Eugene Register-Guard

As promised in our Slant column Nov. 15, here is the full text of Councilor Bonny Bettman’s letter to our local daily newspaper's editorial management Nov. 1, 2007:

The Register-Guard is setting a new low in biased journalism with their coverage of Measure 20-134. They have abandoned all pretense of objectivity.

They are actively using our community paper as a campaign organ. Gerry Gaydos held a press conference and used his appointed position to LTD (again with NO board vote) to stump for 20-134 and the R-G never mentions he is the director of the Eugene Chamber PAC which has contributed $10,000 to the YES side of the measure. School Board members express their personal opinions on the measure, also do not take a vote as a board, and the R-G states the "board" backs the measure.

Ed Russo restructures my sentences and omits key points, (like LCC's and ESD's losses), instead of presenting voters with both sides of the school finance issue so they can be equipped to make informed choices. Ed Russo, who has all my contact info and can reach me whenever he wants , failed to contact me regarding the "KWG" last-minute conversion for a "possible" open space in their plan — worse yet, he failed to even ask KWG what it will cost or how it will be financed — and this election is all about the money.

Welch did an opinion piece, entirely one sided and in favor of 20-134, masquerading as a column, he didn't even try to contact opponents. There have been several columns by (Don) Kahle in favor of 20-134; two R-G editorials in favor of the measure long before the editors even spoke with the opposition for the paper's "official" endorsement piece; opinion pieces permitted by the opposition have been overwhelmingly out-numbered by proponent op-eds. The number of printed letters to the editor has also been imbalanced in favor of the measure, and not for lack of letters. Many people who sent theirs in have yet to see them in print. This is by no means an exhaustive list. The volume of coverage has only been surpassed by its lack of objectivity.

It has taken me a while to come to this conclusion because I have become accustomed to low standards of local reporting by the R-G, and of course I never expect them to agree or support a position that I have taken. But the bottom line here is that they have a responsibility, as our only community daily paper, to provide balanced information to the public. The R-G's posturing on this issue has been extreme, and extremely manipulative. Apparently they don't they trust the voters to weigh relevant information and make an informed choice. The paper has proven to be utterly biased and uninformative on local issues. For regional, state, and national issues there are other newspapers. I am canceling my subscription to the R-G.

Respectfully,
Bonny Bettman