The latitude allowed columnists in the news pages is a tricky privilege.
They write their opinions, which appear side-by-side with news stories intended to stick to facts.
They criticize, they praise, they put their singular perspective of the world before readers eyes in a way that few people can.
Readers might feel rewarded or assaulted for their time spent. Column subjects might feel blessed or cursed.
Good columnists have a voice, an identifiable perspective.
I do think readers understand that a columnist is a particular voice, said Peter Bhatia, executive editor of The Oregonian. That is, a columnist offers opinions in a way a news reporter cannot.
At the same time, columnists must be accurate.
The best columnists are still reporters, Bhatia said. They have the same obligation to have their facts right.
The topic comes up because of recent disagreements between Steve Duin, a Metro section columnist for The Oregonian, and Portland Police Chief Mark Kroeker. Both police chiefs and columnists tend to be independent souls accustomed to being right.
In this case, Kroeker didnt like what he read on Nov. 21. Duin criticized Kroeker for awarding medals to two officers involved in the April 2001 death of a mentally ill man, Jose Santos Victor Mejia Poot, who had been placed in a psychiatric hospital.
Duin, not one to tiptoe around an opinion, disdained the thought of giving medals for the act of putting some angry, befuddled soul out of his misery.
Kroeker responded on Nov. 26 in a piece on The Oregonians Commentary page. He said that Duins column generated misconceptions about the intent of the honors. He also said the Police Bureau honored officers who had resolved situations without deadly force.
The medals ceremony stirred ashes still smoldering from the time of Mejias death. Some people, notably Latino leaders, called for the chief to resign.
At his request, Kroeker met early last week with editors of The Oregonian. Although he raised factual errors, he left the meeting with no requests for corrections. Sgt. Brian Schmautz, a bureau spokesman, said later that the chief simply wanted to be heard.
That same day, Kroeker made televised comments to the effect that Duins column included a series of inaccuracies and unnecessarily incited people.
In a follow-up column on Thursday, Duin acknowledged two errors of fact. He also rebutted some of the chiefs criticisms. On the same day, the newspaper carried a correction in the usual corrections space on Page A2.
This exchange between chief and columnist could have been better.
Duin did have the two errors, one more significant than the other. That left room for Kroeker to deflect attention from more significant points in the column.
In addition, more precise wording could have reduced the potential for complaint. For instance, the two officers received the Police Medal, while the column referred to generic medals of valor. Although the bureau used valor in describing the officers actions, it has a Medal of Valor not given in this case.
As for the chief, he did not bring up specific allegations of errors until a week after the column appeared. That was after publication of his Commentary piece in which he referred to misconceptions matters of understanding or interpretation. Had he cited errors immediately, editors would have published a correction within a day or two.
In addition, as community pressure grew, he blamed Duin for inciting the protests. Thats just wrong. The chiefs activist critics didnt need Duin to show them the way.
To the extent that Duin did stir concerns, he was doing his job: contributing to public discussion. The newspaper in turn provided Kroeker with space and time for response.
Ultimately, of course, neither writer nor chief decides the merits of the debate. That call is up to the readers.
