Two recent editorials illustrate the purpose and perhaps the limitations of The Oregonian/OregonLive’s independent editorial board.
Editorials are the public position of the news organization’s editorial board, distinct from the newsroom’s coverage. They are researched and written by Opinion Editor Helen Jung, with input from other members of the board, Publisher John Maher, Laura Gunderson, director of public interest and accountability, and me.
The board’s positions are also informed by its longstanding principles and positions. For example, the board has long advocated for improving K-12 education investments and strategies and has supported a new education tax, adoption of research-based curriculum and accountability measures needed to support and track success. The board regularly editorializes against governmental agencies taking on programs or making expenditures on areas outside their core mission and capabilities.
News articles, in contrast, are researched and written by reporters in the newsroom. Reporters have no input into the editorial positions beyond the facts they publish.
On balance, I consider the board middle of the road to conservative fiscally but liberal on social issues.
There is no party test for political candidates. The board is guided by its view of the best person for that job at that time.
Recently, the board assessed news coverage of the emerging Shemia Fagan scandal. On April 27, Willamette Week revealed Fagan had taken a side job in the cannabis industry. This followed on its coverage of the travails of La Mota, a cannabis company that had emerged as a major Democratic donor even as it left a trail of unpaid taxes and overdue bills.
The board does not call for resignations lightly, only when we feel the person had ceded all ability to be effective on behalf of citizens.
This case was fairly typical for the board. News coverage pops into the public consciousness, whether from The Oregonian/OregonLive’s newsroom or any other. If an issue grows to widespread public concern, as Willamette Week’s reporting did when it reached the Oregon Secretary of State’s Office, the editorial board will consider whether to weigh in.
Board members read the coverage, attended Fagan’s press availability on May 1, considered her answers and unanimously felt she could no longer serve as Oregon’s secretary of state. Jung’s editorial does what good editorials do: It laid out the evidence, explained the reasoning and ended with a crystal-clear conclusion.
By contrast, news articles do not tell readers what the reporter thinks our readers or sources should do. Reporters do not declare whether policies are right, or wrongheaded, although they certainly might gather evidence pointing in one direction or the other.
Another recent case illustrates a vital service the editorial board performs for readers: political endorsements. The case of Derrick Peterson, onetime candidate for the board of Portland Public Schools, also shows the board’s limitations.
The Oregonian/OregonLive’s editorial board cannot make endorsements in every race. There are simply too many. The board typically weighs in on major metro area races that are competitive, believing an endorsement would be most helpful to readers in those cases.
In races with multiple candidates, the board might ask candidates to submit questionnaires designed to draw out specifics of how they would approach the job. The board then invites a smaller number of candidates to an endorsement interview.
Those meetings are somewhat akin to a job interview. They are not debates, but rather opportunities for board members to hear directly from candidates on specific issues.
The race in Zone 3 for the school board had just two candidates, Peterson and Patte Sullivan, so there was no need to narrow the field. Both were invited to the endorsement interview.
In an endorsement published April 26, the board chose Peterson based on his focus on behavioral health, his expertise in diversity initiatives and his longtime public service.
The next day, the newsroom reported Peterson had been named an “apostle” in an evangelical megachurch and had been listed as a board member of the church’s anti-abortion offshoot. Peterson said that listing was in error. After Rolling Stone brought national attention to the race, calling Peterson an “accused Christian nationalist,” he withdrew, saying media coverage had created a distraction. Peterson denies being a Christian nationalist (people who believe the U.S. should be a Christian nation, governed by biblical principles).
Our editorial board rescinded its endorsement May 3 when Peterson said he was ending his run. Peterson reiterated his decision Wednesday, saying he had entered the race “with genuine intentions, no hidden agendas and with a goal of improving outcomes for the students.” His name remains on the ballot.
It’s an example of the limitations of endorsements, which are made based on the information available at any one time. While the editorial board strives to use a broad lens in giving its voting recommendations, new information can emerge at any time. In this rare case where we might have wished to revisit our endorsement, Peterson declared he was no longer a candidate, resolving the question.
