Many of you have been reading, probably with a great deal of disgust, the Bulletin's harsh treatment of the proponents of Senate Bill 30, most signficantly, of Senator Betsy Johnson, over the past several months.
The Source Weekly's H. Bruce Miller, in his piece The Big Smear lays this "red herring" bare for all to see. The piece was published in this week's edition of the Source Weekly and is posted in its entirety here with the author's permission.
The Big Smear: The Bulletin’s campaign of deceit against the Metolius bill
red herring (n.) – something that distracts attention from the real issue (from the practice of drawing a red herring across a trail to confuse hunting dogs)
When it comes to red herrings, you won’t find any that stink worse than the one The Bulletin is using to delude people about Senate Bill 30.
Senate Bill 30, whose principal sponsor is state Sen. Ben Westlund (D-Tumalo), aims to protect the Metolius River and its environs by barring destination resort developments close to it. Immediately affected would be two proposed resorts, a 3,500-acre monster planned by Ponderosa Land & Cattle Co. LLC and one of more than 600 acres proposed by Sisters resident Shane Lundgren’s Dutch Pacific Resources LLC. The bill has passed the Senate and is headed for a crucial committee vote in the House.
The Bulletin, which historically has supported the sacred right of developers to build whatever they want wherever they want (except at Broken Top, but that’s another story) has pulled out all the stops in a desperate effort to derail SB 30. I’ve been in the journalism business for 40 years, and I have never seen a supposedly reputable newspaper engage in such a sleazy campaign of deceit, distortion, misrepresentation and character assassination.
The main personal target of the campaign is Sen. Betsy Johnson (D-Scappoose), whose family has owned about 160 acres near the headwaters of the Metolius since the early 1900s. Johnson, according to Bulletin editorials, has a conflict of interest because SB 30 – which she supports, although she’s not a sponsor – supposedly would increase the value of her land by preventing development nearby. (It also would prevent her from developing her own land, but never mind that detail.)
The red herring – the phony non-issue designed to deflect attention from the real issue – is the claim, which The Bulletin keeps peddling in editorial after editorial, that SB 30 is “special interest” legislation designed to benefit Johnson and a handful of others who own property near the river. As the paper sneered on May 15, SB 30 “suits Sen. Betsy Johnson and the scores of people who'd like to turn the Camp Sherman area into a gated community. Their gated community.”
There is, of course, no fence around Camp Sherman or the Metolius. Thousands of people go there every year from all parts of Oregon and the world to fish, hike, bike, camp, or just enjoy the scenery of one of the most beautiful places on the planet.
And those people are backing SB 30.
Westlund’s office reports it has received more than 600 letters supporting the bill and only seven opposing it. Johnson’s office said Friday that it’s gotten “easily” more than 100 messages in support and only two in opposition – “and one of those was from a Lundgren.”
According to Central Oregon LandWatch, at least a dozen groups have expressed support for SB 30, including Friends of the Metolius, WaterWatch, the Oregon State Public Interest Research Group (OSPIRG), the Oregon League of Conservation Voters (OLCV), Oregon Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, the Native Fish Society, Trout Unlimited, the Trust For Public Land, Central Oregon Flyfishers, 1000 Friends of Oregon, the Sisters City Council and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs.
LandWatch’s blog, noresorts.blogspot.com, has posted more than 250 messages supporting SB 30. They have come from Bend, Redmond, Portland, Enterprise, McMinnville, Beaverton, Lake Oswego, Eugene, Salem, Philomath, Tillamook, Seattle, Boise, Palo Alto, CA, Fort Collins, CO, Brooklyn, NY – you name it.
“Special interest” legislation backed by a few Camp Sherman property owners? Hardly.
Curiously, while it continues to slime Betsy Johnson and other SB 30 supporters for their alleged “conflicts of interest,” The Bulletin seems rather nonchalant about conflicts on the part of those who attack the bill on its opinion page. On May 29 it published an “In My View” piece by former watermaster Duane Clark under the headline: “Development miles away will not harm the Metolius.” Coincidentally – or so he says – Clark is a good friend of the Colson family, principals of Ponderosa Land & Cattle Co. LLC, and has done paid consulting work for them in the past. And he’s also a Central Oregon real estate broker. (For all the juicy details see The Wandering Eye.)
Last Friday The Bulletin debased itself to a new level, committing one of the cardinal sins of journalism – spinning the news to push its editorial agenda. A story on the front page of its Local section headlined “Sen. Johnson finds herself in a swirl over Metolius bill” was a classic example of what’s known in newspaper parlance as “a hatchet job.”
The opening paragraphs described at length and in colorful detail how Johnson gave Sen. Vicki Walker, chair of the Senate Education and General Government Committee, a flight over the Metolius in Johnson’s private plane. The obvious intent was to give the impression there was something unethical, maybe even illegal, about the flight.
But if you had the persistence to read down to the 18th (!!) paragraph you would have found this: “The plane trip didn’t run afoul of any rules because legislators can provide transportation to each other for official business, according to the Government Standards and Practices Commission.”
The real “swirl” you hear is the sound of The Bulletin’s credibility and reputation as an ethical newspaper going down the toilet.
I’ve pondered long and hard about The Bulletin’s possible motives for its brazenly deceitful campaign against SB 30. As I mentioned earlier, the paper is rabidly pro-growth and always has been. But that doesn’t seem like enough to explain the calculated viciousness – not to mention the hysterical tone – of The Bulletin’s attacks. The paper has weighed in on other development issues without resorting to such vile tactics. Which leads me to wonder whether there might be some more powerful motivation, either personal or financial, at work.
The Bulletin likes to paint itself as a champion of openness and full disclosure, so maybe its editorial board will join me in calling for Ponderosa Land & Cattle Co. LLC and Dutch Pacific Resources LLC to disclose the names of all their investors and lay any nasty suspicions to rest.
But I won’t be holding my breath.
