Not every candidate responded, but they got at least two emails from us
In keeping with the theme of the May 4 issue of Street Roots, this edition started with the basic premise of giving every candidate in contested races a chance to answer questions — although, this time, it was personal. And by personal, we mean Street Roots' four-person staff, rather than a collective effort of newsrooms across the state, prepared questions for 10 city, county and Metro races encompassing more than 40 candidates.
We sifted through more than 30,000 words from candidates, some of whom could write a bit shorter, some longer, in an attempt to remove as many Oxford commas, typos, superfluous uses of capitalization and dubious statistics as possible. While we had to edit answers further for length in the print edition, all questions and answers are available online at streetroots.org.
We hope, above all else, you find the issue helpful and informative as you mark your ballot. Our secondary hope is that this effort resembles what Oregonians want from their election coverage.
Listening sessions hosted by the Oregon Capital Chronicle, Rural Development Initiatives and the University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication’s Agora Journalism Center found Oregonians were tired of newspapers gatekeeping who should be considered a viable candidate. Voters wanted the opportunity to read responses to questions about hot button issues from each candidate, irrespective of each news source’s opinion about who should, or should not be, considered viable. Our May 4 and May 11 issues are a good faith attempt to accomodate that request, as well as a wide departure from standard procedure.
In terms of covering elections, newspapers traditionally sift through expansive pools of candidates (particularly during primaries) and narrow the field to a small group of ‘serious’ candidates. Often, this practice is in acknowledgment of how small most newsrooms are and the inability to cover every inch of ground. In some cases, the winnowing is done simply because an editor or staff believes, often accurately, that only a few candidates have a chance, regardless of coverage. While we may not have been able to dig quite as deeply as we would like into each candidate and their proposals, we covered as much ground as possible.
We feel compelled to issue a similar caveat as we did in our May 4 issue: There are many answers, including policy proposals, that raise the hackles of journalists — whether they are based on falsehoods and misconceptions, or are simply impractical. Aside from minor edits for length and clarity, Street Roots left the vast majority of answers intact, although a few outright falsehoods were removed. The format was not conducive to pressing candidates on statements that lacked merit, a concern voiced by some journalists during planning meetings.
After the primaries, however, Street Roots will scrutinize the remaining candidates and ask the tough questions our readers expect. We will delve deeper into the connections between who funded campaigns and who benefits from policy proposals. In the meantime, we encourage readers to exercise skepticism (and their search engine of choice) when delving into the answers provided by candidates.
Street Roots is an award-winning weekly publication focusing on economic, environmental and social justice issues. The newspaper is sold in Portland, Oregon, by people experiencing homelessness and/or extreme poverty as means of earning an income with dignity. Street Roots newspaper operates independently of Street Roots advocacy and is a part of the Street Roots organization. Learn more about Street Roots . Support your community newspaper by making a one-time or recurring gift today .
© 2022 Street Roots. All rights reserved. | To request permission to reuse content, email editor@streetroots.org or call 503-228-5657 , ext. 404
