« “Little Miss Sunshine,” a tribute to dysfunction | Main | Oregonians now reject Measure 37 »

October 24, 2006


That's amazing and informative and a total example of how spin works over and over again and how the media is no help in sorting out anything. grrrrrrrrrrrrrr

I keep reading Sundays Oregonian explaination on the editorial boards decision process. I cannot find that the vote was 6-4. I read it as saying it was 5-5 with one person "leaning" towards Ted. That is not a 6-4 vote on boards I serve on. Was there a final vote where the one person "leaning" was asked to give their final, absolute vote?

You are so right on with this. I absolutely agree with your critique and I was disapointed when I read the defense of the Saxton decision. The real problem I have with it is that the cover story is so very paper thin, the logic so tortured. And really, I want better thought process in an editorial page.

Hey Bobby!

I'm a math teacher.

Give me a call.

Because four is less than six, unless you're a big fat bully.

much appreciated. would be good to spread this wide and far. the O needs to get its act together. no excuse for this. and, how about a better website? $2.95 for an archived article, shameless.

lw, Caldwell said that five members of the board favored Kulongoski strongly, and one favored him slightly. That's why I said a majority (six) of the board leaned toward Kulongoski.

I don't see how you arrive at 5-5. It could be 5-4 with one other member leaning toward Kulonogski, but not 5-5 (because Saxton didn't have five clear supporters).

Great work, I have been pointing out the hypocrisy and lack of any logic of the O's decision (and I use that word lightly) to all who will listen and your post helps that cause.

Spicey, you help make my point. As Caldwell said, there are 10 board members, 5 favor Ted, one leaning toward Ted. He said the board was split, meaning 5 to 5. As I said before, many times at board/committee meetings the "vote is not in until the voting is done"-meaning there is discussion, give and take on ideas, positions, then maybe a final vote. Sometimes when an issue seems to be right down the middle or close, a vote is not taken at that time to "save face", let "further discussion" occur, or it is tabled to see if a stronger position forms. That is maybe what occured at the O. But, from my understanding from O insiders, the editorial bd. doesn't have to come to an absolute decision on a position, big dog can prevail.

lw, I believe you mean "Brian" when you said "Spicey" above. Regardless, I still am unable to grasp how five in favor of Kulongoski and one leaning toward Kulongoski, with four in favor of Saxton, is a "split" decision.

60-40 is close, but not split...down the middle. If the board had voted, Kulongoski almost certainly would have won the endorsement.

Which, thankfully, he almost certainly will on Nov. 7, given his strong recent poll numbers.

Here's the exact language describing the opinions of the board: The board was split. Five favored Gov. Ted Kulongoski strongly. One favored him slightly, but also thought Saxton would be a plausible choice. Four favored Saxton.

There's no way that makes 5 to 5.

Helena Wolfe couldn't have been more right.

After working in newspapers for almost 20 years, I was taken aback when the editor of the New Republic admitted that he had overruled a majority of his board to endorse Senator Lieberman for the Dem's 2004 Presidential nomination. I was taken aback but knew it didn't matter because Holy Joe didn't have a hope in hell of getting the nomination.

Now the Oregonian pulls the same stunt in a situation where it could make a major difference. I have to hope that most voters (not necessarily readers) find the O as irrelevant as I do. Regardless of the impact, the absence of journalistic ethics leaves me not taken aback but aghast.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Strange Up Salem

Welcome to HinesSight

  • Salem Political Snark
    My local political rants are now made on this badass blog. Check it out. Dirty politics, outrageous actions, sleaze, backroom deals — we’re on it. 

  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • Church of the Churchless
    Visit my other weblog, Church of the Churchless, where the gospel of spiritual independence is preached.

  • Welcome to HinesSight. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.