Now This is Getting Ridiculous: More Journamalism at The O

Let's see, the victims of Sam Adams careless driving, who have a real interest in his condition at the time, the Portland Police, who are trained to spot signs of intoxication, and a professional reporter, who clearly has higher ethical standards than The Oregonian, all say Adams showed no signs of having been under the influence of alcohol when he had is fender-bender. So what does The Oregonian report? Two bystanders who say he 'smelled of beer.' Is this the lede of an objective journalist and news organization? No. [Note that The O has changed the headline on the web site - the print headline read something like "Second Bystander Claims Adams Showed Signs of Intoxication' - which shows that even they may realize objectivity has been lost]

The Oregonian is allowing its (misguided, but that is another point) editorial opinions to color its journalism, and is at risk of loosing credibility. There is a term for this type of coverage: yellow journalism.

As if this was not enough, Anna Griffin decides this is a good opportunity to essentially reprint an old column suggesting that since Adams is not perfect he risks destroying the city! And she has the temerity to assert that the timing of this column has nothing to do with the accident - yea right. At least she could write something original.

I do think an effective city government is a good thing (as Jacob Grier has made me admit) - and this constant attempt to undermine Adams's effectiveness is destructive to the city. The Oregonian is so desperate to show that they were right that Adams cannot be an effective mayor, that they are actively trying to make it so. It is a disgrace. I am a staunch defender of the fourth estate and have even suggested publicly subsidizing reporting, but my defense comes from the vital role journalism plays in our democracy, and with this privileged position comes responsibility to journalistic ethics. The Oregonian is failing in that regard.

So, hey Oregonian, how about reporting on what the city, under Adams's leadership is actually doing these days - now that would be useful to know...

[By the way, April Baer of OPB had it just right, mentioning the allegations in the body of the piece but leading with the official report which asserts so signs of intoxication - kudos]

Does the Oregonian Not Care about Facts?

I realize there is a lower standard for opinion pieces then for news stories, but I imagine (and would hope) that The Oregonian would refuse to publish an opinion piece that claimed, say, that immigrants spread disease and are predisposed to crime. This claim has no basis in fact and has no place in a newspaper (unless it is in an article that then rebuts be presenting the evidence).

So why are they publishing this opinion piece that makes outrageous claims that are factually incorrect? In it the authors states: "the quality of education being delivered to a majority of students is closer to remedial high school rather than college." [Emphasis mine] There is absolutely no basis in fact for this statement. He goes on to state that half of students in college should not be there.

But what really gets this economist is the absurd claim that there is no real value to a college education and the only reason businesses want college degrees is it makes it easier to 'winnow' applications. Where to start? It is remarkable that businesses would find more applications such a burden and would pay 75% more for a college graduate than for a high school grad just to escape having too many of them. This is clearly an absurd assertion. We live in a world of market determined wages and businesses are not going to pay more for workers that do not have a higher marginal product. The college wage premium is real, huge and increasing precisely because a college education is valuable and ever more so in an increasingly global economy. See the graphic to the right (courtesy of the NY Times) - this is an empirical fact that contradicts the entire premise of the opinion piece.

Higher productivity means growth, so the conclusion we immediately draw from graphs such as this is that we should try and get more kids in college, not fewer, if we are interested in the future health and prosperity of the state and the nation. More college educated kids means a more productive workforce and thus more surplus to devote to many of the private and social needs of the population.

But the real question is why The Oregonian would print such an opinion piece? They should not promote the spread of ignorance. They should instead strive to raise the public debate, not lower it. What's next, a piece on how the Holocaust never happened, or that left-handers are superior beings?