Two great examples of the problem in a single issue!

Today's Oregonian gave us two great examples of the problem with having a monopoly newspaper.

Imagine if Portland was a two newspaper town. Major political issues of the day would be debated in the editorial pages, and the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments on both sides would come out. Neither of the papers would be able to define the issue by using the news pages to offer up only stories that support the editorial position the paper has taken. Neither paper could dismiss the arguments of the other side as not worthy of consideration.

The Oregonian today gives us two examples of what I'm talking about:

Example #1: We all know the Oregonian wants a property tax hike to once again save Portland School District from itself. So, just like they did when the ITAX was being debated, we can expect an onslaught of "news" stories based on the theme: "schools don't have enough money."

Today we saw the first one - a completely invented news story about high Oregon class sizes. It wasn't a story about release of a national study or anything - it was entirely self generated. The Oregonian apparently asked the Department of Education for class size information, and then they wrote a story about it. Big news.

But it supports their theme of "schools need money," so they do it.

The article itself is basically just a series of whining school officials. They are careful to mention that class sizes would be worse still were it not for the ITAX, and so they will go up unless some replacement revenue is found.

It's a very good example of the way the Oregonian operates - how their "news" pages work in a coordinated fashion with the editorial side.

You'd think any honest discussion of class size might ask the question "why are Oregon's class sizes higher than other states that spend less money than us?" But you won't find it anywhere in this story. You won't find a whisper of the dirty little secret that Oregon has been trading high teacher pay and benefits for class size for years, and that we now have the highest level of teacher benefits in the nation.

That's how you know the story was simply invented to support their push for a new tax. Expect more of them. Mark my words, in the coming months you will see story after story, equally invented (by invented I mean a story not triggered by any news event) that covers some aspect of the theme "schools don't have enough money."

Example #2: The Oregonian's editorial today on light rail.

You probably saw that the Bush administration funded two big transportation projects for the Portland metro area: the commuter rail project that is going to run from Wilsonville to Beaverton, and the I-205 light rail that will go from Clackamas Town Center to the eastside Max.

There is a rapidly growing and very compelling body of research, analysis and opinion that shows light rail and commuter rail projects such as these are monumental wastes of money that fail to deliver on any of the promises that they make. Take a look at this website.

Rail is hugely expensive, inflexible, slow, and it makes traffic congestion and pollution worse, not better. Analyze the cost vs. the ridership numbers and it is pretty clear - rail is a horrible investment if your purpose is to move bodies and goods efficiently.

But I have never seen any analysis of the numbers in the pages of the Oregonian. Not once. Maybe there is somehting I am not recalling, but I don't think so. So, consider the contrast: the Oregonian WANTS a new tax, so they ask the ODE for class size numbers and concoct a "news" story analyzing those numbers to show that we have high class sizes.

Think the Oregonian would ever do a similar analysis of light rail numbers? No interest.

But it is worse than just having an agenda. The real damage of the monopoly newspaper is that it is able to dismiss the other side of the debate. The Oregonian NEVER covers any of the growing body of research that critiques light rail. There's never a news article about the latest study that shows light rail fails to deliver.

In fact, the Oregonian dismisses light rail critics with a derisive snort. This from today's editorial:

"...expect to hear the usual loud chorus of negativity from opponents of rail transit. It's a favorite punching bag for those who think Oregon can simply pave its way out of transportation gridlock."

And later in the same editorial:

"...boo-birds loved to chirp about the sometimes-empty train cars they saw. "

The subtext here is: "There is no reasonable argument against light rail, and any person who argues against it is not worthy of being taken seriously."

And THAT is the damage caused by a monopoly newspaper. They pretty much have free reign to define the political spectrum as, one the one hand, reasonable progressives who support all the right policies, and on the other, "boo-birds in the chorus of negativity."

Over the long term, this has done trememdous damage to the political culture in Oregon. I hope the advent of new media can bring it back.

PS: Here is something I would like to hear from my governor candidate:

"I don't want the Oregonian's endorsement. I think the Oregonian is part of the problem. They have supported all the things over the years that I stand against - things that have done great harm to this state that I love. Why would I ask the Oregonian to endorse me, when I oppose so much of what they support?"