perhaps the reason to go off the record is to discuss material that would be generally inflamatory, or particularly indicting to one group (political, racial, or otherwise),and provide some modicum of annonymity.

But isn't that contrary to the core mission of a commitee to look at issues surrounding the treatment of one ethnic group by another? Keep it hidden and no one really has to know?

Report on everything. If someone is afraid to speak in a public forum, where freedom of speech is a core tenenant of our society, then we have a much deeper problem than racial profilig.

Also, if more reporters from other newspapers would show up, I wouldn’t bear the sole burden of having to make this decision on my own.

If reporters from other local media only read one sentence of the above, it should be this one.

perhaps the reason to go off the record is...

The problem, of course, is that if this is a public body for the purposes of Oregon's open meetings law (and I would suspect that it would have to be), this isn't permissible.

The open public meeting laws do no good if they're not, y'know, followed.

Speaking as a public citizen, someone for whom those laws are in place to help me be informed as to what my government is doing, I would very much like to be informed as to what they're doing.

The Mercury staff appears to be the only actual journalists in Portland at this point. Certainly the only ones doing the job the "Fifth Estate" should be doing - comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.

Particularly the latter. I think Matt Davis will be collecting a few more "fuck you's" about this matter. But dammit, report away.

You have the right to be there by law, and the right to report what's said and done (fairly and accurately, of course).

That said: there is definitely a Schrödinger's cat element to reporting on such a meeting; observation by the press will surely alter what's said by the participants.

But that's true of any public forum where the press is present, and I have no idea why the members of the racial profiling committee seem to think they have more privacy rights than, say, a city council meeting. Certainly they can request that you observe and not report, and just as certainly you can tell them, politely and cheerfully, that your job requires just the opposite.

Why the Oregonian or Willamette Week isn't in attendance, reporting what they see, I do not know.

Why the Oregonian or Willamette Week isn't in attendance, reporting what they see, I do not know.

It was common back in my Communique days to be the only media person at various committee and task force meetings. Always did strike me as strange, in two ways: First, how could any reporter "know" whether or not there was news to be had if they weren't present; and second, doesn't journalism (as opposed to mere reporting) require one to be present for as much as humanly possible, if only to increase ones knowledge of what everyone is up to and how things function?

It bugged me even on things such as the Public Involvement Task Force. But one something like this particular committee, dealing with racial profiling, it's perhaps outright inexcusable.

(Matt pegged a related point last June: "Our paper is an alternative weekly and we don’t claim to be objective. On the other hand every journalist has their stance, and if the Oregonian chooses not to be interested in a particular story, that’s their own form of bias.")

Thanks for your input, guys. I really am perplexed as to the lack of curiosity by the other outlets. Someone mentioned to me the other day: Portland papers have a passive aggressive streak where if a reporter grabs an issue, they pointedly won't cover it so as not to suggest that reporter might be onto something. I can only guess that's what's happening here. There are enough good stories to go around, that kind of thing.

But it does no service to the readers, in the end.

Racism is the "elephant in the room" here in Portland because no one wants to talk about it. If a committee designed to break down these barriers of silence are using silence themselves, then it becomes hard to believe in it's findings really.

No transparency = no trust. Next, ask yourself about what you think that they're hiding? Probably some racism. If it were any other way, they would be the first to go public and pat themselves on the back for being so high minded.

Why is Sam Sachs involved with the committee? He for some weird reason thinks EVERYONE is racist. With people like him involved nothing will get done.