What game would that be? Why the game of self-promotion of course. Almost everyone knows about self-promotion, it’s what we do as human beings and lately the best way to promote yourself in today’s political climate is to re-brand who you really are with the moniker of Savior, or Social Justice Warrior, or… Politician.
If you can convince everyone else that you’re really only fighting for them, and not yourself, then you’ve won half the battle. This is what I have found is particularly true of politicians, activists and social justice warriors.
As to what I’m currently up to? I’m working on a new essay about none other than Therese Bottomly, bigwig at the big O. I will focus on her various errors of judgement when it comes to journalistic integrity, and her recent pattern of “unreservedly” apologizing for various sins writers of the Oregonian newspaper committed decades ago. How convenient that she would think of something so… timely to share with the dwindling Oregonian readership.
In Bottomly’s infamous 2022 apology, she wrote:
But what’s in it for her with such a dramatic and blatantly self-serving disclosure? We may well find that out.
Why did Bottomly focus on the journalistic sins of men who existed over 100 years ago and have been mildewing in their graves for decades ever since? What would a focus like that do for her? Well, perhaps we already know that, considering, that Therese Bottomly was chosen as a 2022 “Women of Influence honoree” for the Women of Influence awards. This happened not long after her apology was published, which got national attention, some of it not flattering.
After Bottomly published her notorious apology detailing the racism most of the early and mid-century journalistic writing, published by the Oregonian, was steeped in, she was both praised and mocked.
Honestly, I can understand both sides of that response, but for different reasons.
Bottomly’s habit of apologizing however, extends to more than racist old timers born in the late 1800s. She also apologizes for her young cub reporters bad punctuation, spelling and overall poor grammar. In at least two “Letters from the Editor” that I know of, Bottomly has felt obligated to point out to Portlanders her reporter's mediocrity and laziness as writers, while also thanking Portland citizens who brought the errors to her attention.
But why? Why would any self-respecting newspaper editor do that?
And what of the Oregonian’s readership? Are they respected as intelligent thinkers, or taken for granted as ignorant hicks who cannot and should not engage in any form of debate or disagreement?
It might seem that Bottomly does indeed have a low opinion of anyone engaging in what used to be called “the comments section” below any of the Oregonian online articles. I’ve come to this conclusion because Bottomly discontinued that feature January 2nd, of 2019. Her reason apparently is because Bottomly declared all Oregon incapable of having “rational conversations.”
What that kind of censorship reveals to me is an incredible level of elitism. Apparently, Bottomly really thinks she knows better than thousands of other Oregonians, including writers, journalists and publishers.
An interesting side note is that I know of several people who discontinued their subscription to the Oregonian for the simple reason that comments were discontinued on the online website. Their guilty conscience feeling of ‘helping out’ to support the dying dinosaur that the Oregonian represented was freed completely when the comments section was ripped out from under them. The fun of debate was taken away and they thought, why bother?
Bottomly had stated that she only wanted to help the lowly readership: “We want to raise the quality of the conversations between our newsroom and our readers.” So, to do that Bottomly helped by discontinuing the discussion feature, thereby killing freedom of speech, debate, disagreement and ultimately learning, also stating:
“Let’s face it, the comments section can be a difficult place to have a rational conversation. Personal attacks and insults are far too common.”
If you objected to her draconian slash, you had to direct your complaint directly to Bottomly, via email of course. But any complaints didn’t matter anyway, because when Therese puts her foot down… Well, you get the picture, the peasants have no say.
What if Bottomly participated in a horrendous hit piece written in the early 2000s by two Oregonian journalists, but she was rumored by reliable sources to have added her edits to the piece?
What if it can be proven that she oversaw the project and gave the go-ahead on a sloppily written article, in which reprehensible things were written about a crime victim? What then? Should Therese Bottomly then apologize to that person or persons, too? I believe she should, but I also know that she will likely never do that, because of cowardice.
This is one of my current projects and I hope you’'ll read it once I’m done. It will provide quite a different picture of Oregonian editor, Therese Bottomly.
~Theresa Griffin Kennedy
*********************************************************************************
Public comments are welcome! I can be reached at tkdupay@gmail.com if you wish to submit a comment. You can use your legal name, or you can remain anonymous.
COMMENT NUMBER ONE: Submitted June 1st, 2023 by a former woman reporter.
“Bottomly is a total lost cause.
She was never a friend, but at least I got along with her, but the new, greatly diminished OREGONIAN is approaching oblivion - literally.
I had lunch a few weeks ago with a former O reporter and he told me that the news staff had gone from roughly 400 (in 2013) to about 40 today.
The only reason I suspect Candace Avalos has stopped her unbearable "guest op-eds" is that she is about to run for office and the O would be required to give equal space to the 60 other candidates for the soon to be non-functional Portland City Council.
I used to have a number of friends at the O. I still am one of a rapidly diminishing number of paid subscribers, but I will bet it ceases existence, at least as a newspaper by 2025. The newspaper business can be tough, although there are papers that make it. But the only reason the O still exists is because of the wealth of the owners, Advance Publications. They can afford to run this woke drivel that "apologizes" for things done by long dead editors. It is the most insincere apology, meaningless because it costs her nothing and allows her to preen her "moral superiority" and collect meaningless awards from groups that admire each other in mirrors.”
COMMENT NUMBER TWO: Submitted June 1st, 2023 by author and longtime journalist/reporter, Fred Leeson.
“I worked with Therese for many years. She is smart, compassionate, honest and diligent. Your attack on her is highly unworthy.
The reason comments were eliminated is that the newspaper could not be responsible for scurrilous and libelous posts from anonymous people who lacked the guts to write under their own names. One easy answer is "The paper could have edited the comments." The truth is that no one could have time to read them ALL before potential harm could occur.
While this is a sad comment on the bad behavior of many readers...it is an accurate comment. How many legitimate newspapers are allowing free-flowing comments?
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Fred Leeson.”
Share this post