Bend’s Only Daily Newspaper must be so flush with advertising dollars that it can afford to be really picky about what ads it accepts – at least if they come from the union representing Bend Area Transit bus drivers.
Back in mid-April, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 757 tried to place an ad in The Bulletin urging the city not to raise BAT fares or cut service to cope with its budget crunch. The ad also claimed there is a “gross disparity in wages and benefits between BAT workers and every other city worker.”
The union originally wanted the ad to run on Tuesday, April 15, to publicize a press conference and rally to be held at Bend City Hall the next day. But when Catharine Alexander of the union submitted the ad to Bulletin account executive Lisa Legg, she was told the contents had to be vetted by the paper’s higher-ups before it could be printed.
“I sent your ad for approval to our management, who would like you to provide a back up for the claims in the ad,” Legg wrote to Alexander April 10 in an e-mail provided to The EYE.
Alexander responded by sending some supporting documents. Shortly afterward Legg e-mailed: “For each claim in the ad, we will need to know what page of the information you sent over pertains to that particular claim. We do not know how to look through each page and decide what goes with what.”
The next morning, Legg asked if the ad could run on Wednesday instead of Tuesday. “Can we still get Tuesday?” Alexander responded. “I can possibly get it in late, pending approval from management,” Legg replied.
But later that day, Legg e-mailed: “I just spoke to Sean Tate, our advertising manager, and Jay Brandt, our advertising director. They would both need to review every page of the documents that you sent, which wouldn’t be possible in time to run the ad. We would be happy to run an ad inviting people to come to the Press Conference and Rally.”
Alexander next asked Legg if Tate and Brandt could review the ad in time to get it into the Wednesday paper. Legg told her they wouldn’t be able to review it until Monday, when they both would be “on the road, which means we’d miss the deadline for Wednesday as well.”
Alexander then wrote that “we’re thinking the contents of the ad are timeless,” so it could run after Wednesday. She asked again when the ad could run.
Legg responded that “once our directors have gone over and approved the content of the ad, then we can get it put in the paper. If they approve it Monday while they are on the road we could get it in for Thursday.”
But as of April 21, Legg was telling Alexander that her “manager” – Tate, presumably – still wanted more corroboration: “He said that we will require verification of your information and not a list of phone numbers and people to call.”
The Bulletin still hasn’t published the union’s ad. But on April 28 it did publish an ad from Paratransit Services, the Bremerton, WA-based private company that operates BAT, attacking “the Portland union” for allegedly being uncooperative in negotiations.
And on April 20, it published an editorial calling the BAT drivers’ demand for a pay raise “astonishing.”
By April 21, Alexander apparently was getting exasperated. “The Union has placed similar ads in the Eugene Register Guard, the Corvallis newspaper, the Grants Pass newspaper and the Salem newspaper without having to prove anything,” she e-mailed Legg. “This has been true even when the editorial page has been against the Union’s position. If the publisher of the Bulletin doesn’t want to take our ad for political purposes the publisher certainly has that right. But the publisher should say so.”
This article appears in May 1-7, 2008.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
It is very tough, as a union member, to support a paper that is so blatantly against union labor. It is more astonishing that the Bulletin takes this position based upon the lack of choice government has in dealing with unions considering they are a monopoly as far as local papers are concerned. I choose to vote with my dollar. No union wages should go to those who oppose union labor.
Interesting that they’re turning away ad revenue, since they told their newsroom this week that they’re cutting sections and people to save some bucks.
Guess they only take money from golf buddies and realtors. You pinko unionists will have to spend it at The Source.
Funny thing. The Bulletin actually added an entire new section last month, and is launching yet another in the next. All the while gaining more readership. Keep on spreading the “truth”, gang. Try actually READING the paper.
Perhaps Catherine Alexander should have presented the information that Legg politely asked for from the beginning. The Bulletin is a reputable newspaper ranking at the top of a very short list of publications. Probably because they take time to make sure the articles they publish are credible. Legg was simply doing her job, had Alexander done the same, maybe the article would have made the paper.
In regards to Tim Schroeder’s comment, by the “gang” I assume he is referring to someone at The Source Weekly, however, all of the commentary on this thread is from community members. If by the “gang” you mean the community should try actually reading the Bulletin, that as you say, is going swimmingly. Since Tim, you are a salesperson for the Bulletin, perhaps you could add some information to the claims that the employee union has regarding your departments refusal to publish their ad.
” … ranking at the top of a very short list of publications …”
Yes, the list titled “Daily Newspapers in Bend, Oregon.”
“Perhaps Catherine Alexander should have presented the information that Legg politely asked for from the beginning.”
She did. The Bulletin kept asking for different information and more information.
Also, as somebody who has worked for many years in the newspaper business, I can attest that requiring exhaustive written documentation of claims made in ads is not SOP. As Alexander pointed out, no other paper made such demands. And I would bet any amount of money The Bulletin doesn’t normally make them either.
Just to clarify, for Megan D., this was a paid ad not an article. The Bulletin obviously did not make the same demands of Paratransit Services. Their ad includes the outrageous claim that the union’s wage/benefit demands would cost $2.8 million. We’re talking about 40 workers, folks, so that’d be about $70,000 per worker. That’s simply an absurd and inaccurate claim with zero facts to back it up. But the Bulletin either didn’t read it or didn’t care that the company was essentially lying to the community. Oh, wait, I forgot, the Bulletin had its own misinformation to spread in its editorial–the one where they claimed BAT workers demanded a 44% wage increase in bargaining. In fact, the union proposed a 9% wage increase over one year ($1 on top of the $11 an hour starting pay they have been stuck at for five years) through a federal mediator in bargaining.
I find it laughable, but glad to hear that the bulletin is actually going to verify facts. Wish they would do more often, it is a joke how many mistakes it make weekly in its small publication. There is more “we appolgize” and “corrections” in this paper in a month than should be in a year- but think this goes with the community, jsut remembering z21 reporting of the passager death of an automobile accident that didnt occur…..
As for the Bulletin publishing one side ads speaks for itself…….
“Perhaps Catherine Alexander should have presented the information that Legg politely asked for from the beginning. The Bulletin is a reputable newspaper ranking at the top of a very short list of publications. Probably because they take time to make sure the articles they publish are credible. Legg was simply doing her job, had Alexander done the same, maybe the article would have made the paper.”
It was an ad, not an article. It looks like the Bulletin was making up rules as it went along to keep the ad out of the paper.