Occasionally, the post of a commenter on a Columbian story rises to this level.

The only thing I'm going to add is paragraph breaks.

Well Lou, I do buy both the Columbian and Oregonian every day. My problem with subscribing is that sometimes I am out of town and do not like newspapers piled up signalling my place is available for a burglary.

Now first of all, I am not here to join the chorus of bashing. Did you see how far and wide your story on the case of Christina Kopinski went and how fast? (Google it). And I would like to think that you all did that story not because she was a journalism teacher, but would have done it had she been an Art teacher.

That story was a step forward followed by the gutsty[sic] editorial. Why do I say "gutsy" editorial? Because in my 16 years in this community, and I am a native Washingtonian (in two ways) more often than not, The Columbian was an integral part of [and cheerleader for] this subterranean, non-transparent and non-accountable network of power that includes boards, trustees and regents of the local educational institutions, certain charities and community service organizations, business media, chambers of commerce, Mayor Pollard's office and some of his friends and minions, certain politicians in both parties, some clergy and churches, some local historical trusts, some of the old "pioneer" families and old money, port of vancouver members, etc.

They run this place like a cross between a feudal fiefdom, a country club, a Rotarian meeting, a Southern planatation and parts of eastern Kentucky and Appalachia where family trees do not branch. The bottom line is there is no need to keep anything, whether an act or a whole power structure, covered-up if it is clean--only if it is dirty, smug, entitled and unaccountable. There is no need to pile-on and frame the likes of Christina Kopinski and so many other innocents at Clark College, if they were guilty (their guilt would expose, indict and convict them) only because they were/are innocent. And there is no need to run from and arrogantly refusing to answer, non-problematic and non-incriminating questions (as the Clark trustees and administration have done repeatedly) only problematic and incriminating ones.

The point Lou, is not so much what The Columbian routinely covers as much as it is what The Columbian does not cover and why. Take a page from the playbook of a master triangulator like Brian Baird. He knows how to feed the left, right and middle what issue-postures matter most to them in ways that will cause them to hold their noses and still vote for him despite his positions on other issues with which they are in total opposition to him: a trip to Gaza for the left, the continuation of the illegal Iraq War for the right, and a little granola and faux environmentalism for the centrist greenies but not enough to tick-off the loggers in Longview-Kelso.

For if the Colmbian[sic] starts doing what real journalists like IF Stone, George Seldes, Edward R. Murrow and Seymour Hersh did do and do, real journalism without fear or favor, and reporting with no fear of loss of possible "preferred access" to the local movers and shakers who do not do much newsworthy anyway, then you will get your readers and subscribers because people are sick and tired of the incumbent, smug and entitled politicians and community powerbrokers, their lies, manipulations, along those who institutions that so uncritcally[sic] and sycophantically spread their lies even outside of editorial pieces where story choice, placement and who is or is not quoted can work at the subliminal levels just like an open editorial.

If you do that, those on the left will not mind your occasional favorable coverage of the right and vice versa because you will be viewed as writing from conviction and not from opportunism. Courage, integrity, honesty and fair dealing sell because there is so little of it and people are so desperate for it.

"Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable"; that is the job of journalism and the reason why journalism is the only profession explicitly mentioned and protected in the U.S. Constitution. That is also why the likes of Christina Kopinski at Clark College, and the courage and integrity she demonostrated, must be protected and those who took their covert machinations against her must be outed, relentlessly questioned and exposed.

Lou Brancaccio and editors around the country need to re-orient their filters.

They need to ask, of every article and newspaper editorial:

1. Is this factually correct?

2. Is this article fact, or opinion?

3. When we attack someone, have we talked directly to them to get their position? Or do we just crucify them without being fair, like Mielke in today's idiotic cheers and jeers?

3. Are ALL sides covered, even sides we don't "like?"

4. Are ALL relevant issues covered?

5. Are OUR biases getting in the way of our duty to be fair, just and honorable?

6. If we disagree with community opinion, have we at least honored that opinion by exploring it so that maybe we can be persuaded that WE are wrong... and the community is right?

7. Have we remembered to admit when we're wrong; to right past transgressions and to be careful of the application of our power?

There may be many other standards to consider when a newspaper prints an article. But what's clear here is that it's the rare occasion when this newspaper bothers with these criteria. And if this newspaper or editor actually believes that they ARE following these minimal rules... well, that just tends to show how out of touch they actually are.

Thanks so much to Omahkohkiaayo I'poyi for his comment... a much more civilized way, in many respects, of saying that which I was trying to say. in every post taking the Columbian to task.