Oregon Media Insiders

... is a copy editor or other professional with enough experience under his/her belt to recognize (and head off) potential embarrassments to the paper from amateurish writers and those with an axe to grind. Here are two examples of what I mean from the June 27 issue:

1. In his review of the movie "Sicko" (page 59), Aaron Mesh calls Michael Moore a "liar" without citing a single alleged untruth the filmmaker has uttered. (Yes, Moore can be overdramatic at times in making his points - as Mesh illustrates - but a liar he is not, at least not in public.) Unless Mesh can substantiate his accusation, Willamette Week owes Moore an apology and retraction.

2. In his capsule description of the play "Picasso at the Lapin Agile" (page 54), William Crawford needlessly discloses a key detail that spoils the ending for those who haven't seen it. (I suppose this would be excusable in the case of a play most everyone is familiar with, but we're not talking "Romeo and Juliet" here.)

A seasoned editor would have caught both of these gaffes, and many others I could cite, having read WW for more than a decade. The paper has an unmistakably sloppy feel to it, as though no one there really takes the finished editorial product seriously. (See the letter column just about every week for more evidence of this.) I'm not taking sides in the WW vs Mercury thing - maybe the Merc has this problem as well, but since it's more youth-oriented I don't read it as often.