By reducing the concentration of the news, they're increasing its potency. Every Portlander knows that.

They're "cutting the news" outta the Saturday edition, not the Sunday, Paul.

(But, yeah... sucky all around.)

I will never forget, or forgive, the role the Oregonian played in fanning people's emotions in the runup to the 2004 Ballot Measure 36 amending the Oregon Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. When the Multnomah County Commissioners started allowing SSM in Portland on March 3 2004, my partner of 10 years was in line with me to get married - right in front of a cute young couple from Seattle who were also getting hitched. That was a joyous and miraculous day and I'm glad our family were there to celebrate it with us.

Then the Oregonian let loose. Oh my God, you'd have thought we were murdering babies down there. An uglier display of hysterical puff-cheeked ranting you've never heard. This from a paper that refused to print same-sex commitment notices on the grounds they weren't recognized by the state, and the paper that gave Maggie Gallagher her start as a columnist.

After the election, in the Spring of 2005, the Oregon Supreme Court invalidated those 4000 or so marriages. I can't express how much that hurt, even after years of enduring homophobia had toughened our hides. M36's passage didn't hurt that much. Even Bowers v Hardwick didn't hurt that much. Our grief was private, we felt like suckers, we felt ashamed, humiliated.

Then back comes the Oregonian with the worst kick-em-while-they're-down editorial, mocking all of us whose marriages had been invalidated, saying the marriage certificates we were so proud of - that had been presented to us in a silver frame by my husband's parents - were nothing more than "amusing historical oddities."

Fuck the Oregonian. May they rot in Hell. The day they close their doors for good our friends will join us in front of their vacant building, and will drink a toast to our amusing historical oddity. Hewho laughs last, laughs best.

Why don't they just leave them on the floors of buses and in racks at coffee shops. That's how most PNWers get their newspapers anyway.

@3,4

Exactly.

The newspaper industry also has a history of advocating for the rich and powerful. Look at the history of the "Los Angeles Times" which is one of the most anti-union newspapers in the US.

Hell, even the so called "liberal" "New York Times" was a cheerleader for Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq.

I get most of my news from foreign sources and I know I'm more well informed than most Americans.

Screw em!

If anyone else can't see it this will be the "Seattle P-I ization" of the Oregonian. The Oregonian should save time and just cut off the dead tree edition since that's where they're going anyway.

The only thing I remember about the Oregonian is that the ink used to come off on your hands like crazy. You looked like you'd been mining coal after reading it.

They're not cutting news out of the Sunday edition. Read the story (or your own excerpt, for god's sake) and try again.

Even the Kitsap Sun (who doesn't have more than 1-2 original stories a day) put themselves up behind a paywall. And at $260 a year it's just not in my budget. Is this how the bourgeois bastards are going to win? By making even the local news only available to those that can afford it?

You know you're hearing from a corporate asshole when they refer to the work of honorable people as "product".

Makes this video from 1981 about newspapers joining the internet more ironic. No, internet editions won't costs us money. Is there still an SF Examiner?

http://www.wimp.com/theinternet/