I suppose it was much easier in Orange County, California, where a right-wing publisher of a well-established Libertarian-leaning newspaper could preach to the O.C. choir and be rewarded with waves of appreciation, not challenges to his authority. Does that mean we should have sympathy for N. Christian Anderson III, who left the Orange County Register two years ago, spent some time consulting with media executives and private equity investors and then playing part-time professor to journalism students, before taking over The Oregonian in November? After all, this is N. Christian Anderson III, who was once called a "wunderkind" and a "journalistic saint" by at least one fawning former colleague in a magazine feature grandly titled "Rashomon on Grand Avenue."
From my perspective, the answer is no: No sympathy is necessary or appropriate. For someone who grew up and went to school in Oregon, N. Christian Anderson III ought to recognize that Portland, Oregon -- the whole state, for that matter -- is many degrees separated from the plastic-and-silicone world of Orange County, whose 25 wealthiest residents included eight billionaires and held an estimated $28 billion in net worth -- "more than the gross domestic product of Luxembourg" -- in 2005. By contrast, the whole state of Oregon boasts only one billionaire: Phil Knight, CEO of Nike.
I raise the question of sympathy because Anderson himself played the victim in a "publisher's note" in this morning's edition of The Orangeonian, addressing "our critics" -- hear the royal "we" there? -- when the criticisms that I've seen and read in the past couple of weeks have been aimed squarely at Anderson alone. What I've took from the morning's note is that Anderson has a surprisingly thin skin underneath the bluster and power that he now commands.
His first point: They're picking on me!
"Being the publisher of The Oregonian is like being the despotic ruler of a Third World country, I learned this week," he begins. Just as he did in late November, he picks up the theme of educating confused Oregonians about the role of the newspaper publisher.
If you believe our critics, I write all the editorials, permit only views with which I agree on our editorial pages, edit the paper, decide what stories go where and write all the headlines. And I'm a right-wing nut, too.
I'm glad I don't have time for all that, because I don't want to do any of those things. As for whether I'm a right-wing nut, everyone will have his or her opinion. (I'm not, by the way.)
That was nice: Invite the reader to reach his own conclusion, but not really.
His second point: Those who disagree with me are confused, so let me use littler words and break it down for them.
You may be a little interested, and perhaps confused, about how things work at The Oregonian when it comes to the pages where we express the views of The Oregonian as an institution. I'll try to explain.
Then, his third point: Don't blame me.
Bob Caldwell, our editorial page editor, has a staff of associate editors and others who write editorials, decide which columns and letters go on our editorial and op-ed pages and then produce the daily pages and the Sunday Opinion section. Bob and the associate editors meet daily to discuss what topics they'll write about for the next day. I've never been to one of those meetings.
So if anyone's looking for a name to blame for The Orangeonian's change in direction, Anderson suggests, it's Bob Caldwell, not Anderson himself. Way to stop the buck in the executive editor's office, Mr. Publisher. See how the blame slides completely away from Anderson, the man who in November told readers, "The simple explanation of my role is that of chief executive officer. I have overall responsibility for the company’s performance, which of course is related to how well we serve readers and advertisers, and whether we operate efficiently in doing so.
And, he said then, "I lead the establishment of strategy for the company, through a team of executives responsible for individual departments of the newspaper. And, I monitor their performance in executing that strategy."
In November, Anderson's main point was that as publisher, he was master of all that he surveyed at The Oregonian. Back then, he was The Man. Where he pointed, the crew would row; as he would play, so the party would dance. But the Anderson of today's note is merely the chief administrator, merely making sure trains run on time while others make the big decisions.
The notion that a publisher leaves the ideological direction of his newspaper to a deputy, even if that deputy carries an "executive" title, is disingenuous. After all, Caldwell doesn't monitor Anderson's performance in executing the newspaper's "strategy," it's Anderson who monitors Caldwell. The feet walk in the direction the head decides.
Most comic in his assertion, however, is the excuse that he has "never been to one of those meetings" where editorial topics are discussed and chosen. I seem to recall that George H.W. Bush used the same excuse to weasel out of Iran-Contra culpability: He'd never attended meetings where that was discussed. Come to think of it, it's a peculiarly Bushian excuse, as George W. Bush wasn't a party to the secret meetings that his vice president held with oil executives in the early days of 2001. Yet those meetings produced the energy policy espoused by the Bush administration for the next eight years.
Perhaps Anderson SHOULD sit in on those editorial meetings with his deputy Caldwell, if so much of The Orangeonian's success rides on getting the editorial side of the newspaper's direction right. Of course, if anyone really believes that Anderson and Caldwell never have off-line conversations, I have some beachfront property to sell them.
Then, as if realizing how inane his argument might sound to people who can read and write, he clarifies with a fourth point: Lest you misunderstand, I set the direction here now, and I started setting the direction here as soon as I arrived.
On two occasions since my arrival in November I have joined some members of the editorial board, as it is often called, to listen to conversations with guests who want to influence our editorial opinion. Most recently, I listened to a presentation by officials from the Portland Trail Blazers about their ideas for Rose Quarter development. I had hoped to participate more in the daily meetings, but that hasn't come to pass and I'm not certain it will. I did have an opportunity to join in a conversation about our position on Measures 66 and 67; that meeting was an early sharing of various viewpoints several weeks before our first editorial on the subject.
What Anderson is saying, after a lot of distracting fluff, is that he decided the new editorial direction of his paper -- "several weeks before our first editorial on the subject." The first editorial was published after the New Year, so "several weeks" may mean that he "shared" his "viewpoint" on the question while former editor Sandy Rowe was still in place, and while Patrick Stickel was still president. Presumably, deputy Caldwell took notice of this "sharing" of "viewpoints" -- that is, if he recognized that Anderson would be "monitoring" Caldwell's "performance" in the new regime.
Point five is a restatement of his third point: If you want to blame someone, blame Bob Caldwell. Having established that he doesn't attend editorial board meetings, he proceeds to educate Oregonians about what goes on in these meetings -- the meetings he doesn't attend, if you weren't paying attention.
So, if I don't dictate how the editorial positions of The Oregonian are formed, how does that happen? Through lots of conversation and give and take among Caldwell and the associate editors. Caldwell gets to have the final say, just as he did on Measures 66 and 67. From there, Bob usually writes me an e-mail to tell me the topics and a phrase that indicates what our position will be. I don't think I've even asked for a clarification more than a couple of times.
This tells us is how well Bob Caldwell understands his job. He's the editorial page editor who now answers to the former publisher of the John Birch-founded Orange County Register, a publisher who has told readers loudly and clearly that he "monitors" the performance of his executive staff. Readers have now watched the paper's former editor and former president, Sandy Rowe and Patrick Stickel, leave at the same time, mere weeks after the new publisher arrived. Whatever readers may have thought of Caldwell in the pre-Anderson era, this much is true now: He recognizes where his bread is buttered, and that he's Anderson's cover.
Similarly, his sixth point restates his fourth: Lest you misunderstand, I am The Man at The Oregonian, and if I want to sit in on editorial board meetings, that's my prerogative.
I don't think the publisher of The Oregonian should shy away from participating in editorial discussions. Why would I? It's interesting stuff.
Heh heh. That's called having the cake and, well, having ALL the cake you want. But don't blame the man for it: That's what being the Publisher means. If we're confused, he'll be happy to break it down for us again, I'm sure.
Then comes a nutty seventh point, AND it includes a cool, calm "nothing to see here, folks" quality: I'm not a wingnut, I'm not the dictator, and the fact that I didn't bother to register to vote when I arrived in Oregon doesn't mean I don't care -- it PROVES that I care.
At the same time, I don't propose to invoke my own worldview as the voice of The Oregonian. People who know me well know that I'm pretty apolitical. I haven't even registered to vote in Oregon yet, although I intend to do so soon. I won't state a party preference, in case you're curious.
Okay, this is sophomoric at best, and it shows real contempt for the intelligence of Oregonian readers. Who among us doesn't know that the Orange County Register was one of the farthest-right papers in the nation? Who, after reading Anderson's resume, can't figure out that if Anderson wasn't on board with the Register's far-right politics, he wouldn't have been invited back as publisher after serving an earlier tenure as editor? Swallows return to Capistrano for reasons.
And those who hide their political persuasion by not identifying one are really hiding it at all, only revealing a little shame in it.
Regarding his decision not to register to vote in Oregon yet because he's "pretty apolitical:" Being apolitical means you don't participate in political decisions. As publisher of the state's largest newspaper, one that has published a series of editorials advocating very specifically, loudly and clearly to subscribers and EVEN to non-subscribers by distributing free newspapers wrapped in paid advertising that promotes your point of view, you're most assuredly doing some heavy lifting to influence a very political decision, which makes you pretty decidedly political. The fact that you didn't register to vote before the deadline points either to laziness or a sense of superiority to Oregon's democratic process. To call it something else is blatantly dishonest. To slough it off entirely reveals contempt.
Anderson follows this sleight-of-hand with a reinforcing eighth point: Don't try to pin me down -- but don't assume, either, that your old hometown paper is going to be YOUR old hometown paper.
From my viewpoint, the editorial position of The Oregonian is not utterly predictable. But for the most part it leans toward what I think of as liberal views. Even then, it's interesting to see how many people get upset if The Oregonian doesn't follow their leanings precisely. When Friday's editorial on the Supreme Court ruling on political contributions did not denounce the ruling, we heard from some callers who were most upset. And they were certain the "right-wing nut publisher" -- that's me -- ordered it.
I'm sorry to disappoint them, but it didn't happen.
Of course, don't ask how it did happen, because if you do, it'll be laid at Caldwell's feet. And speaking of Caldwell again, Anderson pooh-poohs any questions that have been raised about the end-run that he's pulled on the paper's new editor, Peter Bhatia. Ninth point: What you don't know about how I run my operation, you don't need to know, but I'll spin it anyway 'cause it amuses me to do so:
Here's one more thing about the structure of the newsroom and editorial pages. It's pretty much inside baseball, but some critics have taken note that when Peter Bhatia became our editor Jan. 1, I changed the reporting relationship for Caldwell. Instead of reporting to the editor, he now reports directly to me.
As Bob and I have joked, that means he doesn't copy Peter on e-mails to me.
With Peter assuming Sandy Rowe's responsibilities as editor and not replacing himself as executive editor, I figured he had plenty to do without having to worry about the editorial pages. It is common to have the editor and the editorial page editor reporting separately to the publisher, with the rationale being that the news coverage is not then swayed by the editorial positions of the newspaper. In any case, Caldwell ultimately reported to me anyway.
Translation: I call the shots now. That policy began on November 2, and anyone who doesn't like it could leave. Rowe and Stickel left, and you can judge that however you will. Caldwell and Bhatia stayed, and you can judge that, too, however you will. So long as I make the decisions, my staff will do what I tell them to do.
Or, as Anderson is widely reported to have said about the rights -- and lack of rights -- of his employees: "We can make them stand on their heads if we want to."
So, to recap, Anderson says in his last paragraph,
So, in a nutshell, the editorial positions of The Oregonian stem from good conversation among those folks closest to formulating them. I always reserve the right as the publisher to determine our editorial position, but it hasn't happened yet -- and I doubt it will ever happen that I'll overrule a strong consensus among the editorial board members. If it does happen, you'll hear the screaming all the way from Southwest Broadway to Burnside and beyond. And I don't like screaming.
Heh heh. And the screamers will be "caked" and fired.