Is the Oregonian biased on PGE?

By Mike Munk of Portland, Oregon. [Editor's note: The following letter was sent to the Oregonian, but not printed.]

To the Editor:

A photo accompanying your article on the City Council's unanimous vote to demand a true accounting of PGE/Enron finances ("City agrees to dig into PGE finances," Dec. 8) showed a PGE "governmental relations" director testifying and two other individuals waiting to testify. One was Bill Parish, a well known expert and consultant on utility finances and the other was Bill Michtom, a consumer advocate. I looked forward to learning what these two important witnesses had to say to the city commissoners.

Instead, your reporter completely ignored them while giving generous space to Enron/ PGE's spokespeople, including unchallenged statements she solicited in interviews. In a another example of reporting bias, the article seemed to warn the City not to attempt to lower PGE rates because it would "meet harsh resistance from PGE" (what else?) and that it would "run up" against the state Public Uitlities Commission.

I believe the time has come to ask whether The Oregonian's reporting on Enron/PGE reflects its historic ideological opposition to public power, expressed the same day on the editorial page by "Shooting PGE first, asking questions later" and the oped space ("The facts show PGE acted with integrity") donated to PGE's "public policy " flack.

Your editorial page also noted that Enron's reputation ranked at the bottom of 60 corporations. You challenge your readers to ask whether they support the City Council's efforts to find out just why, compared to publicly owned utilities, we are paying such outrageously high rates. Especially when the alternative is having those rates manipulated by a corrupt corporation, of course we support our elected representatives.

More power to them!