Oregon Media Insiders

I directly asked them a question in email. I put it to Therese Bottomly and cc'ed Peter Bhatia. I wanted to give the O a chance to respond, even if the response was "This is a personnel matter; no comment."

-----
Lynn Siprelle * Fairy Blogmother

This is a credibility issue, and the O has to address it; it's way more than a personnel issue. I just wouldn't be surprised if their response to MY inquiry--assuming I ever get one, which is a big assumption--will be something along the lines of "This is a personnel matter and none of your beeswax."

-----
Lynn Siprelle * Fairy Blogmother

Also, it would be impossible to demonstrate malicious intent on behalf of Lynn, anyway.

Or one of 'em. Eh, I'm not a bodhisattva. But the last thing I want to do is hurt people for the sake of hurting people.

-----
Lynn Siprelle * Fairy Blogmother

It was a full-on blog post, and while it was originally only front-paged for about five minutes (until I thought better of it), I wasn't going to take that chance. Plus also, Hallman's reputation. If it wasn't true, I really didn't want to damage someone personally like that for the sake of good gossip.

I feel pretty good about having it up now, in that Stern confirmed it--while I still haven't heard from the O and at 24 hours after my email to Peter Bhatia and Therese Bottomly don't expect to. They'd better start talking to someone because this looks very, very bad.

Speaking of Stern, I asked him in email what was up with the photo contest; why not just come out with the story? His reply: "We're always looking for ways to catch reader interest, and thought this would be a good approach."

Yeah, but now the story is out on everyone else's site but WWeek's...

-----
Lynn Siprelle * Fairy Blogmother

OK, it caught readers interest, but at what cost.

1. You weren't the one to put out the information. You got the scoop and gave it away to blogs and message boards.

2. It just looks petty and snarky. Take the high road -- people on high ground have a better shot at winning.

3. I find this to be a big deal, and dealing with it in this manner, discounts the problems over at the Oregonian. I guess as long as the folks at the O think they are the only real newspaper in Oregon, they figure they can get away with these types of alleged transgressions, but I digress.

4. Instead of an objective news story, it comes across as a personal attack. I find this to be almost as bad as the alleged transgression. Yeah, you guys are a great alt weekly, but geez, show at least a modicum of professionalism.

5. Some readers might just blow by this contest and story. I did. I looked at it, when "Eh?" and moved on. I don't live in downtown Portland. I am not connected to the happenings at the O or WW, so I could really care less. When I actually heard the story from other sources, that's when I got interested. Too much interference being cute with this.

This isn't meant as a slam on the WW, I love the work they do over there, but I think this is a big deal if true. I know I will be taking Hallman's stories with a grain of salt if it does pan out to be accurate.

1. You weren't the one to put out the information. You got the scoop and gave it away to blogs and message boards.

But everyone knows it was Willamette Week who got the scoop. In fact, everyone knows this because everyone's been flocking to that page trying to figure out what the scoop was.

2. It just looks petty and snarky. Take the high road -- people on high ground have a better shot at winning.

Perhaps the word you're looking for is gimmicky, not snarky. Snark is a Portmanteau of snide remark. Hallman appears to have committed a serious violation of journalistic ethics, which you observe in point 3, and bringing this to light is not snarky. As for the gimmickiness of it, WW essentially presented part one of a two-part investigation. Nothing unusual there. The gimmick is that they ended part one on a cliffhanger, generating buzz for the followup. Sure, that's unconventional, but they're an alternative weekly. Their whole identity is that they break conventions. And it's not like child rape was involved <cough, Goldschmidt>, in which case WW properly refrained from holding a contest and offering prizes.

3. I find this to be a big deal, and dealing with it in this manner, discounts the problems over at the Oregonian. I guess as long as the folks at the O think they are the only real newspaper in Oregon, they figure they can get away with these types of alleged transgressions, but I digress.

The Willamette Week discounting the Oregonian's problems? Perhaps OMI should hold a punchline contest.

The "only real paper in town" complex could also be diagnosed of WW. The O's problem is that power corrupts.

4. Instead of an objective news story, it comes across as a personal attack. I find this to be almost as bad as the alleged transgression. Yeah, you guys are a great alt weekly, but geez, show at least a modicum of professionalism.

A few allegations here: objectivity, professionalism, and, uh, ad hominemity. First, I don't see this as a personal attack. Willamette Week simply brought attention to an ethics violation in an unusual way. No mention of anything like his heavy-set, pasty-faced receding red-headedness, which, if someone had the immaturity to mention, would be classified as more of a personal attack in nature. [ref. snark]

5. Some readers might just blow by this contest and story. I did. I looked at it, when "Eh?" and moved on. I don't live in downtown Portland. I am not connected to the happenings at the O or WW, so I could really care less. When I actually heard the story from other sources, that's when I got interested. Too much interference being cute with this.

Perhaps it wasn't effective at first with you, but as you write, it generated buzz. I think that was the intention.

By the way, I'm not in any way associated with Willamette Week, and narrowly avoided becoming a journalism major after taking a sober examination of the industry, having grown up wanting to be a journalist and going so far as to be my high-school newspaper's editor-in-chief. Clearly I had no regard for conventions like manageable sentence lengths.

The "You" freelancer was referring to wasn't me, it was WWeek.

---
Lynn Siprelle, Fairy Blogmother

I know. It's as though Freelancer thinks WW didn't get enough credit or something. I say they did.

I was just trying to point out that an important story like this one should have been handled differently.

I was in news once, not any longer. The industry is filled with managers that don't pay writers/photographers anything and then wonder how things like "free parking spots" can happen.

I wonder...

As WW points out, Hallman is paid plenty; more than enough to afford a parking spot.

then this statement would be somewhat true:
"it appears that you're not responsible for the comments that other people make on your site."

How long have the bosses known about this? They need time to verify the issue and decide how to handle it.
As a manager I try to take my staff's side of the story until proven otherwise. From what I understand, this writer has been a loyal and quality reporter for years. The O owes it to him to make sure they have all of the information before commenting to anyone.

My query wasn't the first they'd heard of it. If it takes the local newspaper of record more than a couple of days to talk to one of its own reporters and do some fact-checking about a charge this explosive, there's trouble at the O that goes beyond a parking space.

No, they're deliberately ignoring me. I'm just a local blogger. That's cool, I understand my place in the scheme of things. They won't be able to ignore it when it comes out in print tomorrow in WWeek, and that's probably what they're waiting for--that, and legal advice. I mostly queried them out of politeness; I had to give them the chance to respond, even though I was pretty sure they wouldn't.

-----
Lynn Siprelle * Fairy Blogmother