loyal Oregonian for the rest of my life. God bless, and thanks again for your Oregon Roundup.
Thanks, Carol!!!
Just guessing, Ms. Schumway is full tilt DEI which is inherently racist and only thriving in media and government. I gave up print and television 'news' long ago as it has devolved into opinion articles. For that reason I now pick which opinion I allow in my eyes and ears through the marvel of internet.Thanks for being here Mr. Eager.
Thanks, SPH!
Don't feel bad, she didn't call you literally Hitler, just racist.
Ms Shumway demonstrates her own bias by assuming the illegal immigrant voter are Latinos. Do we know that? She clearly has no concerns about the dangers of a lopsided government in control of Oregon or the danger of a compromised voting system but would rather focus on name-calling rather than the substance of your article. If the extra votes cast were illegal votes and the oversight checking to assure only legal votes are counted are complicit in allowing illegal votes to occur in the first place the integrity of Oregons voting system needs to be investigated by the feds. Ms Shumway does not address that larger issue. Why did Oregon govt only discover illegal voting after it was reported by journalists. I think Oregon needs an electoral college to prevent the Portland-Eugene domination over Oregon governance. Govt cannot be held accountable when it is in lockdown and can count illegal votes to keep its super majority. I know for a fact that my non-resident relatives who left Oregon were sent ballots from Oregon even though their Oregon licenses expired and they are licensed in other states. After advocating on behalf of IDD people in Oregon I not only do not want this OR government in charge of my life and actually fear it now. The last election shows how out of step Oregon is from the rest of the U.S. Yet when I talk with ordinary people even in Portland they are not as left leaning as our legislature. That leads me to believe that our voting system is corrupt and that is not a racist issue unless Ms Shumway knows (somehow) that the illegal votes were all from a minority race. Thank you for helping bring attention to Oregons failed voting system. I hope it gets fixed.
Julia Shumway, deputy editor for Oregon Capital Chronicle, Capitol press corps president and board member for the Oregon chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, is clearly qualified to deliver the highest in journalistic standards which these days carries as much esteem as that of a senator or congressman or governor or district attorney, the highest company one can keep in society. Therefore, Mr Eager, I believe Ms Shumway when she says you are racist, especially being part of the white patriarchy of which you obviously are, and of which the leadership of our great, non-racist, BIPOC state of Oregon would be keen to take offense. As a fellow Oregonian of yours, therefore, I am shocked that it would take Ms Shumway’s heroic journalistic instincts to publicly call you out for your not having already publicly confessed of this racist truth of yourself. Repent, Mr Eager, and ye shall find solace in the transparent, loving, BIPOC-bosom of the state of Oregon as well as in the heart of each and every one of your fellow, non-racist Oregonians. Godspeed, Sir.
LOL!
Technically, anything posted to twitter/x is published, so if she wants to be a "real reporter" maybe what she publishes to twitter should meet the SPJ code of ethics.
I've not read the SPH code of ethics. Did her tweet violate them?
I reject the formulation, deployed so aggressively first from team Obama and his cohort, that you are not allowed to have a substantive and reasoned position on an issue if it at all is tangentially related to an identity which The Left has staked a position on.
And this is a good example of that.
Well put, Duck on a Bike.
Having read the article I am at a complete loss as to what would qualify you as a racist except prehaps it arrose from the fever swamp of a mind apparently
incapable of a cogent contrary response
In an article in the latest issue of the New Yorker the author refers to his father as Latino