Oregonian: GI Justice isn’t Newsworthy

On October 24, 2024, I received a call from Oregonian politics co-editor Betsy Hammond. In the call she said “we cover state issues and local Portland area issues” to disclaim her employers’ obligation to a quarter of a million veterans in Oregon. Here is that call.

AI Generated Transcript:

BH: My name is Betsy Hammond and I'm the politics editor at the Oregonian.

LMI: Okay.

BH: I understand that you're an activist on behalf of yourself and other veterans trying to secure rights for for veterans and that you were the Oregonian and you were maybe pitching us some stories and I just wanted to Reach out to you and let you know that I'm a decider on those matters.

I think you've been communicating with one of our reporters, but basically I wanted to let you know that Carlos doesn't get to decide what he writes about or covers. That's a decision that I and my co editor make, and so I just wanted to make sure you had my name and my phone number and knew that you could, um pitch stories to us, not that we can necessarily do them, but we'll always have an open ear.

I think Carlos was concerned that you felt like he was the one making decisions, and I wanted to let you know that in terms of if we're going to do a story or not, that's a decision that I, as Carlos supervisor, make.

Don't think that's accurate. Told Carlos that I knew it wasn't him, or whatever it was I said by text.

BH: Okay.

That doesn't address what I did say to Carlos, but okay.

BH: Sounds like maybe I've not reached you at a time when you're feeling well, so again, I think my number is probably recorded by your phone, and my name again is Betsy Hammond, and you can feel free to reach out to me by phone or by email.

Oh, yeah, I was taking a nap. I've got pickup in 45 minutes. No, an hour.

Okay.

Understand. All right. I will let you continue your rest if you can. And again, when it's a good for you, feel free to reach out.

Betsy, if I looked you up on the FEC's website, would I find your name as a donor to any democratic campaign? You would not. Oh, good. So what rationale could I try and find for wanting to remain silent when so much of this stuff is going on in Oregon?

I know it's a progressive state, but. There's gotta be some other rationale, right? I have the story that Carlos and I talked about. It has, I'm not sure on what the story is. So you're not what?

I'm not I don't know what the proposed story is exactly. I saw a link to your blog and I saw a letter from Wyden, but the references are not clear to me.

Oh you said you turned down the story. It wasn't Carlos, but you don't know what the story was. I

didn't turn down any stories.

I'm just

saying that Carlos doesn't have the power to assign

himself stories. So maybe I'm not clear then. I gave Carlos a news tip. He said we, which I assume meant the Oregonian.

I don't have his text right in front of me, but are you telling me you are not aware of what Carlos and I talked about yesterday? Correct. There, I,

I don't know what you're talking about. I, all I'm telling you is I assigned Carlos three stories to do yesterday and today. That's what he's working on.

And I'm not aware of

the, of another proposal.

Blah blah blah. We simply don't have the time or resources. I don't have contacts outside larger outlets. So did Carlos decide not to run with it, or did someone else between the two of you decide? Like above him, but below him? I was not involved in any conversation of substance. Oh. Who could the we be referring to?

Not sure. It could have been my co editor, but I don't believe it.

I am so confused.

Think that probably what probably happened is Carlos said to me or to another editor, can I pivot away from these stories to do anything else? And we said, no, we told you what

you need to work on. Please save these stories.

Oh, okay. So then you want to hear the tip or I'm just, now I'm even more confused as to why you called,

sure I would be willing to hear a tip.

Ron Wyden, the senior senator for the state. I'm sure you're aware of him. Yes. Are you aware that on October 4th you sent a letter to the attorney General Garland, asking why Garland was not enforcing civil rights for soldiers and veterans?

I saw a copy of the letter on, you didn't read it. You just saw it. Yeah. So Attorney General Garland. I don't know if Garland got it. DOJ won't confirm it. Wyden, his office, Tim Leahy and Eric, I can't remember Eric's last name, they sent a congressional inquiry on October 4th because for the last 10, nope, 15 years, the Department of Justice has been refusing to enforce hate crimes protections for service members under Title 18, Section 1389.

Wieden knows of multiple offenses that have taken place throughout the country. It was the second congressional inquiry sent to the Department of Justice. The last one was by David Trone of Maryland, who sent almost exact same letter to Attorney General Barr and FBI Director Wray asking why they weren't enforcing military civil rights.

Barr and Wray ignored it. Garland is now set to ignore it. Wyden did not, to my knowledge, put it anywhere. other than in an email to me. I can't confirm the DOJ received it. I can't tell if Wyden is lying through his teeth that it actually was sent. But I know

Oh.

Wasn't exactly done with the story, but okay.

What you're describing is a national issue, and as the Oregonian, we cover state issues and local Portland area issues very intensely. We do not cover action and inaction. No matter how outrageous and terrible by federal agencies and by Congress, because we are not well positioned to do that. We don't have a Washington D. C. Bureau. We don't have reporters who can who

Hey, Betsy, do you mind if I stop you there? I've already heard that. One of the things I fronted my phone call with Carlos was that next month, no, sorry, December, the Ledge Days in Salem in December, I'm supposed to be testifying before the State Senate Senator Manning, the committee that covers veterans on this issue.

That, it's an Oregon Senator. that is asking Congress to do this seems to have some jurisdiction, not to mention the quarter of a million veterans here in Oregon, number of whom I'll bet money if I looked up on my FOIA data, there have been Oregon employers that have discriminated against veterans. The, if Carlos had briefed you, I don't know if he did, but he would have also told you the legislature is going to be deliberating two bills, both of which I authored. One of them is going to be a memorial submitted by Senator Kim Thatcher asking the exact same question for a third time. Why the department of justice isn't enforcing the law.

Military civil rights. Oregon doesn't have civil rights for veterans, and that's about to change, but the idea that this is just a national issue, I'm sorry, sounds like a straw man. And if you don't want to cover it, that's certainly your prerogative, but the decision that you're making is not It is an issue for Oregon.

Joint memorandum is leading off, and generally we don't cover Oregon saying to do something. Federal inaction, federal failure to abide by federal law is definitely newsworthy. Should definitely be written about. We are not positioned to do that because we do not cover Oregon. Federal agencies, we don't have a D.

C. Bureau anymore, we haven't had one for 20 years. I, I'd hear you if a bill on, a substantive bill, not a memorial or a resolution, gets traction next session, we would cover that. I certainly, It's not like I think, oh, federal civil rights and veterans are being trampled, who cares?

It's terrible if that's happening. But we are not positioned to, to cover, again the inactions and failures of federal agencies. I definitely think that's a story that should be covered. I feel I'm a faithful listener to National Public Radio. I feel like they have done in the past some really good coverage of the failures of federal agencies to serve veterans.

I think like

the Military Times does a really good job. They already turned it down. Military Times turned it down because a bunch of civilians are making these decisions. Would it be a story if, say, you were to look up the Oregon revised statutes and found that military veterans are not protected by state agencies?

That may be an overstatement. I know that military veterans get hiring preferences and that kind of thing in Oregon. I don't know the hate crimes details.

You could check my work, but believe me, I've looked. And for all of its progressive veneer, Oregon doesn't protect veterans. It's perfectly legal for, say, an employer or labor organization to tell me to go F off because they don't want to deal with baby killers. There's a law in the O.

R. S. that prevents them or penalizes them for doing so. So

it's no coincidence that Wyden, senior Oregon senator, has this letter that the Oregonian doesn't want to report on, asking why a quarter of a million of Oregon residents are exposed to violent hate crimes, employment discrimination, lack of access to quality health care and everything else. And the reason that you give is, oh it's not a problem.

We don't see it.

I didn't say that. I said that the action and inaction you're talking about by a federal agency is something that the Oregonian, which covers state and local agencies policies, is not in a position to cover

a quarter of a million Oregonians have served in the military, and that's not something you want to cover.

There's 24 million. Military voters whose votes are going to be less informed because of the connection to the Harris campaign that Wyden's letter could threaten to expose. Namely, the fact that she hired somebody from Tron's office when she was VP in September of 2023. And so when she selected a veteran, she should have known and had reason to have that knowledge.

Her own vice president has less civil rights than she does. in a presidential candidate. 24 million voters. That's enough to sway the election, don't you think? I don't remember what Biden went by, but to continue to say that it's not news, or it's too big, or it's too small I can't go to my local press because they won't run it, and I can't go to my state press because they won't run it.

I'm sorry, I didn't, I couldn't catch that because I think you stepped in too much. You interrupted me, but I've heard it before. Maybe you've heard it the first time right now, but it, that doesn't make it false and it doesn't make it something that's morally justifiable. I've already gone to Penny right here at Corvallis and Albany the two papers here.

She told me she's too small. You're telling me Oregon just doesn't do that. And the military times turned it down, but I can't avoid the fact that the guy, the reporter and the editor are both civilians. Yeah, you can keep telling me all these great reasons you think you have for not turning journalistic attention to a matter that affects a quarter of a million Oregonians.

You can do it. You have that power. You're the politics editor, or co editor. But there's four million Oregonians. We aren't

Who can, in D. C., reporters who

can go to swing states, reporters who are That's right, we're not a swing state. So none of this gets any airtime because I'm in a progressive state. If there were a bunch of black people who are getting killed, I would imagine that the Oregonian would recognize, Oh, shoot, we don't have laws for that.

It's morally reprehensible. You're saying it's newsworthy, you work at a news organization, and you say you're not going to cover it. I know you cannot, or do not appreciate, how absolutely infuriating that is that I spent six years fighting for everybody else's rights, including yours, but when it comes to turning your attention to my rights, one of the most progressive states in the union just conveniently can't cover

it.

Wait

no, not exactly. I am, but that's not all I'm doing. Why doesn't Oregon protect veterans? We can focus on that. I can share with you the stuff that I shared with the legislature when I went there in September and I got Manning to give me 15 minutes in December. Reporters weren't there. I don't know if reporters want to be there in December when I testify, but it sounds like you won't make a move until it's in the actual legislature.

I can give you the legislative council numbers, but the amount of foot dragging to me, I'm sorry, feels suspicious. It feels like a product of a blind spot and civilian bias that the Oregonian can report on in all these other ways until it comes back to the fact that it's civilians who hold power and military veterans who are killing themselves at 17 people per day.

Yeah, you can tell yourself whatever reason you need to. And at the end of the day, I still know, and I think you know, how patently unjust it is that the labor that I put into our democracy is not producing fruit for me. I don't even get scraps from the table. Yeah, you're right. Tell yourself what you need to.

I've read enough history to know a bad excuse and bias when I see it.

Yeah. Maybe you need to talk to Carlos about what we talked about. I have no idea, but it's still not clear to me how the one led to the other, but whatever. Oops. That's my nap time.

I'm not hearing a concrete story pitch from you that I can understand. Tell me in ledge days in December, you're going to find before the Senate committee on veterans affairs. Is that correct? That's correct. All right. I'll look out for that agenda. Okay. Okay, in the meantime, I am going to be bringing this to their attention.

You either work in the news, or you are the news. You get to decide.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean, but who's their attention? What? What attention? You said, I'm going to be bringing it to their attention. Oh, the legislature and the public. Great. That sounds like a noble thing to do.

Okay.

Is there anything else I can do for you? Any more service that my life can extend for your benefit? Think we're good at this point. The fact that you think we're good is That, yeah. That's That'll go viral. That'll be fun. Okay. Thank you. Goodbye.

Bye.