We have all experienced the annoyance of a persistent telemarketer who will not accept “NO” for an answer, or refuses to stop talking even though you have politely explained that you are on the other line, frying eggs or performing life saving CPR. In the end, when polite objections fail, you reward their disrespect toward by putting down the receiver. Sometimes reporters fail to make the distinction between dogged tenacity toward getting a story and outright rudeness and disrespect. Some news gathering organizations are worse than others about ignoring the answer they receive even after it has been explained it is not appropriate or convenient to speak and should not be surprised when the call is disconnected out of frustration.
On a separate note there is a matter of trust and I know that out of the few dozen times I have been interviewed, even by friendly publications, the end result is often not precisely as I represented it. When a publication appears to be hostile towards a subject, (note how the GOP candidates prefer to be on Fox rather than MSNBC), or has historically written in such a way, through omission of select facts or word choice and inference that makes the individual or organization look unfavorable then it should be expected that not every interviewee will want to subject themselves to more of the same. Good reporting requires trust from all sides and trust lost is hard regained.
Regarding The World, the newspaper has lost the public trust over the years due in part to its clear bias in favor of Chamber of Commerce approved business deals while ignoring the people effected by these developments. For example, the paper never questions anything proposed by the Port of Coos Bay yet never thought it was newsworthy that Port LIED to the public. The paper has provided ample coverage of the structure committee (without a word of analysis, by the way) yet doesn’t cover the ethics complaint seven citizens filed with OGEC. The paper gives plenty of free publicity and promotion to ORC but decides not to report on a DOGAMI enforcement action against the strip miners.
Consequently, fewer and fewer people regard the paper as a credible news source and the editor and reporters should not be surprised when people don’t jump at the chance for an interview with The World. They may have the biggest bullhorn at the moment its not like they are the Oregonian or anything.
Leaving out little details helps make the story so much more salacious for a young reporter
Well then, what did she say?!?!?????
The reporter left out any mention of a conversation and just says ORCCA hung up
“Is this the excuse for ORCCA CEO Mary Schoen-Clark hanging up on a reporter?”
“. I’m not drawing conclusions, “
To paraphrase Stephen Colbert, we have she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, and ORCCA won’t say.
Ms. Schoen-Clark had the opportunity to explain about the non-disclosure agreements tying their tongues down there. **crickets**
What about the board meeting last week that promised to release a statement? ***more crickets***
I’m telling you, if the World acting like this this board would be livid. I’m not drawing conclusions, but I think the longer this goes on the worse it keeps getting for ORCCA. I merely want to know if this column is a rationale for the phone slam.
You want to talk about the CEO’s gender.
Taking on ANOTHER female adversary Mark?
You’ve heard both sides have you? Why don’t you tell us both sides of this issue?
Is this the excuse for ORCCA CEO Mary Schoen-Clark hanging up on a reporter?