Hmm....I'd rather keep the post on topic for now. Let's save my objections (or lack thereof) for another time, please.

I'm not sure where to pick them up - ours comes in the mail. I'll have to look around to see if I still have my copy.

Nope, just dug through the bill pile of mail, and I don't see it. So unless it just hit the streets, I guess it went into recycling.

When I'm out, I'll see if any stores carry it in the "free papers" area.

Just for those who might not know, this paper covers east Multnomah County as well.

It is not lack of balance if it meets the view of the community. People gush over Flores, because she votes the way they like, she acts like a soccer grandma, and is has an image of having worked her way to the top against the odds. Her image is 98% malarkey, but it doesnt matter, because she sells it.

Actually, it is a lack of balance no matter what the general ideological consensus of the community.

Newspapers are usually seen as a place to get news and information. With the exception of the editorial pages and columns, the job of a newspaper is to provide the community with news.

Tainting news pieces with opinion is what bloggers do, not journalists.

I submit that perhaps part of the reason Ms. Flores may have continued success in the community is because of "journalism" like this. If papers are allowed to go unscrutinized with this kind of advocacy, its essentially free advertising for Flores' campaign.

So..does anyone know anything about the people working on this paper? Here's the list:

Published By R. Steven West Managing Editor R. Steven West Editor Antoinette Ellis, MA Marketing Director R. Steven West Display Advertising Sales Kristen Conner Dan Copeland Graphic Design Patricia Saunders Journalists Josh Baker Deborah Connell Kathy Enz Amyl Freeberg Columnists Katie Adee - Youth Josh Baker - Music Glenda Barbre - Mountain History Dave Barry - Humor Chuck Bolsinger - Nature Ryan Boriskin - Sandy Sports Susan Burke-Watkins - Counseling John Connolly - Sandy History Frank DeBiccari - Sports Olga Donvillo LAc - DHM - Health Rodger Freeborn - Estacada Football Julie Gomez - Nature Melanie Hambelton - Estacada Volleyball Lavon LaFresnaye - Garden Alice Lasher - Fire Dept./EMS Scott Lustig - Estacada Soccer James Reed - Books Close to Home Chief Dale Scobert - Sandy Police Pamela Vincent - Lessons from the Garden Michael Willington - Movies David Woodruff - Religion Data Entry Rhonda Henderson Layout & Production Patricia Saunders

If this article was in the editorial section, I don't understand your objection.

That's the point. It wasn't.

I've met Steve West and Dan Bosserman and most of the time Steve's been a pretty honest broker in terms of publishing our stuff and Bosserman has been more diligent than many others re reportage out here.

That's all a matter of comparison of the various Super Market and monthly free papers.

If you really want an eyeball melting experience try the lovely Jolene Kamstra over at the Gorge Connection (or whatever it's called this week). She's a direct pipeline for the Cascade Policy Kidz and the religious Far Right. I've seen articles in that rag that were cut and paste from two or three years back.

The overall problem with these papers is that determined propagandists are constantly raining proposed articles on the various editors who may be less than totally attentive to content while looking to get something other than articles on gardening, canning, and heroic Jack Russell Terriers......

The Gazette and the Mountain Times are two monthlies that have been pretty accomodating around election time regarding event notices and LTEs.....

I, also, am having a hard time where the beef is with this. Noting that a Republican has a strong track record in favor of the Second Amendment (right to bear arms) seems pretty fact-based to me. In fact, it'd be news if it weren't.

Worse, given how up in arms many progressives are about privacy rights being stomped on by the FISA bill, I'm really not even sure I can say I disagree with Rep. Flores on this issue. Can you imagine the uproar if, say, the home addresses and phone numbers of doctors who give proscriptions for the Death with Dignity act were given out willy nilly? Or abortion providers?

People with concealed carry permits are obeying the law. They should, like any American making an international phone call, enjoy their constitutional right to not be subject to unreasonable search (publication) of their private information.

Kind of uptight about this, are we?

Yes. I'm generally uptight and annoyed when I see so-called news outlets air or publish news pieces that contain biases like this.

It is a small and insignificant publication to begin with, so I am at a loss as to why Carla is having such a childish fit over it.

I think I've explained my reasons clearly. One man's "childish" is another woman's paying attention to stuff that needs to be scrutinized.

Just becuase it is touting and R person exclusively does not entitle us to enthusiatically seek out the author and ceremoniously beat them over the head with the article in question.

Why?

However, if Carla feels differenly, then I guess thats what the courts are for.

Actually, that's what blogs are for.

This bit of common sense is anything but. Newspapers in much of the world are overtly partisan starting on page 1: pick up one of the leading British newspapers, for example, and you'll see this. A similarly partisan style was typical in the United States until fairly recently, and is still to be found in some places: witness newspapers such as the Manchester, NH Union Leader. Frankly, I prefer that a paper's biases be prominently displayed rather than oh-so-discreetly shuffled off to the OpEd pages.

I'm curious as to why this is proper in terms of journalism. Could you please enlighten?

It's called Freedom of the press...freedom of speech...freedom of expression...

I'm not saying that the paper is doing anything illegal, so this point makes no sense. They're legally free to advocate for whomever they choose. This is a matter of integrity and journalistic ethics. Some people (like me) actually believe that this stuff is very important. Its one of the most important ways to have an informed electorate.

I get annoyed at some things too. Sometimes it's my neighbor's late night racial rants. But I don't go out on seek and destroy missions and include fellow denizens when just a nice contact with the 'offending' party one-on-one (in this case the paper itself) would be much better.

Actually if you go back to my piece, I mentioned that I am considering calling the paper and speaking with the folks that run it. However, I chose to ask about them here first from those that likely know the paper best: the locals who see it and perhaps read it.

Translation: I am kind of bored today. I need to talk about something...anything. And if you were a man, I would still say it is childish. My comment was not in any way sexist.

It has nothing to do with boredom. It has to do with the fact that I'm doing research and in the process came across this article and this paper. Given the biased nature of a piece that's clearly intended to be news--I believe its worthwhile to note it and look into it further.

I didn't take your comment as sexist, btw.

If it bugs you that much that this matters to me, you've got a little "x" in the upper right hand corner of your window. Click on it whenever you're ready.

Don't know much about the staff, but I'm pretty sure Dave Barry doesn't live in Estacada or East County.

Overall, I think you need to be looking at the top two names on the list, though I'm not quite sure if you're trying rather to identify an author (still might be the case) or decide if it's a lightly edited press release, hence no byline.

In general I think a lot of media criticism pays too much attention to the frontline journalists and not enough to the editors, who are the real gatekeepers and tone setters IMO.

Personally I like critical journalism that makes an effort at integrity, i.e. where journalists don't have to pretend they've checked their brains at the door as the supposed canons of U.S. journalism require ("objectivity" = balance, neutrality, not bringing up something obvious unless you can get a "source" to mention it, and then only reporting what "sources" say, even when an entire debate may be framed on "both sides" to leave out key elements).

I'd rather read The Economist than Time or Newsweek any day of the week, because even though I disagree with their analytical frame, mostly, I can see what it is, and they understand that addressing the strongest case against their viewpoint rather than evading issues ultimately is the strongest course -- and likewise it benefits me to be challenged.

This appears to be a more robust outfit, but the other thing that often happens in rural or small town newspapers is that they are highly reliant on skewed syndication services, and literally often do reprint press releases. They're understaffed and hungry for copy. One thing progressive media reformers might consider is creating some competition in syndicated sources of opinion for such papers.

Not sure what the benefit of making concealed weapons permit holders names public is supposed to be. This seems like one that pushes paranoia buttons rather pointlessly. Poking a bear with a stick just for the heck of it isn't usually considered a good idea. Is somebody really proposing this? Who, why? Or is it actually a made-up issue on Flores' side?

It is a small and insignificant publication to begin with, so I am at a loss as to why Carla is having such a childish fit over it

Actually, while it may be "small" in terms of the fact that it doesn't have a statewide audience, that doesn't mean it is insignificant.

Unless something has changed, I get a copy of this delivered in my mail (free - I've never subscribed to it). Papers like this can be quite important in smaller communities that don't get as much attention from the news stations and big papers. While stuff like murders and rapes get on the news, the locals want to hear about the award the high school won, the activities going on next week, and the road closure down the street. The little local papers can be a lot more significant in these communities than The Oregonian or other big paper.

My professional background is in community newspapers - as both a reporter and a managing editor. As such, I understand their importance. I can tell you without a doubt that the communities we covered turned to our paper first if they wanted to know what was going on in town. Even though one paper only published three times a week, we regularly scooped the daily on major local stories (such as an oil leak into a river). The daily was for reading about the county, state, etc.

Gordon:

That information about contributions is public information. Unless you give under a certain amount, that information is public and is shared as such. I can easily find out that information on a variety of different government sites. Those other sites are just republishing it.

A quick Google search of my name and "contribution" also brings up my name in ORESTAR, the state's online database of political contributions and expenditures. It also brings up Fund Race's page (which is done through Huffington Post) and shows a contribution from me to the Novick for Senate race. The odd thing is that is shows an elephant for me on the map?

Searching on "Jenni Simonis" and contribution brings up even more than just "Jennifer Simonis" and contribution.

Even without Fund Race's web site, I can find this stuff through the government sources. These sites just make things a little more user friendly.

Gordon:

The state level is $100.

And actually, even without FundRace, you don't have to go down and request the information at an office. It is available online through the governmental entities already.

The comparison between Facebook and contributions isn't a good one, though. We're talking about completely different "public information." One is public as in you supplied the info and said it could be public. The other is public in a legal way and is supposed to be available in a way that is easy for the public to get access to. And that's why the states and the feds have made searchable databases online for finding people who have given over that the state/federal threshold.

With Obama, you're giving to a federal PAC, which means that contribution falls under the federal threshold. If you give to a state legislator, you're under the state threshold.

All I can do is guess, Carla. By the looks of it, either the multi-hatted editor is responsible or it was written by one of the reporters:

Josh Baker Deborah Connell Kathy Enz Amyl Freeberg

Nobody else on your staff list fits.

If you call the editor, you might find him willing to publish a 'guest opinion' as a way to counter what they wrote. As Pat Ryan says he's okay, that may be the best resolution, rather than a vociferous complaint about ethics. (I agree with you, but going for the guest opinion may prove more effective in reaching readers with your influential capacities.

Pretty much all campaigns, political parties, etc. have a PAC - that's how you accept contributions. Obama's is called "Obama for America."

State parties, federal campaigns, and political organizations that support/oppose federal campaigns will have a federal PAC.

County parties, those running for state-wide positions like governor and AG, legislative candidates, those running for local office, etc. will have a state PAC. The state party often times has a state PAC as well. Organizations like the Bus Project also have a state PAC.

as a donor in 2004 I wasn't aware that my address would become publicly searchable for anyone to see in a matter of seconds with no paper trail.

That's a bit disingenuous. I suppose it's possible that someone could be a donor without ever having read a single newspaper story about politics, but I doubt it.

Have you ever seen a story that reports something like "Gordon Smith has taken $270,000 from oil and gas industry executives"... how do you think those stories get written? It's all publicly available information.

Transparency in government is a good thing. It would be a dark day indeed if all donors to political campaigns were a secret.

The PACs all fall under the same rules. It's the 527s that I can't remember the rules on - they may fall under the same $200 level.