An open letter (well, blog post) to Michael Davis, recently-installed executive editor of Salem's one and only daily newspaper, the Statesman Journal:
Michael, in my self-appointed position as Statesman Journal Gadfly I've urged you to give more coverage to those opposiing the $600-800 milliion Third Bridge that City of Salem officials are determined to foist upon the citizenry.
To me, as to many others, this bridge is unneeded, unwanted, and unpaid for. It's an almost-billion dollar solution in search of a problem. The No Third Bridge folks have made this clear.
Yet here we are, ten days from the July 24 City Council meeting which will be the last chance for people to testify on this issue. Afterwards, a vote will happen -- which could commit Salem to going forward with what seems to be the largest public works project in the city's history.
Where is the Statesman Journal's indepth coverage? Where is the investigative reporting that analyzes how accurately and fairly proponents and opponents of the Third Bridge are making their cases? Where are the clearly presented facts which will help citizens decide whether this is a good use of their taxes?
I realize that times have changed in the newspaper industry. Statesman Journal staff have been laid off. The paper isn't printed locally any more. Readers have a lot of online news choices now. Classified advertising is under pressure from the Internet.
Still...
I heard you say at a City Club meeting that the Statesman Journal remains the "paper of record" for this area. Absolutely true. Bloggers like me or our alternative Salem Weekly paper (I'm a columnist there now!) never could fill that role.
So this is why i'm hoping you'll go all-out on covering the Third Bridge debate between now and the June 24 City Council meeting. This is a really important issue for the Salem area. Really important.
Yet your paper's editorial endorsement of going forward with this ill-considered project was made without talking with the well-informed Third Bridge opponents. And news coverage has been shallow, sometimes being little more than a regurgitation of City of Salem talking points.
Readers of the Statesman Journal deserve better. Long-time readers like me remember when your newspaper really dug into land use issues. This wasn't that long ago.
That was pretty much the mid-point of my neighborhood's fight against a 217 acre subdivision on farmland that threatened our ground and surface water: wells and a nearby lake. As a leader of this fight, for several years I regularly communicated with a reporter, Beth Casper, who no longer is with the Statesman Journal (but is with Salem Is).
Beth did an excellent job reporting on the Laack subdivision, a.k.a. Ridge View Estates. She stuck with the story through many twists and turns. Beth was balanced and fair. I'd tell her about our side of the subdivision fight, then she'd talk with the would-be developers and learn how they saw the situation.
Back then the Statesman Journal was a much better "paper of record." By the time we got to a Circuit Court appeal filing, I'd accumulated quite a few stories by Beth. Some of these were used in our legal case as evidence.
Facts do matter. There's a place for "he said, she said" sorts of newspaper stories, but I'm much fonder of analytic in-depth reporting where factual reality is revealed as much as possible.
This is what I miss in the Statesman Journal, circa 2013.
I used to feel that Salem's daily was fair and balanced (ouch... it hurts to use a Fox News phrase). I rarely thought that your newspaper had a decided tilt to the right or left, toward the 1% or 99%, in the direction of the City establishment or us "commoners."
Now, though, there's a lot of doubt that the Statesman Journal is really a mainstream media outlet. Both the editorial and news streams seem to lean in a conservative, rightward, Chamber of Commerce, Republican'y direction.
You'd probably disagree. Your fellow editors probably would disagree. I'm sure you guys see yourselves as relatively unbiased providers of news and opinion.
Well...
If that's the case, let's see as much attention given to opponents of the Third Bridge as proponents. Let's see as many complaints about your coverage coming from City leaders as from people at odds with Mayoral and Council proposals. Let's see as much investigative reporting of government institutions led by conservatives (Marion County, City of Salem) as of the Willamette ESD or the Public Employees Retirement System.
I want to be able to trust the Statesman Journal again. I want to get back to the days when I didn't open the paper and think so often, "Geez, why aren't they covering ____?", and "Geez, not another story about _____."
Don't let Salem's leaders get away with putting the citizenry on the path toward a $700 million bridge without being very explicit about why they're in favor of it. How about a chart showing the position of each City Council member, plus the Mayor, on the Third Bridge: yay or nay?
Along with the #1 reason each elected official believes the bridge is needed, or not needed. Without this sort of responsible journalism, Salem's citizens could end up being saddled with an almost billion-dollar price tag and not know why their city leaders want them to pay that bill.
Rush hour congestion? Earthquake readiness? Speeding of traffic to Highway 22 and I-5? I'm pretty familiar with the arguments made by proponents of a Third Bridge; I haven't heard even one that makes sense, given the current plan for the bridge.
Why isn't the Statesman Journal doing a better job of reporting on the Third Bridge? Is it because of your editorial position in favor of it, which made as little sense as the bridge itself?
Good questions. You need to assign someone at the Statesman Journal to look into them. I suggest... you.
Comments