Once again - Portland in the news for all the wrong reasons (Beaverton: best cities, crime)

[VikingsToValhalla]

From the link:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ard-drugs.html

Portland resembles an 'open air drug market' after decriminalizing hard drugs: Overdose deaths skyrocket by 41% in the Democrat-led city as homeless addicts collapse on sidewalks

Taking an optimistic approach...if all the junkies overdose and die, then there will be no more junkies!
In a weird way, maybe this is a solution?

[ccjarider]

Originally Posted by SusVelo

Daily mail? lol.

It is a national problem, and includes red and blue states. The attempt to draw causation and single out Portland is why you shouldn’t use tabloids to be informed.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/n...1/20211117.htm

https://www.newsnationnow.com/health...in-us-in-2021/

https://www.wweek.com/news/2022/05/1...gon-last-year/

OK .... but - it must be acknowledged that Portland and Oregon are leaders in the "Let's enact bad policy" group. Does no good to put out red herrings trying to obfuscate issue.




Here is a quote from one of your links:



"During that slowdown, fentanyl-related deaths sped up in Portland.


“The Oregon Health Authority really underestimated what it was going to take to distribute this amount of funds to this many organizations,” Sutton said. “Every day that we wait to provide those services, more and more people are dying.”



Oregon is currently the only state that has decriminalized drugs, but it’s been proposed in other states including Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont.


However, not everyone is in favor of the first-of-its-kind law. Last month, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler pleaded for funding and demanded accountability."

[oregonwoodsmoke]

Originally Posted by EasyBeezy

........when that is immaterial to the story, is clearly propaganda, whether or not it is factual, .......

What I am hearing you say is that newspapers should not be allowed to print things that are true, if it hurts someone's feelings or it doesn't line up with your personal narrative? Am I hearing you correctly?


Myself, I am just glad when the news reports things that are true and factual, which is rare enough. I don't have to agree with them.


While I think it would be extra nice if they didn't editorialize in the news portion of the show, and it would be delightful if they gave both sides of the story, I suspect that ship sailed long ago. Thus you must check in on a couple of different news sources to try to sort it out. I'm afraid drama has beaten out unbiased reporting as the status quo.

[SusVelo]

Originally Posted by ccjarider

OK .... but - it must be acknowledged that Portland and Oregon are leaders in the "Let's enact bad policy" group. Does no good to put out red herrings trying to obfuscate issue.




Here is a quote from one of your links:



"During that slowdown, fentanyl-related deaths sped up in Portland.


“The Oregon Health Authority really underestimated what it was going to take to distribute this amount of funds to this many organizations,” Sutton said. “Every day that we wait to provide those services, more and more people are dying.”



Oregon is currently the only state that has decriminalized drugs, but it’s been proposed in other states including Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont.


However, not everyone is in favor of the first-of-its-kind law. Last month, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler pleaded for funding and demanded accountability."

You're accusing me of putting out red herrings? That's funny considering you posted a tabloid article which I stomped on. You have yet to show it's bad policy, unless you're just going to state your opinion, so let's start there with better sources. Alaska, South Dakota, and Kansas are hardly blue areas and are doing worse than Oregon. Again, it's a nationwide thing and you've done nothing to link it to the change in law.

OHA absolutely needs to do better at distributing that money.

[SusVelo]

Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke

What I am hearing you say is that newspapers should not be allowed to print things that are true, if it hurts someone's feelings or it doesn't line up with your personal narrative? Am I hearing you correctly?


Myself, I am just glad when the news reports things that are true and factual, which is rare enough. I don't have to agree with them.


While I think it would be extra nice if they didn't editorialize in the news portion of the show, and it would be delightful if they gave both sides of the story, I suspect that ship sailed long ago. Thus you must check in on a couple of different news sources to try to sort it out. I'm afraid drama has beaten out unbiased reporting as the status quo.

Yeah, it's almost like we still need the fairness doctrine.

[ccjarider]

Originally Posted by SusVelo

You're accusing me of putting out red herrings? That's funny considering you posted a tabloid article which I stomped on. You have yet to show it's bad policy, unless you're just going to state your opinion, so let's start there with better sources. Alaska, South Dakota, and Kansas are hardly blue areas and are doing worse than Oregon. Again, it's a nationwide thing and you've done nothing to link it to the change in law.

OHA absolutely needs to do better at distributing that money.

Not sure what you mean by "stomped on" but -whatever.

You most definitely are throwing out red herrings. Are you seriously trying to advise people to ignore what they can see with their own eyes?

It is interesting when Portland lovers try and argue-"we may suck but others do too."

I do acknowledge that Portland's extreme silliness over last decade does make it an easy target for some media outlets.

[EasyBeezy]

Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke

What I am hearing you say is that newspapers should not be allowed to print things that are true, if it hurts someone's feelings or it doesn't line up with your personal narrative? Am I hearing you correctly?


Myself, I am just glad when the news reports things that are true and factual, which is rare enough. I don't have to agree with them.


While I think it would be extra nice if they didn't editorialize in the news portion of the show, and it would be delightful if they gave both sides of the story, I suspect that ship sailed long ago. Thus you must check in on a couple of different news sources to try to sort it out. I'm afraid drama has beaten out unbiased reporting as the status quo.

I never said anything about anybody not being allowed to print stuff. I would never advocate for that. But it is propaganda, and should be recognized and identified as such, so people don't think it's legitimate news. They are using the cover of journalism to push a narrative and attempt to control public opinion. In this case, they are promoting conservative politics.

The dictionary definition of propaganda: "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."

It would be more accurate and not propaganda if the headline was "Portland, a Democrat controlled city, has a horrible drug and homelessness problem, while surrounded on all sides by other Democrat controlled cities and jurisdictions that have none of the same issues."

Earlier today, I did a bunch of errands on the west side. I was all over Beaverton, Hillsboro, Tigard, and unincorporated Washington County. All Democrat controlled areas. All area dominated by liberal voters. I didn't see one tent. I saw no trash piles. I saw no one begging at lights. I saw no unconscious people on the sidewalk.

Clearly, the problem is not connected to the political parties that control the local government. So why include that in the headline? Because they want you to mentally connect public disorder to a certain political party, even though the evidence suggests different causation factors.

[RowingFiend]

Originally Posted by EasyBeezy

I never said anything about anybody not being allowed to print stuff. I would never advocate for that. But it is propaganda, and should be recognized and identified as such, so people don't think it's legitimate news. They are using the cover of journalism to push a narrative and attempt to control public opinion. In this case, they are promoting conservative politics.

The dictionary definition of propaganda: "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."

It would be more accurate and not propaganda if the headline was "Portland, a Democrat controlled city, has a horrible drug and homelessness problem, while surrounded on all sides by other Democrat controlled cities and jurisdictions that have none of the same issues."

Earlier today, I did a bunch of errands on the west side. I was all over Beaverton, Hillsboro, Tigard, and unincorporated Washington County. All Democrat controlled areas. All area dominated by liberal voters. I didn't see one tent. I saw no trash piles. I saw no one begging at lights. I saw no unconscious people on the sidewalk.

Clearly, the problem is not connected to the political parties that control the local government. So why include that in the headline? Because they want you to mentally connect public disorder to a certain political party, even though the evidence suggests different causation factors.

You seem emotionally hurt, but you need to man or woman up and recognize facts.

Portland is a crime-ridden lawless place where the local government cares more about criminals and drug addicts than it does about taxpayers and law enforcement.

The reason for that is the willfully ignorant DEMOCRAT voters who elect the same left wing ideologues over and over and over again. Even when some Democrat loses a primary, the winner is even more of a left wing lunatic than the person he or she replaces.

The problem is 100%, incontrovertibly, absolutely connected to the political party that controls the local government.

[EasyBeezy]

Originally Posted by RowingFiend

You seem emotionally hurt, but you need to man or woman up and recognize facts.

Portland is a crime-ridden lawless place where the local government cares more about criminals and drug addicts than it does about taxpayers and law enforcement.

The reason for that is the willfully ignorant DEMOCRAT voters who elect the same left wing ideologues over and over and over again. Even when some Democrat loses a primary, the winner is even more of a left wing lunatic than the person he or she replaces.

The problem is 100%, incontrovertibly, absolutely connected to the political party that controls the local government.

Emotionally hurt? OK. Sure. Pointing out that propaganda is not a reliable source of information surely indicates a high level of deep seeded emotional pain. Maybe not as much as someone from Florida obsessing over the local politics of a city thousands of miles away, but close.

[ccjarider]

Originally Posted by EasyBeezy

Emotionally hurt? OK. Sure. Pointing out that propaganda is not a reliable source of information surely indicates a high level of deep seeded emotional pain.

I admit that I have been guilty of this line of thinking in the past. I now just accept that all "information" is to some extent, someone's "propaganda."

The false narrative that there were only "Facts and news"was destroyed years ago.

It is probably Better to acknowledge reality, parce what data is available even knowing it is presented by some agenda driven. Then try to make intelligent and rational decisions.

Bt now, everyone who can think beyond a 3rd grader should understand that every source (right/left/middle/crazy/sane) has agendas, objectives and goals.