I respectfully disagree with Jaquiss' assessment. Does Kari hide his identity and his affiliations? Apart from occasionally forgetting to post his regular disclaimer, no. And he is called upon it by readers and fellow editors.

Do discussions get heated? Of course. But I am also happy to perceive more posts reminding people of the futility and self-defeat inherent in ad hominem attacks.

Jaquiss' opinion, I think, shows more a lack of understanding of and experience with political blogs in general.

-tl

Is it Kari's fault he happens to have progressive clients?

It's your blog and you get to post whatever you want. I doubt the Willamette Week nor Nigel Jaquiss is going to let just anyone write the stories for their paper.

On a bit of a side note isn't it a little sad that some of the best reporting in this town is conducted by the WW and Mercury? Sad state of affairs for the Oregonian.

I've definatly noticed Kari's penchant for driving the Blue O bus. I'm aware that there are other people (Jeff and Charlie) named as editors, but I think we all know who's REALLY in charge here.

Kari has censored some comments of mine over the years, but I've never been blackballed from BO. Wasn't Kari the one who started the whole "troll" thing to marginalize desent?

but hey, at least the MSM is actually mentioning our name in print now

Hahahaaaa...Willy Week MSM? Hate to break it to you, it aint the bOregonian.

Willy Week needs to loose the hooker pages on the back of the rag to make it a more credible medium.

Sure, they got the Pulitzer for the Jaquiss Goldy scandal, but they've had just as many unnecessary hit pieces that weren't well thought out or researched.

Nigel's point is fair. Many of us do question whether we're getting the full story at Blue O, because in some cases it's clear that we're not. My criticism isn't that Kari and the other editors need to be objective, because I agree that's not the point of a blog. But I do think it's important to not avoid negative stories.

For instance, the fact that a Democratic legislator is under investigation by the FBI for allegedly abusing her legislative power warrants at least a few posts. So far, there hasn't been anything. I also think Nigel's example of the Adams/Dozono poll is a good one. The real story is that Dozono has made incredible inroads, and you have to be wearing partisan blinders not to see that.

In the end, I'm a big believer in the power of the blog marketplace. If Blue O starts veering too far off course, it will become irrelevant. The reason I occasionally complain is because I don't want to see that happen.

I think those of us backing Steve, John Kroger, any of the non-Kari clients etc, have run up against some frustrating moments. On the whole, I think BO does a great job facilitating discussion (and internet screaming). Jacquiss even says that "BO sets the pace in Oregon" and if you've ever tried to read PolitickerOR or Jeff Mapes biannually updated Oregonlive site, it's pretty clear why.

The only time I remember Kari being especially out of line was earlier this winter when he floated "darkhorse" Steve Novick's name to take Darlene Hooley's vacated seat, and waited 'til underneath the fold to disclose himself. That idea- Steve in the OR 5th!- still gives me giggles.

That said, if there's another "news" link to ForwardOregon I'm going to donate the last of my student loan money to Steve.

I enjoy the site and Kari's integrity....always admits mistakes and conflicts of interest. My only complaint is Jeff Alworth's penchant for the ad hominem attacks against posters, myself included. Can't you fight the good fight without getting personal against those of us who enjoy posting here?

I find it interesting that there is an implicit comparison between Blue Oregon and the main stream media, as if Blue Oregon contributors weren't supposed to be slanted or have their own opinions. Interesting, but really wrong.

When I make a contribution to Blue Oregon, whether it was the first one I ever did on studded tires, or the stuff I did about the Rural Caucus, or my other areas of interest such as religion/politics and the political interface with rural Oregon, I have opinions that I don't hide. I present my points and my case for them, but I'm not doing so as a neutral journalist, I'm doing it to reflect my point of view.

From what I see here, every contributor, and every commentor, does exactly the same. In other words, Blue Oregon is an expansion of an editorial page, not an expansion of a front page if we want to compare to newspapers. Comments here are like letters to the editor. Some get withdrawn by the editors as being off topic, some get withdrawn for being offensive or just nuts, but nearly all get "printed"/posted.

So, in this context does it matter if Kari has paid clients, or if some of us have other axes to grind? No, not really. For the good of our community, it is good to disclose our connections, and for the most part this happens. But is it required? No not really. If this were a completely unbalanced, biased, tilted, political manipulation machine; then people would just leave and go elsewhere.

Having said that, this is not to say that I don't find some aspects of things wearysome at times. There is a decided anti-rural bias among a fair number of people that read this blog. There is a pro-party machine bias. There is less respect for true down-in-the-trenches work with voters than there is for the lofty realm of ivory tower ideas. There is a bias towards research and against common sense. -- But these issues are transparent.

The main stream media, the smart ones, are embracing this new ability to be interactive. The Oregonian, the state's major newspaper, can print what - 15 letters a day? Blue Oregon can get that many comments in 10 minutes easy. For the exchange of opinions and ideas, the news print, and TV/radio reporting are as stand alone media moving in the direction of buggy whips and horse saddles. They are still useful, but to a declining population. The media that will be successful in the future, with be a hybrid that incorporates this new type of media.

In other words, maybe not Blue Oregon, but places like it, are the future.

Nate Currie writes, "To me the thing that surprised me about the piece was that Jaquiss actually nails the source of the "bias" in blogs like this one which the TradMed and even most bloggers frequently miss—that is the control over what topics appear on the front page."

Nate, you are so wrong! I am a contributor to Blue Oregon anytime I want. I do not clear topics with Kari prior to posting, and he has no control over what I write about or what I say. True, he initially granted me access to Blue Oregon about 4 years ago, but not one word of mine has been subjected to editorial review or control.

Look at the right side bar of this page, towards the top, and you will find 40 to 50 of us that can contribute, and just like me, we can write ANYTHING!

Don't pay WW any mind. They mocked springsteen and b clinton for mispronouncing Oregon, then proceeded to tell them it is pronounced OR-UH-GUN. There's no UH in ORYGUN WW. Guess the californicators have taken over the editing. :)

The WW piece is right on.

how does a blog stay vibrant and active and include all the voices of the political sphere and still maintain a fair, transparent, ethical standard?

Lose political operatives who regularly post, edit, or control the site. Mr. Chisholm's sardonic affiliation notes at the end of his posts don't excuse his widespread and consistent propaganda for his clients. Nor does Mr. Alworth, Mr. Chisholm's lictor, do the site any favors when he posts these rambling "ethics" guidelines and defenses.

The WW is an incredibly important resource if you need to hire a hooker quickly or if you need to find an ultra trendy restaurant to be "seen" in (with or without the hooker). Otherwise, it is fish wrap.

I assume that everybody posting here has an agenda of one sort or another. The fact that one editor makes a buck here and there as a political flack is at least as honorable a motive as those whose posts are motivated by love, hate, lust, greed, ego, racism, or whatever.

Jeff, can't find it but I'm sure it had to do with Senator Clinton, who I loathe with the force of 1000 suns.

denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

It's not called the BlueOregon glee club for nothin'.

mandate media has collected 83,000 from statewide democrats in two years.

For all intents and purposes, Kari is an official employee of the Democratic Party Establishment that is responsible for his livelihood.

Please, let the flogging begin.

Hey, I'm a California native and I manage to get it right! Ben

:) Welcome

There have been a million "are you debating ideas or fundraising for the Dems" critical tests, issues that clearly discriminate between the two and there's never been any doubt what the agenda is.

Most notable was Kari's statement that expecting folks to have a service ethic where government is concerned and not simply assume that you have to pay for what you get, was "the dumbest thing I have ever heard". It WOULD be to a fundraiser.

As for WW, why be suprised to find out that no one in this town has any integrity? Packwood does, though. Figures the only value that is practiced consistently is venal banality.

Disclaiming a conflict of interest is not the same as the absence of a conflict of interst. WW has a valid argument, and it sounds like the poilicy of BO is rather wishy-washy, in the "we're all good people on the same team" vein.

Hey, people, it's a blog why anyone would think anything here is more than Mr Chisholm's, mine or anyone else's opinion is kind of nutsy. If you think him not pushing somone's agenda at the cost of someone else is offensive, go someplace else - otherwise take it for what it's worth.

I do think that Nigel's burying of the fact that there are three editors to the bottom third of the article, Nigel's failure to mention their opposing biases, and Nigel's failure to note the 30 or so contributors who have no "gatekeeper" as Nigel puts it, demonstrates Nigel's habit of omitting and burying pertinent facts to construct more scandalous stories that would otherwise collapse into boring, evenhanded journalism.

Notice how when these complaints come, Mr. Chisholm suddenly can't be found, even in the comments, and we get turgid Mr. Alworth instead.

The intern, or whatever, who is producing the "in the news" spin pieces is clearly following Mr. Chisholm's implicit instructions, whether consciously or unconsciously. Mr. Chisholm should realize that bias seeps through in even tiny cracks, in even tiny words.

To be frank, Mr. Chisholm should seriously considering limiting his role at this site, or operating with far better oversight. As it is, his political marketing business comes across as amateurish, weird, and a bad bet. The criticism goes on and on, for years, and yet little changes. Eventually this sort of thing starts to impact his clients... and not for the positive.

Do you think Merkley wants yet another negative piece about him... this time because of his use of Mr. Chisholm's firm?

I never understood why people who think a blog sucks would keep reading it and keep commenting on it, as some people seem to do here. When I find a blog that I think sucks, I don’t waste my time on it.

Does BlueOregon help Kari’s business? Possibly, but I don’t see why that’s a problem. Does Kari use BlueOregon to advance his own agenda? Probably, but so do the other contributors, and I’m not sure what the point of blogging is if it isn’t that.

I’d rather see candidates pay Kari $86,000 to create web sites with in-depth, detailed discussions of the issues than spend that money on relatively vapid 30-second television ads (although I’m really digging Steve Novick’s TV spots this election).

The MSM, which is nothing but a mighty wurlitzer for the military industrial complex, cannot see beyond its own profit margin long enough to see that the world is changing beneath it.

LOL! WW: the moral conscience of Oregon journalism. I read it, sure. I even read the O. But there's no story there re: Blue Oregon. I agree with Steve: "Hey, people, it's a blog ... " If I relied on political blogs to make all my decisions and form all my opinions, I’d be … well, I dunno ... a Republican, maybe? :-)

Peter, if I weren't familiar with some of your previous comments, I would think you were mocking Kari's detractors with hyperbole.

You say Kari's disclosure statements are "sardonic," but they're generic boilerplate. I wanted to make sure there wasn't some secondary definition of sardonic I was unfamiliar with, but Dictionary.com pretty much sums up my understanding: "characterized by bitter or scornful derision; mocking; cynical; sneering." If you are reading that into "My company built X's website, but I speak here only for myself," explain how Kari should disclose this information without being so offensive to you.

You slam Alworth as a servant to master Kari, despite Kari, Alworth and Burr explaining their co-editing relationship radically differently, and no one submitting any substantive claim to the contrary. Unless you're just writing fiction for your or our amusement, you'll have to do more than just say it's true.

You complain that Kari isn't answering people, but nobody's asked him a question. He offers a free forum for criticism, and you attack the fact that there's a free forum. Do you also find the "letters to the editor" sections of newspapers to be indignities? They seem to operate much the same way.

Your image of Wirth is even more fanciful than your description of the co-editors. He's being unconsciously controlled by implicit instructions lurking in tiny cracks between tiny words? Seriously, leave this stuff to Lewis Carrol.

But you really hop down the <s>rabbit hole</s> tiny cracks between tiny words with "Mr. Chisholm should seriously considering limiting his role at this site, or operating with far better oversight."

Everybody, and I mean everybody, is free to speak their mind. Kari is just as free as you. We can all go over to blogger.com and start typing. To suggest someone needs to limit their own ability to speak, or needs some outside person to oversee their own blog, is pretty far removed from how most people consider private speech to work around these parts. He's writing a blog. There's nothing at all special about that.

And if candidates don't like Kari's work, I'm pretty sure every third or fourth Portlander is a web designer. Let the market handle it.

Also, he already has limited his role at the site fairly dramatically, as he's made clear several times. You may notice references to his new baby, and I don't know how you could avoid noticing the fact that his professional gig is in full swing.

And I'm not a math genius here, but $83,000 for his firm in 18 months is $4600/mo. There are seven people listed at his firm. I don't think he's exactly living it up on the party's dime here.

On a separate note, I'm struck by how few people are actually offering criticism here or at WW. It seems like it's the same handful of familiar names, and people seem to be having a hard time coming up with concrete things to be outraged about. I can think of a few suggestions to pacify some of the detractors — bylines on everything so we know who to call biased, timestamps on everything so we know what was posted "too" soon after the previous post, and a more permanent disclosure list so no one can accuse Kari of omitting what he's (sardonically) repeated a hundred times. These seem like fairly simple things, and Kari's already hinted at continued changes around here. With his new baby and the heavy work season, I'm surprised he would even bother.

For all intents and purposes, Kari is an official employee of the Democratic Party Establishment that is responsible for his livelihood.

Wow. It always surprises me that people think there us some formal (or informal) conspiratorial group controlling the Dem elected officials, candidates, consultants, non-profits and party officers. If there were a "Democratic Party Establishment," I think I'd know about it.

What there is instead is a bunch of over-committed volunteers, candidates, campaign workers, consultants, staffers and fundraisers -- each with her own opinion and candidate preferences -- working together as well as we can given our differences. We try to balance the need for organized, concerted effort with the need for flexibility and the ever-changing landscape. Sometimes we drop the ball. Sometimes we get frustrated when someone else drops a ball that's important to us. We work our butts off because we care.

And, I can guarantee you there is no over-arching Establishment that sets an agenda and dictates to the DPO, the elected officials, the non-profits, the candidates and BlueOregon.

Jeff, you've got a great analytical mind. Your post tearing apart the Gordon Smith Maverick Myth was super work.

Really, very good.

Maybe you could put some of that analysis to work looking at the Novick/Merkley race and Bo's coverage of it.

While I agree BO's fairness in covering this race has improved considerably since you've been taking lots of heat.

Start with this story, "Is Steve Novick Unelectable" and work your way forward.

Take an hoenst look at the coverag, and how long it took BlueOregon to run a story that refl4cted opoorly on Merkley.

The bias was there, Jeff. And it's still there in you archives if you care enough to spend a little time searching for the truth.

The reality is that BlueOregon is a pseudo official website for the Democratic Party of establishment of Oregon (there's no official name, bert, but believe me, there is one)and the negative reaction BO has been getting is the same reaction the Democratic Partty of Oregon would get if it picked sides in a primary battle.

People read BlueOregon because it has influence. Jeff Merkley seems to think so, since all of his negative attacks on Novick are based on BlueOregon posts.

In fact, if there weren't people reading and complaining about BlueOregon, the obvious pro-Merkley bias would probably still be taking place.

And I don't know how many of you folks have ever worked in publishing, but "publisher" trumps "editor" every single solitary time. Not even a discussion.

Actually, Jeff, to many who do not frequesnt the BO site it would look like a bar fight because some posts and issues reek of people who are either extremely uptight and/or just plain despicably whiny. It amazes me how some issues here get overblown (mountains out of molehills) because of those uptight and/or whiny people. Usually it always ends up being a "my info is better than your info" shouting match that really validates my conviction on why many people just give up on voting and politics in general.

We all just need to relax and take this site for what it's worth - an uptight Dem sounding board.

Pat, I don't really know how best to respond to your assertion that there is an "establishment." In one sense, I suppose you're right. There is a large, ever-changing group of people who work on various campaigns, initiatives and issues. Some people build relationshipsover time, as they would anywhere people work together. And in the same sense, all these people -- and you, too -- share a goal of pushing progressive values and making the state, the nation and the world a better place.

But, and this is important, there is no large-scale agreement about which candidate, issue or strategy is the best. When I'm working with someone on something we agree is important, I try not to bring up candidates or issues that I know are a point of contention.

E.g. AFSCME endorsed Karen Minnis. When AFSCME asks me to phone bank for a candidate we both support, I don't make an issue of the Minnis endorsement. I work with them on the issue we agree on.

Just because some group, volunteer, or blog editor disagrees with you, doesn't mean everyone that person associates with also disagrees. There just isn't that sort of lock-step among progressives -- neither the individuals nor the groups those individuals form.

I come to blueoregon to meet with other progressive Dems, and Lord knows tho we are all free-thinkers we do not always think alike. But we ARE thinking, and communicating ideas. It's clear MSM resents blogs, where ordinary citizens can voice opinions at a level and volume unthought of by traditional print op/ed pages...or those few email opinions read in sound bites on local TV. I have a voice here. Thanks for that.

As for blueoregon and Kari....always had my respect and admiration. I have never felt that the creators and editors at blueoregon have been overly biased toward the creators' convictions....not even close to the bent of a corporate owned newspaper, or broadcast media entity. I have sensed a striving for higher standards here at Bl.OR, and a reaching to involve citizens and voters that we find no where else. And on top of that, blueoregon and Kari in particular have sustained a gentle, respectful touch in their conversations with the commenters on posts here. Unlike so many of the commenters themselves! No doubt in MY mind...blueoregon is a class act.

Has this accusation been hashed out somewhere:

After the February special legislative session, Alman submitted a piece criticizing Merkley and Senate President Peter Courtney.

“His candidate support [for Merkley]...led to his decision not to print it because I wouldn’t edit my position critical of Merkley’s leadership.” says Alman, who has contributed money to both Merkley and Novick.

For the most part, Blue Oregon does a good job as a forum for progressive discourse. The real problem as I see it (and it is certainly exemplified in the election season) is what "progressive discourse" has become. The root of the frustration that some folks have with Blue Oregon's propensity to back candidates such as Jeff Merkley is the same core shortcoming that many progressives reveal in their inability to accept that another's position is as reasoned and as intelligent as their own.

The majority of the voters who will help carry a Democrat back to the White House or replace Gordon Smith do not work in front of a computer all day. They do not have the time nor the inclination to peruse progressive blogs. And if they did, it might only prove to enhance their disdain for the party that they are "supposed" to be alligned with. Sometimes, I feel like the best thing that Blue Oregon does is reveal the deep extent to which progressives like to hear themselves speak and not listen. On a regular basis, Blue Oregon is able to reveal the progressive's increasing disconnectedness with the working people who are his or her only ally in acheiveing the political ends that he or she seeks. For that, I applaud Blue Oregon because we won't fix the problem until we realize how substantial it is.

Peter Bray:

"Lose political operatives who regularly post, edit, or control the site. Mr. Chisholm's sardonic affiliation notes at the end of his posts don't excuse his widespread and consistent propaganda for his clients. Nor does Mr. Alworth, Mr. Chisholm's lictor, do the site any favors when he posts these rambling "ethics" guidelines and defenses."

*** Ah, the obscure references to Roman authority. In my experience, 90% of the commenters at BO appear more intelligent than most (oh, the dreaded "elitist" appearance) and through their posts appear rational and logical and pefectly capable of adjusting for "bias" in any of Kari's pieces.

{snip}

"The intern, or whatever, who is producing the "in the news" spin pieces is clearly following Mr. Chisholm's implicit instructions, whether consciously or unconsciously. Mr. Chisholm should realize that bias seeps through in even tiny cracks, in even tiny words..."

*** Yeah, that's right, the poor intern has been slanting and distorting the "in the news" pieces either because Kari has hypnotized him or the intern is an unabashed suck-up. Especially the "tiny words" [after all, "...it all depends on the meaning of 'is'"...]

*** I will criticize Kari on the basis of one experience I had with him. You know how one of the editors is always urging objectors to submit a guest article? In early March I submitted an essay about my experience canvassing for Novick in early March. He responded a week later apologizing for not checking his email and telling me he thought it was a good piece and asking permission to run it. I gave permission, but it never ran.

*** But I'm not heartbroken and I don't think it was conspiratorial. My article was not any new article or argument about Novick, it was just a personal piece. Plus I know he has become a father for the first time and I am aware of the life-changing impact of that experience and it just slipped through the cracks and became stale. No big deal.

*** Overall, the editors are never going to please everyone. I think signed "in the news" pieces would be an improvement. After all, how is this intern going to get some public exposure of his work without signing it.

Randy2

Gee, I think Blue Oregon is great. Kari understands that transparency is important for him and for Blue Oregon's credibility, and he tries to practice it. As a former journalist, I try to put this BO instrument in the journalism field, and I find that it doesn't really work to try to do that. I like the statement above that Blue Oregon is more of an extension of an editorial page than a news page. Beyond that, I can't define it.
I happen to think that Nigel Jacquiss is one of the half-dozen best reporters in the State, but that doesn't give him any particular insight in politics. The use of the lobby to rate legislators in this day and age, for example, is nuts. I like that WW still struggles to endorse, and it IS a foregone struggle in some of these contested primaries, but I see no particular wisdom in their picks, from where I sit. Then we could move along to The Oregonian, where I can rarely learn anything new or insightful about politics, including on the editorial page. The exceptions are, occassionally Geoff Mapes, and more often David Sarasohn and Steve Duin. Over-all, the Oregonian is a second-rate daily in a State that needs and would support a first-rate paper. When you get to the Tribune, and want to discuss political insight or newsmaking in the political arena, the subjects don't belong in the same sentence, or paragraph. We could discuss radio and television news, but it isn't worth discussing. We Portlanders and Oregonians miss some really great reporting about our local and state democracy, and how it is broken. A symptom of this brokeness is the lost energy from the incredible infighting among Democrats in the local and state primary races, fed by the well-paid consultants who push their candidates for opposition research and negative campaigns. Another symptom is the clout that the public employee unions have in this state to maintain the status quo in corrections, education, social services and health care, none of which really benefit from maintenance of the status quo. Our discussion of, and action on, campaign finance reform and the lobby in Oregon, borders on the absurd. I could go on -- the lack of open caucuses in our State legislature, the failure of progressives to use the initiative and referendum effectively, etc. What's really wrong, though, is that we can't read about ANY of these things in our local and state journalism, at least in Portland (I don't read the Salem, Eugene,or other Oregon dailies).
If Blue Oregon were really to work to fill the vacuum left by The Oregonian, Willy Week and the Trib, and it can't do that for economic reasons, it would have to have a staff ten times the size, and it would have to be driven by a broader mission than providing an intelligently-run forum for us progressives to vent and sharpen our axes on one another. Then the questions of conflict that Nigel raises would be meaningful and important.

Why has this breaking news been ignored until now, in Chicago?

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/04/24/larry-sinclair-affidavit-donald-young-obama-chicago-police-department-breaking-news/

Christines--that "breaking news" hasn't been ignored; it's simply been pushed aside by the revelation that Elvis and the Easter Bunny have been definitively ID'd by the Martian Orbiter.

Pat Malach said: "The reality is that BlueOregon is a pseudo official website for the Democratic Party of establishment of Oregon"

While I agree with this statement, I think BO's biases are obvious and non-conspiratorial. Journalism of no kind can be "objective". We can be fair about our biases, though, and that requires honesty and openness to others' dissent.

I disagree on a regular basis with most of the opinions offered here, but the BO editors have usually been fair in allowing my dissenting posts to appear.

Love BO. LOVE IT! It's a blog and I have never taken it more seriously then I take any other blog I read. Is it my first read almost everyday: yes. The reason being because Blue Oregon does do it better than the other blogs I read. Again, its still a blog and not perfect. But its by far one of the best out there. Since everyone is making little suggestions I will throw mine in. How about a daily "WaterCooler" A simple posting with maybe links to all of the other posts for that day. Then in the comments its free reign to talk about whatever you want, be it on topic, off topic, meta, posting your unpublished guest column, whatever. Just a thought...

Chris:

You're right. The insiders tend to have a different way of looking at things.

And you're also right that newcomers don't usually have much sway initially. There are spectacular exceptions. But by and large that's true. I think it's true of any group.

The point I don't want to get lost, however, is that the insiders do not work in concert to promote one candidate or strategy over another. They're all over the map. They probably have a more relaxed view because they realize that a year from now, no one will really remember the vitriol that's been splashed around.

At risk of interrupting the choir:

"If anything comes out of this latest round of meta analysis, I hope it's that people recognize it has never been our goal to expunge the site of bias."

Then start posting the "in the news" pieces and "elsewhere" pieces under the editors' bylines.

Honestly, jeff, from what I've observed, your main job at BO is to apologize for and dismiss the obvious bias in which "in the news" posts and "elsewhere" posts are chosen "front-paged" at the site.

I know you're smarter than these dismissive and stunningly non-sequiter responses indicate, but you sure hide it well when it comes to this issue.

Stowe the defensiveness just long enough to look at the issue honestly.

And Bert, the notion that someone would argue with a straight face that there is not a Democratic party establishment in this state is pure comedy to the infinite power. Just because You can't look up "Democratic Establishment" in the phone book, doesn't mean there isn't one.

"As a general rule I think that people who make no pretense of objectivity in what they write on their own blog have ZERO moral, ethical or intellectual standing to even question another blog's objectivity. It is very worthwhile to note that the vast majority of complaints about Blue Oregon's editorial policies appear to be coming from folks who have their own blogs and who don't even pretend to hold themselves to anything close to the standard that they petulantly demand Kari hold Blue Oregon to. Therein lays the real story here. "

That's the real story if you're a complete freakin' moron.

Individual blogs by individual authors represent the views of those individuals.

BlueOregon's supposedly neutral "in the news" and "elsewhere" posts -- because there is no byline -- represent BlueOregon, a "progressive" water cooler that is fueled by --and owes its credibility to-- a large group of varying contributors. And as the pseudo official blog of the Democratic Politics, it represent more people and plays a much bigger role than does any blog whose only goal is to disseminate the views of one person.

Classic kevin flak.

This is about the non-bylined "in the news," "elsewhere" posts are selected. And until the flood of bylined posts hit BO today, I'm guessing that allgedley "neutral" selections generally makes up the majority of what goes up here.

You say Kari's disclosure statements are "sardonic," but they're generic boilerplate.

First, Mr. Chisholm does not consistently note that he works for campaigns that he blogs about. For example, isn't he working for the Schrader campaign? He makes no mention of it on this pro-Schrader post.

Incidentally, today I talked to one of Mr. Schrader's primary competitors and asked why they don't post on Blue Oregon. They noted that the reason is because Mr. Chisholm works for Schrader and they don't feel as though they would get a fair shake. Ta da!

As for Mr. Chisholm's bitterness in his "I speak only for myself" caveats, I am referring to this type of notation:

[If you think my comments are totally worthless and not credible because of my involvement with Merkley, stop reading here. Seriously. Stop. Don't waste your time. The rest of you, please feel free to continue...]

[One more time: My firm built Jeff Merkley's campaign website, but I speak only for myself.]

Increasingly, Mr. Chisholm writes with a chip on his shoulder, and that's revealed in petty comments like these. Moreover, the tone of these comments suggests, to the casual reader, that Novick supporters are scornful and have attacked Mr. Chisholm in the past for his posts. Yet another way for Mr. Chisholm to push his bias.

Yeah, that's right, the poor intern has been slanting and distorting the "in the news" pieces either because Kari has hypnotized him or the intern is an unabashed suck-up. Especially the "tiny words" [after all, "...it all depends on the meaning of 'is'"...]

Don't be foolish.

The selection and promotion of news pieces most certainly can promote particular views or candidates. That's quite evident on this site. Whether the news selector is operating on his own biases, or Mr. Chisholm's auctoritas principis, is perhaps not so important. Rather, the fact that these "news" pieces, presented as somehow untouched by human hands, disguise a particularly invidious bias only underlines the serious problems that this site has in terms of impartiality.

The failure of the pro-Novick contributors to post regularly about Steve Novick is not my fault. Over the last six months, I've sent multiple emails asking them to get on it. (An approach, btw, that seems at odds with the "rigged game" analysis.)

Mr. Chisholm can't help himself. He apparently spews more of his amateurish anti-Novick hokum ("rigged game" comment) even when backed into a corner.

Moreover, Mr. Chisholm acts as though none of this is his fault. He ignores the fact that perhaps he has recruited the wrong countervailing people; that perhaps this environment is hostile to those people; or that perhaps he should recuse himself from posting ANYTHING about any of his clients.

James X says:

You slam Alworth as a servant to master Kari, despite Kari, Alworth and Burr explaining their co-editing relationship radically differently, and no one submitting any substantive claim to the contrary. Unless you're just writing fiction for your or our amusement, you'll have to do more than just say it's true.

It is foolish to suggest, as you do, that these "co-editors" are somehow equal. As the note on the home page states, this site is published by Mr. Chisholm and is owned by his company. Presumably, he organized and started this site, and recruited the others. It's my opinion that these other two "editors" are Mr. Chisholm's Magnus and Crassus.

Mr. Alworth says:

If anything comes out of this latest round of meta analysis, I hope it's that people recognize it has never been our goal to expunge the site of bias. It's been to create a forum where people can debate their positions. That will benefit progressive politicians and ideas in Oregon, which is a worthy outcome.

Mr. Alworth, as others have noted, I am not clear on what your role on this site is besides defensively spinning somewhat tedious, grinning arguments to defend bias that favors Mr. Chisholm's actions for his paid clients and against other progressives. How did you come to arrive at this "co-editor" position?

Pat:

You're wrong. But for giggles, who do you think is in this Democratic Party Establishment in Oregon? And what sort of things does the "Establishment" do?

Chris:

Man, we should get a beer some time. I'd like to talk with you in a format that allows smoother communication.

Bert, I commend your ability to keep a straight face while suggesting there is no political party establishment in oregon.

Bravo. It can't be easy.

And it kind of proves my point about the Glee Club. Only on BlueO could you find people willing to say that.

Interesting that Steph was given the opportunity to be a contributor and declined.

I like BO because it is possible to have debates/arguments without being in the same room (or even the same city)as another person, and folks who don't want to post can still read it and discuss what they read with their friends.

I have a philosophical debate to present:

Do elections belong to voters, or do they belong to the "professionals"--candidates, consultants and staffers, activists, etc.?

There was a great Peter Wong article in the SJ this morning which gives the impression that seeing Novick, Frohnmayer, and the others all on the stage must have been quite an experience.

And from the quotes, it seems Frohnmayer believes elections belong to the voters while Novick sees himself as a one man enforcer of "principle". (5 people in a room either agree with Steve or don't "support principle"? How would he deal with the proverbial "out of 5 people in a room, there are 4 factions and a moderator" situations that some of us have dealt with if we have very opinionated friends/political allies?)

Rather than Novick people doing any further bashing of Merkley (yes, yes, we know, the Merkley style of speaking, his actions and experience do not appeal to Novick supporters---but do they think "everyone is supposed to like Steve because we say so" really gains them votes?), perhaps they can discuss this topic. Do voters have the final word in elections which belong to them? Or should Steve be the nominee because he supports "principle" and we should just accept his infinte wisdom?

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008804250358

"I hold Democrats to a pretty high standard," Novick said. "So if I see Democrats, especially ones I respect and who should know better, doing the wrong things on global warming or the erosion of civil liberties, I'm going to call them on it. People respect people who call it as they see it, tell the truth and stand up for principle."………………………………….

"I believe the people of Oregon own this Senate seat and should vote for the most qualified person," said Frohnmayer, who was the chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts from 1989 until the first President Bush dismissed him in 1992. "If you do that, you are very likely to have an independent senator for Oregon who represents you."

Chris Lowe said: "This principle is also the one that lies behind the badly formulated claims that "there are no differences between Democrats and Republicans." That's not true. What is true is that there is considerable agreement between the party establishments about not using certain potential methods to address aspects of inequality, wealth and economic structure -- about keeping some things off the table."

"The badly formulated claims that 'there are no differences between Democrats and Republicans'" is a strawman. No one believes there are "no differences"; there were differences between Hitler and Mussolini, and between Lenin and Stalin, but it would be foolish to ignore the similarities.

We need a truth and reconciliation movement in this country more than anything, more than an end to occupation, more than an end to racism or sexism or economic polarization. Because both major parties are deeply responsible for continuing crimes against humanity, and neither is willing to take responsibility for its own crimes.