We are happy to receive feedback on our work, and readers often contact us with questions, comments or concerns. Here are a few that have crossed my desk.
In my recent update to our newsroom diversity initiatives, I mentioned we had lost one diverse reporter. I received a few emails that I found interesting.
Comment 1: You correctly used the word “diverse” in the phrases “diverse perspectives” and “diverse voices.” But “diverse” should not be applied to individuals. One solitary person, place or thing cannot be diverse.
Comment 2: While I enthusiastically applaud the recent articles on this topic, I suggest that there be some reflection on the use of terms. Specifically, the use of the term “diverse” to refer to nonwhite people reflects a white-centered orientation; that white people are the norm/standard and everyone else is “diverse.”
Response: Both these points are well-taken. It is easy in Oregon, where the population is overwhelmingly white to assume white is the default. But in pockets of Oregon, such as Cornelius, the Latino population is more than 50%. In Hillsboro, a quarter of residents are Hispanic. Language that does not presume people are white unless designated otherwise is best.
Comment: As the owner of a Tesla, I question why you call out that a Tesla was involved in a car accident (“19-year-old Tesla driver killed in SE Portland crash with tow truck”). What make was the third car involved? Why wasn’t it listed?
I don’t seem to recall that you call out a Ford, Chevy, or Toyota in the headline when those cars involved in an accident? There’s nothing in the story that says the Tesla itself directly contributed to the accident. I believe this is a classic example of MEDIA BIAS.
Response: The police identified the car involved as a “white 2022 Tesla Model Y 4-door sedan.” To us, that’s just an interesting fact. A relatively young, potentially inexperienced driver was operating an expensive, newer, high-performance car and crashed. Similarly, tow truck is more informative than truck. The other car was minimally involved and therefore not described.
Comment: I was very disappointed in the terminology that was used in the article “Lawmakers poised to extend right to medically assisted suicide to out-of-state residents.” The proper term for this practice is medical aid in dying, not assisted suicide.
The people who choose to make use of Oregon’s Death With Dignity Law are not “suicidal.” They much prefer to live but have the misfortune of having a terminal illness. Medical aid in dying allows them to avoid terrible suffering at the end of their lives, caused by the illness. The term suicide has a negative connotation, is not appropriate in this situation, and is actually insulting to those who choose to use Oregon’s law and to their families.
Response: The language of advocacy is an important issue for journalists, who want to choose words that do not bias the reader toward or against a point of view. We don’t regularly use “unborn child,” for instance, a phrase used by abortion opponents. We would not use “death with dignity” for the same reason, unless it was in a direct quote (or we needed to cite the actual name of the law, chosen by advocates). The reader is correct that under Oregon law aid-in-dying deaths are not categorized as suicides.
Best practice for journalists is to use neutral terms like “medical aid in dying” and similar. The word “suicide” is technically accurate: “knowingly and intentionally taking one’s own life.” But it is also true the term suicide carries a stigma that is unnecessary to associate with this medical intervention. That’s why people have moved away from the phrase “physician-assisted suicide.”
Comment: Please stop revealing locations of wolf packs. Surely you realize this puts them in danger. This gives the hunters both a map and a green light.
Response: Reporters always balance the right to know, or the need to know, with the potential for harm. Residents of an area have a strong interest in knowing wolves are present. That outweighs the potential harm of someone going there to harm wolves, especially when articles do not pinpoint exact locations and wolves travel widely (30 miles in a day).
Comment: I always enjoy Letters to the Editor. Today, a letter really raised my blood pressure — the “snarky” one about the author saying he felt sorry for all the people who watched Fox News. I found it to be quite offensive to people like myself who tend to be on the conservative side. I watch Fox News, I watch CNN news, local news, and am a loyal subscriber to The Oregonian since 1958, thus I feel that I have a pretty broad perspective on goings on locally and on the global fronts. Publishing a snarky letter like that was not in good taste.
Response: We try to carry wide-ranging viewpoints in our letters. I often say an opinion page everyone agrees with is neither attainable nor desirable. The best response is perhaps your own rebuttal sent to letters@oregonian.com.
