A listener just brought something to my attention a few minutes ago telling me about an editorial in the local paper yesterday. I read it. Then I read it again just to be sure I didn't miss something.
The local editorial charges that the editorial board of the Oregonian newspaper is for sale. The writer states that the editor of the state's largest newspaper is swayed by the influence of Northwest Natural and the people from Northern Star Natural Gas to write the opinion that the recall of Clatsop County Commissioners is a misuse of the right citizens have to recall elected officials.
The local editorial makes a case that the "real" reason behind the Oregonians lack of support for the recall of three commissioners has more to do with telling Clatsop County residents to just
"shut-up and take it" when it comes to building an LNG terminal here. That's about the best example of yellow journalism since "Remember The Maine!"
This business about outsiders telling us what to do is a hot button on both sides and the local paper chooses to push that button. The local editorial does not attempt to dismantle the well reasoned case made by the Oregonian editorial writer who clearly feels the same way many locals do about this recall. The local paper instead throws around spurious charges and unsubstantiated statements worthy of a grocery store news rack tabloid. It's a little embarrassing.
The local paper is protected by the first amendment to publish what they choose. I would only suggest that they use actual journalists instead of Peter Hutula, to write their positions on issues for them. ( I guess I'm free to make wild charges now too)
I laughed out loud when I read the editorial by SWF. Sometimes I shake my head or simply say "hmmm" but it is rare that I laugh out loud.
ReplyDeleteThis is a local issue and I can pretty much guarantee the editorial team at the Oregonian could give a rip if LNG comes or not. To infer NWNG has "bought" the editorial team at the Oregonian is absurd, without merit, unsubstantiated, and just plain bizarre. Maybe SWF was out of town and one of the wannabees snuck in and used his computer to write the article.
I'm almost confident there is mayhem and shenanigans happening here.
Tom, I noticed that too, and am looking forward to the in-depth article scooped by the Daily Astorian over their brethren in Portland, who would surely have reported on it themselves if they were aware of it. I wrote to the Astorian as follows:
ReplyDeleteEditor, The Daily Astorian
re: How stupid do they think we are? 10/1/09
So this is the sage wisdom of the late editor from the Daily Astorian--"The editorial writers of The Oregonian too often speak for interests that can well afford to speak for themselves." We’re told what’s really happening in Portland is Northwest Natural and those evil Texans of Bradwood Landing fame did it again, using the Oregonian as puppets for obscene corporate purposes.
Hmm. With the Daily Astorian existing as THE local Tabloid of America for the Obama administration and all Democrat politicians alive and dead, one could easily say, “The editorial writers of The Daily Astorian too often speak for interests that can well afford to speak for themselves.”
Not only can Obama et. al. speak for themselves, but they have unlimited funds and an army of controlling agencies and czars to shout down private interests. The editors of the Daily Astorian should stop looking out their windows and start looking in their mirrors for the hypocrisy they so love to accuse of others
Art Hyland
How sad that this community has a daily paper that is so negative and often not true...I know very few people anymore that subscribe to it. Pathetic really...
ReplyDeleteOoooh!
ReplyDeleteThis oughta be good!
Tom Freel challenged to draw a line in the sand and go head to head with The Daily "A"'s editor?
You doing this on your own intitiative Tom?
HaHa-hahahaha! Daang it! Blew coffee on the screen and burned the inside of my nose!
ReplyDeleteSince the OREGONIAN chose to quit covering Clatsop County some time ago where are they getting their information? It's one thing if KAST did an editorial but a paper that knows nothing about what's gone on here...no matter which side you are on?
ReplyDeletePersonally, I'm pleased the Oregonian wrote the editorial and I'm very pleased that we have other eyes on this community to balance out the extreme biased views of the Daily Astorian that is evident since 1988. I only wish the Oregon Journal was still around and I look forward to the retirement of Steve Forrester or perhaps some other company to purchase it away from the Eastern Oregonian to bring it back to a balance it once displayed under his brother Mike and father Bud.
ReplyDeleteSteve Forrester's editorials continuously remind the knowledgeable reader of his troubled past which is even more evident in his recent writings and political views.
It is questioned that his past with Willamette Week and personal angst against the editorial board of the Oregonian is similar to his petty editorial vendettas against local businessmen and continued personal public attacks against many people and businesses of our own community, which is evident if you go back and read his editorials these past 21 years, which may answer why Astoria has continued to struggle as a community.
I argue that a majority of Steve Forrester's editorials are negatively bent and may attempt to covertly discredit certain persons or businesses, for a reason unknown to the reader and perhaps only known by the writer.
I disregarded this particular Astorian editorial as soon as I read it as another piece of non-creditable commentary and viewed the source of the editorial as compromised and unreliable.
It is sad to see the quality of writing disintegrate to this level. Which has nothing to do with "if you don't like or like LNG", which an unbiased editor would attempt to distinguish, and it is OK for him to continuously say he is against LNG, then the casual reader would know his point of view from the beginning and continue to read or not read.
The Willamette Week improved tremendously after Mr. Forrester’s departure and I predict the same for the future of the Daily Astorian.
Floyd E. Holcom
(The above opinion is mine and mine alone and has no reflection with any public board or other private organizations I'm apart nor does it assume that I have been influenced by any other organization or persons that may or may not pay me for services rendered. This opinion is based solely on my personal impressions and opinion after reading the Daily Astorian editorials between 1988 and present and I do predict and expect to see continued negative articles and editorials in the Daily Astorian against me and others after this is printed and read.)
Shoulda let that one slide Art.
ReplyDeleteYou know he will publish it because it puts you right up there with his favorite GOP stereotype but, what the heck do I know?
The elephant in the room regarding the Daily Astorians editorials has sadly become Steve Forresters ego. That he invoked quotations from his father, Bud from decades ago must have that decent man spinning in his grave. Bud Forrester had a commitment to journalism and the Columbia Pacific region that Steve has tossed under the trolley. Steve's Daily Astorian has become a divisive instrument creating a tempest in a teapot. LNG should not be that be that be that big a deal. It's not dangerous, it wont hurt the river, it wont hurt the fish, it's a great way to heat your home, your water and your food. If more households converted to natural gas we would need far less electrical power and that would help salmon the most. If you want to really help the Columbia river, think Hanford and dams on the snake. Come on lets find some common ground that makes sense and work together.
ReplyDeleteJust because the Oregonian "quit covering" Clatsop County doesn't mean they don't have access to the information from any number of sources, as we all do in this internet age.
ReplyDeleteBTW Mr. Hyland, I certainly appreciate your willingness to take on the editor at the Daily A, but I wish you would tone down the anti Obama rhetoric. I realize the anti LNG element has pretty much taken over the local Democratic party, but there are plenty of locals (including some life long Republicans) who voted for him and support him. His administration has nothing to do with the debacle currently taking place in Clatsop County.
Is there a mole in Clatsop County feeding information to the Oregonian?
ReplyDeleteAs the local and non local re-callers keep spouting off about the LNG folks having paid off all those in the permitting process, where are the facts????????
ReplyDeleteWhere is all this proof they bought off the Commissioners, Permitters, Oregonian and others within the local community?
I'm sure KAST would be willing to air all the proved facts as soon as they can be substantiated.
If the Astorian has proof let them print it with all the documents to back his editorial.
"LNG should not be that be that be that big a deal. It's not dangerous, it wont hurt the river, it wont hurt the fish, it's a great way to heat your home, your water and your food."
ReplyDeleteYou are confusing, "Anonym", a process perhaps not needed at all with a commodity and its supply some, like Palomar and the American Natural Gas Alliance, say will not be impacted at all if none of these proposed LNG Terminal projects on the west coast are built at all.
I guess it all depends on whose "Equine Sact" you choose to swallow huh?
Since the OREGONIAN is not covering Clatsop County, like the did 10 years ago, then exactly who is "feeding them information?"
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone beleive that it is really just LNG that caused the recalls?
"Go for the million circulation and when you've got it, turn the minds and the votes of your readers one way or the other at critical moments."...Joseph Pulitzer
ReplyDeleteThe benefactor of the "Holy Grail" of journalism..."The Pulitzer Prize"
So what does a Steven Forrester editorial or an Oregonian Editorial Board editorial do?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteJust because the Oregonian "quit covering" Clatsop County doesn't mean they don't have access to the information from any number of sources, as we all do in this internet age.
That would be, for good or bad, Lori Tobias, The Oregonian's coast reporter.
Commissioner Holcom, two words for you, THANK YOU!!! Maybe some of the rest of us who serve this community can get a break, and you'll be in the paper more often, there seems to be plenty of SF's negativity to go around, one could define it as a community wide abusive relationship. I appreciate you taking him on!!!
ReplyDeleteI always appreciate a currently elected politician, local or not, willing to actually let us know exactly how he personally thinks, as Floyd Holcom has just done above. And he makes clear it is his personal, not positional opinion, which is the way we should consider it. I wish all politicians would be equally willing to say exactly what they believe rather than so often testing the wind in order to figure out which way the people are going so they can lead us. What gives Floyd credibility to me is his ability to draw from his years of knowledge about Astoria in order to bring historic perspective to the table, something that he does in his own business in an effort to join businesses past with those he's planning for the future.
ReplyDeleteThe local paper of record is an abomination, despite the fact that there are some good people working there who are perfectly willing and able to cover the local news objectively if allowed. Although I don't applaud boycots, I do like the competition that is building in the excellent example of the Coast River Business Journal in the written form. And of course, our very own KAST, over the air, and over the internet. All of these kinds of competitors to The Daily A...(you fill in the appropriate word) are helping to give us the information we citizens need to form objective conclusions about the issues we need to follow.
(As to answering the above BTW comment by "Anonymous" I should leave that to another time, but will simply state unequivocally that if there were any Republicans who voted for Obama, they are regretting or will regret having done so. Understand McCain was not a wonderful alternative.)
Coast River Business Journal's current issue's Editor's comment really impressed me for sure as it surprised me that Ms. Trabucco would stoop to whining.
ReplyDeleteI have always given her credit for being much stronger than that.
Oh Patrick thank you for correcting me. I should have said LNG should not be that big a deal. It's not dangerous, it won't hurt the river or the fish and if more people used natural gas to heat their water homes and food, that would save a ton of megawatts and be fantastic for fish especially upriver salmon and steelhead.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteOh Patrick thank you for correcting me. I should have said LNG should not be that big a deal. It's not dangerous, it won't hurt the river or the fish and if more people used natural gas to heat their water homes and food, that would save a ton of megawatts and be fantastic for fish especially upriver salmon and steelhead.
4:27 PM"
You are most welcome "Anonym" and yes, LNG isn't dangerous and it won't hurt the river as long as it is contained but, let it get loose...
Take A Look At This Data
Anon 8:04,
ReplyDeleteDon't worry about McGee's views. Remember he is the person who admits to doing bogus polls, presumably to mislead the poll's readers. There is no reason to believe his views in any situation or to apologize to him for anything.
It's one thing if KAST did an editorial but a paper that knows nothing about what's gone on here...
ReplyDeleteSo, the Oregon's oldest largest daily paper is completely at sea regarding what happens in the county at the mouth of the river? I don't think so, I think they know very well what goes on here-Yet, you'd rather believe what a bunch of paid activists, California "artists" that move here and try to impress everyone with their continous lies. You believe everything Forrester spews forth because you want to, not because he has some great insight on the local, state, national or international level. Build the LNG plant and build it soon. An $800 million investment spent here with private funds is nothing to chased away by a vocal but unrealistic aging yuppies from places like Southern California and beyond. Forrester and his toady, Patrick Webb, are the worst influences on gullible newcomers.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteAnon 8:04,
Don't worry about McGee's views. Remember he is the person who admits to doing bogus polls, presumably to mislead the poll's readers.
Well "Anonym", it's better to make someone aware that online polls are corruptable than to perpetuate a perception that they are in any way a legitimate reflection of the general pulse on any issue but, that's the warning with any poll isn't it?
Kind of like putting validity in the opinion of a person that presents it under the name, "Anonymous".
McGee - yes, a big "what if"...considering there has never been a "spill" of any consequence over the millions of miles these tankers travel, why on earth would it be more likely that it would happen here?
ReplyDeleteYes, there have been a few catastrophic accidents since LNG came into use, over 60 years ago...but the industry learned from each and every one, and is now among the safest industries in the world.
Considering all you'd have to worry about is a ship passing by a couple of times a week, what is your problem? As far as the ships go, there has NEVER been an issue. In history.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"McGee - yes, a big "what if"...considering there has never been a "spill" of any consequence over the millions of miles these tankers travel, why on earth would it be more likely that it would happen here?"
The Facts Versus FERC Spin:What is the operational safety record
of LNG Facilities?
For a variety of significant reasons, past
operating records do not provide an
appropriate perspective for the analysis
of LNG risks. Overemphasis on past
operations to predict future failures is a
characteristic of poor risk management
techniques, particularly for such
complex systems.
The increasing number and complexity
of very unique LNG marine receiving
energy infrastructures significantly
increase the likelihood that a major
event will occur.
In the absence of an adequate model for
predicting risk and assessing the
resulting outcome of an LNG terminal
catastrophe, caution must prevail.
Siting these unique facilities in remote
locations or offshore is preferred.
And of course "Anonym" will chime in with how much more remote could Bradwood Landing be but, it isn't and it sits right on the edge of the main shipping channel at a severe bottleneck in the Columbia river.
Patrick- What is your source for the post on risk assessment? Just curious..was that from the coast guard report? or something else in the record?
ReplyDeleteTom - McGee has used that same quote many times in the past. I believe it might be from SITTGO. Regardless, applying that kind of statement is the same as saying that "gee, I'd better not drive anymore because I haven't been in an accident in 5 years and I'm much more likely to the longer I go safe"
ReplyDeleteThe LNG industry as a whole is extremely technologically advanced - and I firmly believe that with the industry growth will come ever increasing safety.
The risk assesment post is silly.
ReplyDelete"The increasing number....increases the liklihood"...
It's could also be stated as fact that if I buy an "increasing number and complexity of lottery tickets it would signigicantly increase the likelihood that a major winning will occur"...
Sheesh.
And McGee, we post Anonymous because this anti-everything crowd you've chosen to run with are vindictive and are not beneath making personal attacks on us as people, our families and our co-workers. Just look at the Daily A. I wouldn't be surprised if this new food critic is bashing restaurants based on their political orientation. Forrester sure doesn't seem to have any problem attacking people personally with little regard for facts.
I asked about this to give Patrick the opportunity to attribute the information to a credible source. Speculation of this kind is largely unfounded and it would be unusual to find this in a report that deals with what we know rather than what "might" happen. So how about it Mr. McGee?
ReplyDeleteTom Freel said...
ReplyDeletePatrick- What is your source for the post on risk assessment? Just curious..was that from the coast guard report? or something else in the record?
9:25
No, it's not fron USCG's Water Suitabilitiy Report
It could be in the record but, I'm not certain.
Peter Hackett, Bradwood/NSNG's Front Man, should be able to confirm that for you, ask him.
"Tom Freel said...
ReplyDeleteI asked about this to give Patrick the opportunity to attribute the information to a credible source. Speculation of this kind is largely unfounded and it would be unusual to find this in a report that deals with what we know rather than what "might" happen. So how about it Mr. McGee?"
Sorry Tom, I don't make a habit of posting "Speculative" or "Unfounded" information and present it as fact.
And what reports, dealing with "Facts", is it, are you referring to and dealing specfically with what it is you say we should know.
The risk assessment report simply states that we cannot use the BS of the last 45 years safety record on these new technology/configurations in "The States" because as of yet there is no comparative case studies to weigh against and you or your buddies in the LNG Speculation Industry localy I don't think can/will tell us any differently but knock yourselves out, I'll listen.
Build it. Build it now. It will bring new prosperity to the states of Oregon & Washington. These antis think that just because they've recently moved in here they should dictate who should use the Columbia River for what purpose. Not to worry, though, this LNG terminal is just a piece of the larger infrastructure of the future-a future that cannot be altered or deterred by some red shirt wearing artists, retirees, dishwashers and bad songwriters
ReplyDeletePatrick McGee said...
ReplyDeleteSorry Tom, I don't make a habit of posting "Speculative" or "Unfounded" information and present it as fact.
I concure, McGee, you don't make a habit of posting "Speculative" or "Unfounded" information and present it as fact, to you it's a way of life
Anonymous said:"I concure, McGee, you don't make a habit of posting "Speculative" or "Unfounded" information and present it as fact, to you it's a way of life"
ReplyDeleteCite one example "Anonym".
Patrick McGee said...
ReplyDeleteCite one example "Anonym".
Very well, here's one from your very own sandbox, ahem, grassroots people.
"Astoria's Gonna Fry!!"
I suppose you wouldn't call that speculative or unfounded, though.
Patrick McGee said...
ReplyDeleteCite one example "Anonym".
Here's another, then. There is no 30 jobs associated with this, just as there isn't a "few sites" here at the rivermouth that could accomodate such a behemoth vessel. You are posting speculative and unfounded information that you say you don't. Well, then, what do you call this paragraph that was just ripped from your website, Mr. Mcgee
The USS Ranger On The Coast: Should We Let This One Get Away From Us Too?
GRP: A few sites down here were looked at favorably by this foundation and will likely be back for more talks that could offer 30-plus jobs and a crapload of tourism and spin-off revenue. Should we be agressive in attracting this historic attraction here?