Oregon Media Insiders

My understanding of the situation is that there was quite a bit of coverage before the event.

It isn't like the SJ ignored it. They just didn't cover THE event and do an after-the-fact article and photo.

As someone who organizes events, I would rather have coverage beforehand than followup.

I have found that the "lunatic fringe" is rarely satisfied -- even when you get plenty of PR about the event beforehand.

I don't live in the area, nor did I attend the event, however, I know it attracted people from all over the Northwest, not just the Willamette Valley. Is there a better explanation than "oops, my bad?"

As a person who's never been to a Christian concert and who doesn't go to church, I still find myself consistently offended by the notion that people who do, are considered crazed maniacs. I'm not sure who complained or how it all went down, but I do see a consistent discrepancy with how we in the news biz treat anything religious. If it were a blues concert that attracted 30 or 40-thousand people, you can bet the paper would've covered it and the reporters would've expected to do so. Maybe this comment doesn't apply to this particular circumstance, but I do see a problem in the bigger picture. Anyone agree?

Let's pretend this was a beer-tasting festival or a gay-rights event. I can guarantee it would've been covered. A story about that many people at one event doesn't just somehow get ignored or dropped. It's amazing to me how afraid the media has become about covering anything remotely religious.

Also, the interesting stories are rarely the ones before an event - that's a lame excuse. That's like saying I'm only going to cover the pre-game part of a Blazer game, and forgetting about the game itself. Do reporters only report on a big protest planned for downtown Portland, and leave it at that? No way! (Obviously, there may be good stories leading up to an event especially if it's controversial or garners a lot of attention from the community.)

I'm not saying this event deserved front page coverage, but it sure deserved to be somewhere in the paper.

Because churches usually tell their people to show up to make sure it's a huge event. It's like a christian "crusade" where it's banged into parisioners that they have to show up to show support. Newspapers and other media outlets are right to ignore them. It's a staged event ... and I think because these folks want to complain that they're not getting coverage. When it's "news" it should be covered. This wasn't "news." The publisher, in my opinion, is bowing to unfair pressure from groups who commanded their people show up ... and then complained it wasn't in the paper. Isn't the reason for a "crusade" to support the faithful, to give them hope and courage ... not to get their picture in the paper. Shame on everyone.

Almost every weekend in the Portland area there are festivals that get no coverage. Some annual events are automatics, such as the Run for the Cure, Bridge Pedal or Bite of (YOUR TOWN HERE).

If it was an annual bluegrass festival or a jazz festival, it would have been covered. If a news organization believes 40,000 people are going to show up for a festival, it should get a mention, especially in a mid-sized town like Salem. On the other hand, newspapers run a thin crew on weekends, so it could be that lack of staffing led to lack of coverage.

I don't the S-J's decision reflects discrimination or poor news judgment.

God bless. Over and out.

Let me preface this by saying, I'm not religious, I don't go to church, I'm not sure if there is a God and kind of waffle back and forth depending on my mood. But I will say that church and God and religion are the most important things in thousands of peoples' lives in our area and we really should do more reporting of religious issues. If it is important to them, it darn well better be important to us. The trick is finding the right way to report on those issues... and doing it in an objective way.

Bless you all...

A music festival does not need to be front-page news. The paper gave the event plenty of coverage.

PRE-EVENT PUBLICITY

Salem RiverFest more than family fun

Hard-working church neighbors will play this weekend

Free fest touts big music acts, kid area

Faith community practices what it preaches

Picture perfect

Faithful folks like Sam and Sam

POST-EVENT COVERAGE

RiverFest rocks message of faith

Tens of thousands swarm Salem's RiverFest

Live music, extreme sports attract crowds of spectators

RiverFest event celebrates interdenominational works

Publisher's letter: RiverFest coverage was inadequate

I encourage you to click the links and see the nature of these articles and figure out how the publisher justifies being "embarrassed and outraged by our lack of coverage."

How many events have you been 'banged' into showing up at? Please! Church attendance in Oregon is one of the lowest in the US. Religious or not, 30,000 people is significant. If 30,000 muslims (or any group) were to gather, it would be worthy of, at least, a pic the next day. Every day we cover stories that sometimes involve just one person (exam. lost hiker), or a small group (i.e., school kids going to the nations capitol) that don't involve most of our viewers (readers) and that is not seen as a problem.

However....
I don't agree with the public tongue lashing of the staff. There could have been a more tactful way of expressing his thoughts and opinions.

Staged event? What proof do you have of this? Can you honestly convince me that if there were 30,000 people at the this event through the weekend that each and everyone of them was "forced" into showing up just make a point? C'mon, that's rediculous.

Christians often get blamed for being judgmental, but what the heck do you think you're doing by accusing these people of staging the event just to get coverage? To me, that's shameful!!!

A radio station where I board opped carried the live services of a local christian church every Sunday. A "crusade" was coming to the area and for weeks the minister pleaded with parisioners to make sure they were at the event as a show of support because they wanted a certain number of thousands to show. If you're saying the event in Salem was "ticketed," meaning the crowd purchased tickets from ticket vendors (like going to a concert) and none of the pressure came from inside churches, I'll admit I'm wrong. But, nobody has addressed my comment about why people go to such events ... fellowship, love of the lord, etc. and shouldn't be looking to get their picture in the paper. In fact, press coverage would be something they wouldn't want ... like having reporters in their religious services which, by the way, happen every Sunday and thousands of Oregonians and Washingtonians participate. Why not have a story of them every Monday? Boo Hoo, our crusade wasn't on the front page of the paper. Religion is supposed to be a personal thing. I guess I just don't get the controversy. You want to proselyte ... then do it. If you want coverage in the paper, buy and publish the paper.

Then why are people complaining about the "lack of" newspaper coverage? Let's set a parameter. How many people need to show up at an event for mandatory newspaper, radio and TV coverage? 10,000? 5,000? 1,OOO? How much coverage should we give them? How much coverage would satisfy you? Should we have coverage of every denomination? Should there be a picture? Two pictures? A whole page of pictures? How many people should be in those pictures? All of them? Half of them? Does the TV station put them in the first segment? Second segment? Would you be mad of the story isn't done until the last segment? Please, I'm interested.

Since the S-J obviously covered the event extensively before the fact as well as afterward, it pretty much confirms the insider's statement that the publisher caved to ridiculous complaints.

I find this especially interesting as it follows comments from a friend of mine who lives in Salem. Here's an excerpt:

I would like very much to know just why, in a city that would raise all holy hell if a secular rock concert were to break city noise ordinances, the two-day Christian music fest going on this weekend downtown by the riverfront is allowed to blare so loudly we can hear it inside our South Salem apartment with our windows and doors tightly shut.

I can guarantee you if it had been, say, Metallica, or even f*****g U2, the city would've been on them like white on rice, demanding they keep the volume down to a level that wouldn't disturb the people three blocks away, nevermind the folks where we live. Plus, we'd have every dammed fundamentalist wingnut in the city (of which there are, sadly, far too many) screaming that that sort of music, which doesn't glorify God™, shouldn't be allowed to be played outdoors at all, for fear their precious offspring might hear it and get corrupted by ungodly influence.

Just to share an opinion from a non-journalist Salem resident.

I am a staffer in Salem. Of course the event should have been covered; that many people gathering in one place is a big deal for Salem, and we did give plenty of coverage. The thing is, the number of people that showed up (to this FREE, UNTICKETED event) surprised even the organizers. My problem is with the publisher publicly selling out the newsroom after the fact.

The publisher should be embarrassed and outraged at the daily product that is put out, now with even bigger front page ads! and ad services being farmed out to Kansas City and a customer service center direct from Bombay. The paper is woefully understaffed and overextended with a litany of corporate mandates (few actually related to getting relevant news into the paper) leading staffers to operate like triage. Cover what they can, when they can. The publisher should have looked in a mirror and asked what he could do differently, ways he could help his staff do their jobsa instead of pissing on them in front of the public.
The Gannett guidelines make it clear that if a staffer trashes a superior or the paper in public they can be let go for engaging in conduct that harms the company.
Gannett has had a bad rap for years for its journalism, but it wasn't two years ago that the SJ was judged the top paper in the state at the Oregon Newspaper Publisher Assoc. awards (yes, over the Oregonian) Last year it didn't place in the top three.

The publisher has no newsroom experience. Absolutely none. He was in marketing at the Indianapolis Star before coming to the SJ. Many of the changes to the newspaper are as a result of his advertising slant.
He apologized to the "information center" Tuesday. However, if it was heartfelt, he would have done so in print.
As was listed, the paper had plenty of coverage of the event before and after the fact. It could have been on the front if that page wasn't decided upon five days in advance, if we had reporters to cover it and if there wasn't a two-stories only jump rule, but that's a rant for another day.
The paper covers all sorts of events, regardless of what it is. The coverage had nothing to do religion. We've covered happenings where the only people in attendance outside of the event folks were the reporter and photographer.
There are good people at the SJ, I work with some of them. Unfortunately, they don't make the decisions.

I worked at the SJ for a year and ran for the hills when Publisher Preister appeared. What isn't included in his public tongue-lashing is the multi-year budget cuts, the layoffs, the positions that haven't been filled for months if not years, the reorganization of the newsroom to turn it into an "information center." I've worked for several newspaper corporations and Gannett was the worst. A headless monster deadset on grabbing every penny it could. This was Preister's first publisher gig after rubbing elbows with the Gannett elite in Indianapolis, but there's no excuse for his behavior. it's a classless display of lousy leadership. I was glad to put Gannett in my rearview, but even I'm surprised they would sink so low to attack their own news team. Priester knows the challenges of the newsroom (he probably doesn't care, but he knows) because he helped create them. The worst part is he just opened the door of hell to anyone group that feels slighted - I can hear his phone ringing now. I wonder if he'll apologize every time someone is upset their large coverage isn't enough to satiate their egos. Way to go Brian, you just offended the only group of people who actually care about that newspaper, and I'm including the entire community of Salem. Then again, as Frank Gannett once said - "It's pronounced Ga-NET, with an emphasis on Net."

Brian Priester is also the publisher of the Stayton Mail and Silverton Appeal Tribune. I worked at those papers for two months after Priester started and he never once came to the office or tried to meet the staff while I was there. He did manage to stand us up several times though. I bet he still hasn't set foot in Silverton or Stayton.

Question: What kind of a publisher doesn't even bother to meet his staff (even the lowly weekly team)?

Answer: The same kind of ass that'd pull this stunt.

Worst. Publisher. Ever.

When some pinhead in Salem whines about a story, Priester and his ilk consistently refuse to back reporters.

Stay away from the SJ. This crippled newsroom is Gannett's vision of the future.