Oregon Media Insiders

Did you notice that Blogtown wasn't an option in their Best Local Blog category of the Best of Portland poll? Because you know it would've won, and oh, how embarrassing that would be.

(And yeah, I agree, the Phil Busse bit was a great, nicely placed dig.)

"...the rivalry has been generally nothing but good for journalism here."

Wow, a couple of weeklies tossing snot at each other. Yes. Yes, indeed that is good for local journalism.

Uh, no it's not. Yeah, it's good to have lots of watchdogs eyeballing City Hall but great, or even good, reporting it is not. It's damn entertaining, though. And at least the Merc is fresh. WW is stale as a week-old baguette

Good for those who enjoy media in-fighting and Internet wars. Entertainment value? I'd rather the entertainment come from the pleasure of reading a reporter's work, not the backstage gossip between the workers.

But not good for journalism, not good for readers, not good for the accuser or the accused, not good for the editors who weighed in, and most especially not good for the public, most of whom consider reporters lower than dirt anyway.

Rivalry should spur on both sides to do better, not to attempt to drag one another down or float some really nasty accusations.

But but - back in the day we used to saunter down to the Goose, or the Jefferson 5, or I remember a cheap bar across from the O where Higgin's is now to see a pair of drunken scribes throw punches. They tend to be skinny and under-trained, but excited and full of venom. Better than drunk Indian fistfights at the Jumbo Room (Third and Couch) or even poets slapping at each other over at Arbuckle Flat. Journalists were the best.

How high-falutin! "Rivalry should spur both sides to do better," what nauseating crap.

We like a fistfight between rivals - or better, a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

And weaken each other so the St. John Sentinel can take over Portland news!!!!

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.

... 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.

That's what happens at a lot of papers when the so-called "copy editors" are forced to spend four-fifths of their time composing pages: any mistake that can't be caught with a computerized spell- and grammar-check doesn't get caught. The industry-wide trend toward merging of editing and composing functions -- to the inevitable detriment of the former in favor of the latter -- is the ultimate triumph of form over content. (I know there are still some exceptions, but for how long?)