Wednesday, September 24, 2008

The Funny Paper's hatchet job on Matt Wingard

Dave Hogan wrote the most obviously slanted hatchet job on Matt Wingard yesterday. I have not ever met nor dealt with Hogan, nor will I ever. He proved by this article that he is not in fact a serious journalist, but rather has an axe to grind.

Why do I say that?

He "reported" on the recent mailer sent out by Matt Wingard's opponent that slams Wingard for his conviction of misdemeanor abuse of his son. The news of his conviction, of course, is old. The Funny Paper already wrote about it months ago. So they had to concoct another story line so they could bring it up again - so the mail piece the Democrats sent is the big news.

OK fine. Use the mailer as a pretext to bring it up again. But one would think that a serious reporter would just write the story. Not Dave Hogan. He had more to prove.

He printed the allegations the mother of Matt's child made in court in 2004 in the middle of a child custody fight. We all know, of course, how charges and countercharges fly in these cases. But Hogan printed them up wholesale, even though the court obviously discounted them entirely, since Wingard did indeed win visitation rights with his son.

Nowhere in the story does Hogan mention that Wingard won visitation in that very court proceeding in which the mother made these allegations. One might surmise that if the judge thought they were credible, the last think he would do is grant visitation.

Hogan so much wants to hide this fact that he so helpfully writes: "But when told that Wingard said none of her allegations were true, she [the boy's mother] noted that the abusive treatment was documented by her son's pediatrician at the time."

Which is to say that the pediatrician records note that she made these allegations. That's all. Not that the doctor confirmed the abuse, which is what Hogan is trying to imply here. No, the doctor records simply note the allegation.

Here's the final proof that Hogan is a complete hack: You think that perhaps the fact that the courts have completely expunged ths conviction from Wingard's record might be a salient fact to report in a story like this?

Nowhere to be found.

Dave Hogan - I haven't ever met you, but I can assure you this: I will never deal with you in any way on any story. I only deal with journalists.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

The liberal MSM is collapsing precisely due to "stories" such as this one. It almost makes me feel better to imagine Hogan - when he is finally laid off by the Oregonian - being puzzled about why his form of politically biased nonsense didn't save the paper. Hopefully he'll have a years-long stretch of unemployment to try and figure it out.

MAX Redline said...

That is an amusing tale. I don't subscribe to the big Zero; haven't for years, and haven't missed it.

Their long-standing motto: "Never let a few facts get in the way of a good story".

OregonGuy said...

In 1983 the Oregonian had one of the best business pages in the industry. By 1994, they had a girly page that meant nothing. In October, 1994, I cancelled the Oregonian. Which is sad, since it was the last remnant of the Oregon Journal.

But creative destruction works both ways, neh?
.

LC said...

Hogan was assigned to a story where I was interviewed on a regular basis for about four months. I caught him playing on the edge on the story and accused him of having an agenda. He took it really seriously and told me that his integrity as a news journalist was not influenced by the editorial board.

I didn't really believe him, but I did notice that the next article was straight down the middle.

This one was clearly a hatchet job and Hogan knows better.

I think this reflects the reality that the number of decent newspaper jobs are shrinking. Tenure at a newspaper isn't what it used to be...Hogan is now towing the party line.

Anonymous said...

I've had a similar experience with Hogan. In the hierarchy of socialists at The Oregonian, Hogan is a run-of-the mill useful idiot.

The editorial page are dreamy fellow travelers.

The news editors are pure evil, like the owners - the multibillionaire Newhouses of the gliz-and-glam Vanity Fair/GQ world in Manhattan.

Such is Oregon's left-wing news organ.

NB: The Newhouses created their monopoly by busting up the Portland News Guild.

Carla said...

He printed the allegations the mother of Matt's child made in court in 2004 in the middle of a child custody fight. We all know, of course, how charges and countercharges fly in these cases. But Hogan printed them up wholesale, even though the court obviously discounted them entirely, since Wingard did indeed win visitation rights with his son.

Mr. Wingard regained his parenting rights in 2004 not because the court disregarded the allegations of abuse. Its more likely that the court weighed the affadavit of the mother (who ticked off the laundry list of alleged abuses), who wanted her son to have a steady, loving relationship with his father. You might actually read the documents rather than this navel gazing speculation you're playing at.

Nowhere in the story does Hogan mention that Wingard won visitation in that very court proceeding in which the mother made these allegations. One might surmise that if the judge thought they were credible, the last think he would do is grant visitation..

Wrong again. The list of incidents outlined by the mother were prior to the 2002 conviction. Wingard had no parenting or unsupervised visitation rights between the conviction and the 2004 reinstatement. So its likely that they were considered far enough past. And coupled with the mother's ask that the reinstatement of Wingard's rights (but not as far as Wingard wanted...she asked, and I believe what she asked for was granted, a much more stringently supervised and rigid plan) was the likely tipping point.

The pediatrician notes are rather extensive and not just a regurgitation of allegations from the mother. They're in the public record. The speculation here on them is silly and foolish, especially when you could just go to the Clackamas Co. Court and read them.

Anonymous said...

I can't read anything Carla writes. She has no good intentions. She is a card-carrying Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals" tear-down artist from the Left. Is this blog a dumping ground for the Angercrats to bloviate against Republicans? I didn't think so. Good riddance, Carla. Go spread it around the MSM where they eat your garbage for breakfast.

Anonymous said...

Carla, hmmm ... isn't she that reject of Mark Bunster's blog Loaded Orygun? Bunster, the Torrid Joe blogger who blogs while goofing off on his job at PDX Fire Department IT shop.

Carla, you are your retarded Liberal / Pissgresive views are not welcome here.

Rob Kremer said...

Hey, anon, please don't speak for my blog. Of course Carla is welcome here.

MAX Redline said...

Rob,

You're clearly not learning anything from Bog: when somebody disagrees with you, you immediately ban them. ;-)

Jack Roberts said...

Hey, anon, please don't speak for my blog. Of course Carla is welcome here.

Good for you, Rob. Most people here may not agree with Carla, but she's smart and does her homework.

Anyone who doesn't believe in the free competition of ideas shouldn't be blogging.

Anonymous said...

Anon - I strongly object to your use of the word retarded as a pejorative. Mr. Kremer, I'm disappointed you didn't blast him for this.