In criticizing Oregon's dismaying response to campaign finance fraud, The Oregonian's editorial board explained why it should endorse Republican Will Lathrop for Attorney General.
We'll now see what, if any, action in November the public living in Portland, Eugene and Medford will take regarding this mess. What we do on the East side makes very little difference. Thanks for putting the editorial out there that explains the whole sordid affair in plain language. It cost us a super Governor and we’ll save the involvement of our non-resident Senator Wyden for another day.
I know exactly what you are saying JR, but please don't let the probability of being out-voted, legitimate or not, keep you and others from casting your vote for truth transparency and honesty. I have canvassed many people that have simply given up voting, believing it just doesn't matter. I have found myself with those same beliefs but I'm willing to give it one more try.
I believe the article contains an error. The final sentence of the fourth paragraph states: "Oregon political blogger Jeff Eager first reported on the records earlier this month."
This is the year 2024. Almost no one is a "blogger" these days, and certainly not Mr. Eager. Moreover, "blogger" is not an accepted shorthand way of referring to any independent journalist who does not work for a legacy media organization.
As your reporter surely knows, Mr. Eager runs the Substack publication Oregon Roundup. There he publishes "Oregon Roundup news stories, opinion pieces and podcasts to try to give Oregonians and people interested in Oregon a more complete view of what’s happening . . ." in this state.https://oregonroundup.substack.com/about
By the way, I have no connection to Mr. Eager other than as an enthusiastic subscriber to Oregon Roundup.
A better way to have phrased it would have been to say: "Oregon political writer Jeff Eager first reported on the records earlier this month in his Substack publication Oregon Roundup."
As it is, readers might infer that the paper referred to Mr. Eager as a "blogger" in order to belittle him. Your publication would not do that, would it?
Thanks for your feedback. I am not aware of any derogatory meaning for the term blogger, which I note was the name of a service from Google much like Substack.
For sure. I’m not sure I’d be excited about calling them lawyers if they started practicing law. But seems like there should be a better term for it than “blogger.”
On point Javier. As the late great Rush often said "words mean things". The O is using this common soft psy-op in an attempt to dis credit an accurate and popular counter journalist. The left hates being called out.
If the Oregonian editorial is good for anything, it's the reluctant, long-overdue admission that decades of one-party rule in Oregon have brought a "lack of accountability" (to put it mildly). Indeed, 40 years of total Democrat dominance have resulted in levels of corruption, maladministration, and incompetence never before seen in this state. One need only recall the mid-1980s when Oregon last had true two-party government. Republican Governor Vic Atiyeh, Secretary of State Norma Paulus, and Attorney General Dave Frohnmayer oversaw an efficient, honest executive branch. There were checks and balances in the legislature, where Democrat House Speaker Vera Katz and Senate President John Kitzhaber presided. Legislative policies were openly debated, not dictated behind closed doors. The press did its job with detailed reports on all aspects of government. The judiciary was composed of judges from both parties with diverse points of view. The two-party system wasn't perfect, but it generally worked. Oregon was able to deal with crises as varied as the Rajneesh takeover and the timber depression because strong, capable leaders had the trust of the people. They were accountable because their partisan opponents were accountable as well. Public integrity investigators such as the FBI had little to do and openly noted how "clean" Oregon politics and government were.
Contrast that with the years that followed. Governors named Goldschmidt, Roberts, Kulongoski, Kitzhaber, Brown and Kotek took over, with their ilk controlling the legislature (with a few temporary exceptions). The judiciary over 40 years became the exclusive domain of like-minded liberals who supported the party line and rubber-stamped their cohorts. Corruption and incompetence went unnoticed and unpunished because of mutual interest in self-protection. Some have accurately called this political incest. If this is ever to change, Oregon has to start somewhere. Electing Will Lathrop as Attorney General would be an excellent beginning.
I guess we'll see if the Oregonian is serious or just another media dilitante. It escapes me as to why both the Lathrop and Chavez -DeRemer aren't hammering both Rayfield and Bynum for ignoring the legislative counsel's opinion and foisting probably illegal legislation on Oregonians and what that implies for their tolerance of continuing corruption by the ruling party
Typical behavior from the Oregonian--report just enough to say you wrote something, then drop the story like a hot potato. Happens frequently--see Shame Kavanaugh's poignant "If only we'd known" series on the new city charter and the electoral train wreck it produced. Ditto WillyWeek.
With 116 people running for five offices--and primaries folded into the main election--it was to be expected that the unions, business lobbies, nonprofits would gain a tremendous advantage. With 25-percent of the vote to put someone on the veto-proof city council, it doesn't take a genius to predict that the progressive machine will continue to run the city...into the ground.
We'll now see what, if any, action in November the public living in Portland, Eugene and Medford will take regarding this mess. What we do on the East side makes very little difference. Thanks for putting the editorial out there that explains the whole sordid affair in plain language. It cost us a super Governor and we’ll save the involvement of our non-resident Senator Wyden for another day.
I know exactly what you are saying JR, but please don't let the probability of being out-voted, legitimate or not, keep you and others from casting your vote for truth transparency and honesty. I have canvassed many people that have simply given up voting, believing it just doesn't matter. I have found myself with those same beliefs but I'm willing to give it one more try.
On August 27, 2024, I sent the editor of the Oregonian the following letter:
I am responding to the article titled " Records reveal major oversights in Democratic Party of Oregon’s misreporting of $500,000" in today's OregonLive/The Oregonian. https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2024/08/records-reveal-major-oversights-in-democratic-party-of-oregons-misreporting-of-500000-contribution.html?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
I believe the article contains an error. The final sentence of the fourth paragraph states: "Oregon political blogger Jeff Eager first reported on the records earlier this month."
This is the year 2024. Almost no one is a "blogger" these days, and certainly not Mr. Eager. Moreover, "blogger" is not an accepted shorthand way of referring to any independent journalist who does not work for a legacy media organization.
As your reporter surely knows, Mr. Eager runs the Substack publication Oregon Roundup. There he publishes "Oregon Roundup news stories, opinion pieces and podcasts to try to give Oregonians and people interested in Oregon a more complete view of what’s happening . . ." in this state.https://oregonroundup.substack.com/about
By the way, I have no connection to Mr. Eager other than as an enthusiastic subscriber to Oregon Roundup.
A better way to have phrased it would have been to say: "Oregon political writer Jeff Eager first reported on the records earlier this month in his Substack publication Oregon Roundup."
As it is, readers might infer that the paper referred to Mr. Eager as a "blogger" in order to belittle him. Your publication would not do that, would it?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I received the following reply the next day:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your feedback. I am not aware of any derogatory meaning for the term blogger, which I note was the name of a service from Google much like Substack.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blogger
It seems wholly accurate. Therese
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategically obtuse?
Thanks, Ollie! More than anything, I think "blogger" is an outdated term by approximately 15 years or so.
It’s somewhat derogatory and they know it.
For sure. I’m not sure I’d be excited about calling them lawyers if they started practicing law. But seems like there should be a better term for it than “blogger.”
On point Javier. As the late great Rush often said "words mean things". The O is using this common soft psy-op in an attempt to dis credit an accurate and popular counter journalist. The left hates being called out.
If the Oregonian editorial is good for anything, it's the reluctant, long-overdue admission that decades of one-party rule in Oregon have brought a "lack of accountability" (to put it mildly). Indeed, 40 years of total Democrat dominance have resulted in levels of corruption, maladministration, and incompetence never before seen in this state. One need only recall the mid-1980s when Oregon last had true two-party government. Republican Governor Vic Atiyeh, Secretary of State Norma Paulus, and Attorney General Dave Frohnmayer oversaw an efficient, honest executive branch. There were checks and balances in the legislature, where Democrat House Speaker Vera Katz and Senate President John Kitzhaber presided. Legislative policies were openly debated, not dictated behind closed doors. The press did its job with detailed reports on all aspects of government. The judiciary was composed of judges from both parties with diverse points of view. The two-party system wasn't perfect, but it generally worked. Oregon was able to deal with crises as varied as the Rajneesh takeover and the timber depression because strong, capable leaders had the trust of the people. They were accountable because their partisan opponents were accountable as well. Public integrity investigators such as the FBI had little to do and openly noted how "clean" Oregon politics and government were.
Contrast that with the years that followed. Governors named Goldschmidt, Roberts, Kulongoski, Kitzhaber, Brown and Kotek took over, with their ilk controlling the legislature (with a few temporary exceptions). The judiciary over 40 years became the exclusive domain of like-minded liberals who supported the party line and rubber-stamped their cohorts. Corruption and incompetence went unnoticed and unpunished because of mutual interest in self-protection. Some have accurately called this political incest. If this is ever to change, Oregon has to start somewhere. Electing Will Lathrop as Attorney General would be an excellent beginning.
Thanks, Stephen. Great comment.
I guess we'll see if the Oregonian is serious or just another media dilitante. It escapes me as to why both the Lathrop and Chavez -DeRemer aren't hammering both Rayfield and Bynum for ignoring the legislative counsel's opinion and foisting probably illegal legislation on Oregonians and what that implies for their tolerance of continuing corruption by the ruling party
They should be!
Lathrop for AG! Time to clean house in Oregon.
How about "Independent Journalist"
I'm partial to Rep. Rob Nosse's formuation: Jeff "[im]proper investigative reporter" Eager.
hope springs eternal - Alexander Pope, "An Essay on Man" ca. 1733/1734
Typical behavior from the Oregonian--report just enough to say you wrote something, then drop the story like a hot potato. Happens frequently--see Shame Kavanaugh's poignant "If only we'd known" series on the new city charter and the electoral train wreck it produced. Ditto WillyWeek.
With 116 people running for five offices--and primaries folded into the main election--it was to be expected that the unions, business lobbies, nonprofits would gain a tremendous advantage. With 25-percent of the vote to put someone on the veto-proof city council, it doesn't take a genius to predict that the progressive machine will continue to run the city...into the ground.
Great assessment of a sad situation