I give up my space today to reader comments on recent pieces. I’ve talked about our clean slate initiative, why we reveal public employee wages and PERS benefits, how we usually cover suicides, and the start of The Oregonian’s 175th year of publishing during the last several months.
I usually get a dozen or more emails from my columns, located at atoregonlive.com/editors, and occasionally many more. I write frequently in an effort to shed light on newsroom operations and explain our journalistic decision-making process.
One column talked about how we covered a young person’s suicide death in a public setting. We don’t identify anyone unless they are well-known, so we didn’t do that. This is how one woman reacted:
I wanted to write to express my gratitude for your thoughtful analysis of the difficulties in reporting suicide fatalities. Other than being careful and diligent about all that is at stake, everyone who is impacted, and everything that is at play, there is no simple solution or ideal recipe. The O and other local newsrooms seem to be making an effort to reach that standard.
Both an early suicide loss and a severe unexpected death loss have impacted and, to some extent, defined my life. I admire how thoughtfully you approached the really challenging subject in your writing. It struck a good note, particularly in this challenging and highly charged time.
Another female objected to our strategy.
Why are we hiding this? I disagree that we ought to keep it confidential. By remaining silent about our severe mental health problem, we continue to stigmatize it and do a disservice to the community. The government and the state must assist people by bringing this to the public’s attention, establishing a well-known method for doing so, and making it acceptable to ask for support.
Drunk driving is a severe problem that involves both shame and addiction. You report on that, though.
In order to educate others, I would advise you to permit more suicide reports. Perhaps then, people will become indignant that there are more easily accessible mental health services available without the stigmatizing stigma.
One reader wasn’t holding back while discussing public wages. He wrote:
You’re a complete jerk. Because it receives clicks, you publish the salary information. You are aware that friends, relatives, enemies, and coworkers find it impossible to avoid checking out what other people are producing. Although the data is publicly available, this does not justify its extensive publication. All of your arguments could be made when the data was anonymized.
The majority of readers who replied didn’t like the attention. However, others concurred that openness was essential. A reader wrote:
I can only speak for myself when I say that I believe it is crucial that we understand the pay of those who work for and are compensated by the public. They have a lot of power over our lives, so we ought to understand how they get paid.
Since The Oregonian/OregonLive is a privately held firm, I began the essay on public salaries with anecdotal evidence that my pay was private. This reader wasn’t comfortable with that:
Since a low-level part-time county employee is a public employee, it is vital to make their wage public. However, the individual in charge of determining what news and opinions are significant to the community is off-limits.
Whoa, The Oregonian is rife with hypocrisy.
My recent update on our clean slate program, which gives readers the option to request that we review and potentially remove earlier information about their past—usually minor crimes—received a few dozen responses.
While some readers vehemently disagreed, the majority felt that the individual in question deserved a second chance. On the plus side:
This is extremely crucial and a great example of recognizing the value of fresh starts!
Conversely:
He was foolish enough to act in that way. You can’t alter that. His record ought to be upheld. Another illustration of your newspaper’s liberal slant.
To be clear, a criminal record is still public knowledge unless it is wiped. Some stories are removed by our program from our website or search engine results, but they are still accessible in our historical archive at atoregonlive.com/oregonianarchives or through the Multnomah County Library.
Finally, readers congratulated us as we entered our 175th year of continuous publication:
Honest and moral journalism is more crucial to our democracy now than it has ever been.
“What a treat!” exclaimed another. Since the 1950s, when I first began to read, I have been reading The Oregonian. I’m happy to hear of all the highs and lows the publication has faced.
Lastly, happy birthday, T. You don’t appear to be much older than 165. Tommy
Whoever you are, Tommy, thank you!
Reach me at oregonian.com/attbottomly.
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!
