Stories centered on Derry Jackson, a member of the Portland Public Schools Board, and comments he made about Jews have been the focus of hundreds of reader responses since July 21. A Page One headline that day announced: “School board member says ‘Jews running everything.’ ”
A summary headline added: “Derry Jackson’s remarks stem from a feud with a Jewish board member over the severity of past ethnic atrocities.”
A responsible newspaper does not publish such a story without thinking through the need for the story, its accuracy and the potential ramifications.
In this case, The Oregonian’s editors took time to consider Jackson’s comments and to do more reporting. Given that Jackson holds a high profile position, editors decided they had no choice but to make public Jackson’s repeated statements.
“Isn’t it appropriate,” Sandy Rowe, editor of The Oregonian, asked rhetorically, “that the community would hold public officials to a high standard on their public utterances?”
At the same time, the subject must be handled carefully. Generalized, prejudicial statements by a public official are not to be toyed with. Too much is at stake for residents of the district, the board’s work and its members.
The handling of the story, Rowe said, demonstrated that “we have a process for making ethical decisions. That’s really what this is about: ethics and news judgment.”
In this case, an ethical approach meant allowing Jackson to explain himself; it meant avoiding surprises.
Chris Broderick, editor of the Family and Education reporting team, outlined how the July 21 story came about.
In the second week of July, Michael Ottey, an education reporter, prepared a story on the fact that the school board was about to hold an all-day retreat to work on issues dividing the board. They included a dispute between Jackson, who is African American, and Marc Abrams, who is Jewish.
In the course of being interviewed for that story, Jackson made some of his generalized statements about Jews. The retreat story appeared July 12. It contained no reference to the prejudicial statements about Jews.
Later, Broderick asked Ottey for a transcript of the interview, which had been recorded. After reading it, Broderick asked Ottey to talk with Jackson a second time about his statements.
As a transcript of that second interview demonstrates, Jackson said he knew what he had said and stood by his comments. In fact, Jackson elaborated on them. (The transcript is available on the Internet at www.oregonlive.com/news.)
The subsequent July 21 story related Jackson’s statements and his reasoning.
“I think we were more than fair to Derry Jackson,” Broderick said.
Broderick emphasized that the stories have focused on news. They have not been a blend of news and analysis.
“Our reporting of what he said has to be very straightforward,” Broderick said, “and not loaded with value words” that inject shades of meaning. As for the significance, he said, “People can judge in their own minds.”
The suggestion has been made both inside the newsroom and from at least one reader that The Oregonian would not have published a similar story if the comments had been prejudicial statements about African Americans. The editors reject that view, and so do I.
A few readers said the July 21 headline was offensive. Some recalled Hitler-era propaganda and use of newspapers to build hatred toward Jews.
Their concerns gave me pause. However, Broderick, who approved of the headline, argues well that it avoids interpretation. Combined with the story, it lets readers know what Jackson said. They can draw their own conclusions.
Readers are doing that as this story plays out. Solid reporting gives them the means for doing so.
