Submitted by Anonymous Source (not verified) on Wed, 06/27/2007 - 12:17am.
I don't see how they're "pushing WW to do better." Willamette Week's news coverage has gotten steadily worse in the years since the Mercury started (occasional triumphs like the Goldschmidt story notwithstanding). There's less news content in WW overall and what remains is increasingly focused on cultural topics and trivia. Very little of its challenging to the status quo in any meaningful way (which used to be the hallmark of "alternative" media). And where is their editorial voice? At least the Mercury has a weekly political column by a reporter based at City Hall. To me this seems a minimum requirement for any paper that wants to be taken seriously as a news source. Now if only both papers would have the guts to do a weekly editorial.
I don't see how they're "pushing WW to do better." Willamette Week's news coverage has gotten steadily worse in the years since the Mercury started (occasional triumphs like the Goldschmidt story notwithstanding). There's less news content in WW overall and what remains is increasingly focused on cultural topics and trivia. Very little of its challenging to the status quo in any meaningful way (which used to be the hallmark of "alternative" media). And where is their editorial voice? At least the Mercury has a weekly political column by a reporter based at City Hall. To me this seems a minimum requirement for any paper that wants to be taken seriously as a news source. Now if only both papers would have the guts to do a weekly editorial.