Calling the Big O to task

First, a little back-story:

In 1992, Oregon Senator Bob Packwood narrowly won re-election over Les AuCoin. A couple of weeks later, the Washington Post broke the story of Packwood's long history of sexual misconduct (let's just leave it at that) toward political consultants, reporters, government employees, and so on and on.

Among the embarrassing details to come out as the story unfolded (to this day the memory of waking up to an NPR story that specifically mentioned the senator's tongue can make me wake up screaming at 3am), it soon came to light that the Oregonian--the Beaver State's newspaper of record--had the story before the election and sat on it (and endorsed Packwood over his opponent AuCoin--who, in turn, had the endorsement of NOW).

The Oregonian's marketing slogan at the time was, "If It's Important to Oregonians, It's in The Oregonian." By Christmas of that year, bumper stickers appeared around town: If It's Important to Oregonians, It's in The Washington Post.

Now, let's fast-forward to the present, where there's good news and bad news.

The good news is that the Oregonian is finally running a piece today on the current elephant in the room: Gordon Smith's votes in the Senate are 'way to the right of the state he represents. Whether the vote is largely symbolic pandering (e.g., the flag-burning amendment, the anti-gay marriage amendment, the resolutions to continue the clueless Bush war in Iraq), or matters of urgent practical consequence in the lives of Oregonians (fair minimum wage, internet neutrality, etc.) there was Gordon, backing the extreme GOP agenda and making his vaunted "moderate" credentials a joke.

The bad news is that the piece in question wasn't the Oregonian's news staff finally getting caught up; it took an op-ed piece by Mark Bunster of the watchdog blog Loaded Orygun to get the topic brought to light:

Does anyone really believe that Oregonians were hungry for another (failed) attempt to keep a dozen twits per year from burning a flag? More pointedly, does Smith believe it? Does he recall the things he promised Oregonians in his campaigns, like protecting choice, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and gay rights? Is he the least bit sensitive to the overwhelming concern that the country is pushing an egregiously failed foreign policy mindlessly forward? Has he foregone any pretense of the oft-stated moderation so crucial to his continued employment in the Senate?

What's detailed here has been based on research done without the help of the Oregon media, including its paper of record. And it's not just Smith's votes at issue. Why did I have to learn about a scheduled $1,000-per-ticket lobbyist ski party for Smith's re-election by reading the Chicago Sun Times?

Tracking Smith's fake-left-drive-right history has been a regular part of business here at p3's international headquarters, as well as at Loaded Orygun, Blue Oregon, and other sites. Even the Oregonian will let something slip through from time to time--as long as it's safely corralled in Steve Duin's column, not running loose in the news hole.

Hats off to Mark, who nevertheless shouldn't have to be doing the heavy lifting for the Big O. After all, it's not like he doesn't have a day job.