Out of curiousity, which public emplyee union sent this out?

Is the quote accurate? Did the Oregonian actually print those words, in that order? On that day?

It was in a letter to the editor.

It was in a letter to the editor.

No, it was an Oregonian article, written by Oregonian reporters:

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/12/business_tax_hits_few_but_they.html

Is the quote accurate? Did the Oregonian actually print those words, in that order? On that day?

Yes.

Seems like your distaste for these measures and their backers is making you read things into everything you see and hear about these measures -- I don't see any attempt to imply that the O endorsed 67 in pulling a quote -- doubtless an accurate one and not from a letter -- from the O's editorial opposing the measures. If they had headed the quote

"And, in its endorsement statement, the Oregonian said" or something similar you'd be absolutely correct -- that would be trying to trick people into thinking the O had endorsed.

George ... If you gave 100 people this quote, in the absence of any other information, and asked them whether the Oregonian supports or opposes the measure, at least 90% would say the paper supports it.

Of course they're trying to trick people into thinking that the paper endorsed 66 and 67. For some unknown reason, there are still people out there who actually think the Boregonian is credible and look to it for opinion leadership.

The argument for Measure 66 is also inaccurate. There are many "households" in Oregon with only one person. The higher tax rates for those PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE households is $125K. An objective assessment of claims made by the campaigns would reveal this. If, in fact, that's what Jaquiss is trying to do.

If you gave 100 people this quote, in the absence of any other information, and asked them whether the Oregonian supports or opposes the measure, at least 90% would say the paper supports it.

And apparently in the absence of deductive reasoning power too, since at least 90 out of 100 would expect a political campaign to prominently play up a YES endorsement on the measures by the state's largest paper.

Not to mention that the NO endorsement appeared in -- that's right -- the state's largest paper! So "in the absence of any other information" is pretty funny.

Look, dislike the measures and their backers all you want, but it's pretty standard for endorsement losers to parse the endorsement statements to find something that they can use. The election piece above plays it pretty straight -- the O wrote those (accurate) words, and they are quoted accurately, without embellishment intended to mislead.

The link provided by eco above makes it pretty convenient to read the Oregonian's article. I don't see how this article qualifies as an endorsement of M67, since it appears to present many factors pro and con. The quote used in the pro 66 & 67 mailer was cherry picked. Would an anti 66 & 67 mailer be absolved from using this quote from the same article:

"You don't want to raise taxes now," says Phil Ruder, professor of economics at Pacific University in Forest Grove..."

I don't think so. The comments following the article are the source of more information than the article itself.

As an aside, does the caption to the picture accompanying the article really want us to believe that Oreos are being dipped in chocolate? Man, they sure look like cherries to me.

If you gave 100 people this quote, in the absence of any other information, and asked them whether the Oregonian supports or opposes the measure, at least 90% would say the paper supports it.

I'd like to think that more than 10 percent of the public can figure out that endorsements aren't going to be made a month before the ballots are delivered.

So are you saying, Jack, that once a newspaper makes an election endorsement, the other side is ethically barred from advertising using ~any~ quote that paper has ever published? That seems awfully extreme.

No, Marcia, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that what they did is misleading.

Thanks for stopping by, though. Are you getting paid for this, or are you running for office?

What is misleading about it? They ran a properly attributed quote that (as far as I know) was accurately reproduced and appears to be factually correct as well. If you concede at least this much, please be more specific about why you find this problematic. I just don't see it. (And no, I'm not getting paid for typing here. Does anyone? If so, by whom? Just asking.)

While we're on the subject of misleading advertising, it might be worth noting that the opposition is running a TV spot that uses a video clip of Obama and (unlike the mailer) rather strongly implies he is personally against these measures. I haven't seen any complaints here about that.

I stand by the post, Marcia. Have a nice night.