Commissioner VS Newspaper: Lee and Forrester duke it out

Carrie Bartoldus March 17, 2008

Part 1 of a 4 part series on the relationship between County Commissioner Richard Lee and The Daily Astorian’s editor/publisher and CEO of the corporation that owns the paper, Steve Forrester


The Rant of the Daily Astorian

In a 54 day period (out of which only 38 papers were published – weekends off) The Daily Astorian contained 36 articles regarding Clatsop County Commissioner Richard Lee, often written unflatteringly. In topics ranging from an interim elections clerk being appointed, to volunteers needed for county commissions, the Daily Astorian inserted a call for or a mention of, recalling Richard Lee. In articles, advertisements, editorials or letters to the editor, rarely a day has gone by since January 23rd in which the Daily Astorian has not kept before the public eye the name of the commissioner who the CEO of the corporation that owns the paper refers to as, “a rural political boss”.


Since January 23, 2008, when the recall petition was announced The Daily Astorian has published slanted news stories that many have referred to as “yellow journalism,” a derogatory phrase making reference to a type of journalism that features scandal-mongering and sensationalism, practices which standard news media organizations and journalists find unethical or unprofessional. Many in the community argue that the Daily Astorian’s descent into yellow journalism began May 15, 2007, with the story, “Marquis’ Pay Cut: Its spitting in my face.” Before that time the paper was publishing stories regarding the commission in a temperate manner, with very little overt slanting of the stories and allowing the commissioners to have their say in the issues of concern.

When the budget committee recommended, in May 2007, that the Board of County Commissioners remove the District Attorney’s stipend for failure to comply with the proper budgeting process it appears that the paper took the District Attorney’s side. Based on the content of the editorials, and the subsequent articles, it began a campaign to help the District Attorney get the stipend back.


Before the Rancor Began


Headlines for May 4, 2007, Red ink looms for county budget, District Attorney’s staff may be on the chopping block, an article by Tom Bennett for the Daily Astorian, factually details the problems surrounding the up coming fiscal year’s budget. May 15, 2007 headline, Marquis pay cut: ‘It’s spitting in my face’ County budget battle gets personal as leaders cut stipend instead of two other positions, begins to draw the line on yellow journalism as the article’s headline shows.


In June 2007 the Daily Astorian began printing a series of articles and on each one the headline tells the context of the story and for who’s side it is slanted. Reporter Tom Bennett disappears and Cassandra Profita takes up the pen. Marquis charges county with ambush; Marquis receives voices of support; County: No stipend for Marquis. Then, perhaps Profita tires of the ad nauseum campaigning guised as quasi-journalism, and Sandra Swain picks up the pen writing the next series of slanted stories: Voter’s may reverse DA’s pay cut; District attorney salary initiative supporters win court battle; DA salary initiative OK to move forward; Wound is still raw over DA’s salary cut; Eleventh-hour filing stalls petition Committee supporting DA salary measure hits hurdles and has only three days to collect enough signatures; Judge rules for petitioners on DA salary measure; DA salary petitioners hit the streets and Sandra Swain’s sentence as Marquis’ personal reporter comes to an end.


Daily Astorian’s Paper changes hue to yellow


Throughout the spring and into the summer the Daily Astorian’s verbiage appears increasingly slanted. Although later it will print pages of a lawyer’s review on Richard Lee, the Daily Astorian refused to publish the District Attorney’s budget side by side with the performance based budget of another county department, allowing the public to discern for themselves whether or not there was a problem. The Daily Astorian had access to, but refused to publish, the minutes from the previous year wherein Marquis promised the Board to provide documentation on how the two additional staff members were used in the new courtroom with the additional judge.


Mid-summer NorthCoastOregon published the emails detailing Marquis’ interaction with Commissioner Patrick in which they plot out the details of the wording on the petition, the timing of when to start circulating the petitions and key people to sit on the committee to drive the petition. An additional email to a colleague stated a veiled threat of what would happen if the commissioners cut his stipend and the numerous emails to county staff filled with hostility. At one point Marquis threatened what happens “if you stab me in the back”. When these emails were brought to the Daily Astorian the paper refused to report on them. Several months later a committee formed to protect the charter and tried to buy advertising to show the public the emails and still the Daily Astorian refused to allow the public to see it. Editor Patrick Webb said the emails were inflammatory and biased and the Daily Astorian didn’t allow that kind of advertising.


During the same time the Daily Astorian was running advertising, that the District Attorney paid for, calling four commissioners liars, with no supporting documentation or explanation. The Daily Astorian ran three articles in which it included the opposition’s viewpoint to ballot measure 4-123. In the same time period the Daily Astorian ran 16 stories supporting the ballot measure. At that time those supporting the ballot measure felt a contribution made to the opposition was made illegally and filed a complaint with the State Elections office which determined the complaint had no foundation and that the complainant didn’t provide them with evidence as requested. The Daily Astorian ran several articles speculating on the character of the donor as well as making charges that all the commissioners were involved.


Mysterious Donor Prints Out Fliers


One month later the proponents of the ballot measure filed a statement with the state elections online system declaring costs for postage in the amount of $2600.54 and shortly thereafter people began receiving a two-page, double-sided flier that the proponents declared were hand made and sent to a few households throughout the community, estimating that it might have reached 6,000 homes. The fliers had a postage rate of twenty-one cents on them. Nothing else was received through the mail from the proponents of measure 4-123. According to simple mathematics the group mailed off 12,384 fliers totaling $2600.64, which would mean that 24,768 double-sided pages were printed out. The only facility having the capacity to absorb the costs of a printing like that, many allege, was the Daily Astorian. State law requires businesses to report in kind contributions for providing services in which they would normally receive compensation.


Rather than answer the allegations the Daily Astorian went on the attack, comparing the $3500 glossy note card sized fliers to the “homemade” version, saying the “slick” glossies were bought with “laundered” money. In numerous articles and editorials Forrester, or one of his reporters, referred to the donation as “laundered money” even though the investigation was ongoing. When the investigation was concluded that there was no credible evidence that illegal activity had taken place the Daily Astorian refused to retract their stories, instead stating that there wasn’t enough evidence to proceed, at this time, alluding to some time in the future more evidence may be gathered.