To the editors of Willamette Weekly,
I had the misfortune of being misquoted in M. Thelin’s “Eat me” column on Oct 3rd. There are a number of items, aside from his misquotation, that concern me. Primarily, Mr.Thelin and I had, what I consider, an informative discussion last week about the proposed Public Market. In this conversation, which took nearly 20 minutes, I made sure to give Mr.Thelin an accurate background on the Portland Farmers Market’s involvement in this issue. We discussed: 1) the importance of public input on this matter, 2) Which constituencies are currently being served and which are not in Portland’s local agricultural economy, 3) What are the possibilities for constructive city support, and 4) Why the city hasn’t yet become a major player in this debate, 5) What Commissioner Saltzman is currently doing to remedy that situation. Portland Farmers Market considers these to be important issues not only for its own well being but also for maintaining a thriving local food economy. Yet very little of the factual material we discussed was incorporated into his article. My concern is why would Mr. Thelin choose to focus on misquoting the most sophomoric and banal aspect of our conversation, as opposed to truly enlightening your readers on this important topic?
Mr. Thelin also stated that he felt his article was favorable to PFM so by association, I should somehow be satisfied with how he treated my statements. I find this is disturbing in that I don’t care if his coverage is positive or negative with respect to PFM. I am more interested in reading an article that is informative, accurate and non-biased.
Lastly, Mr. Thelin treated my questioning him about misquoting my statement as an affront. In essence, he said since he wrote it down, that’s exactly what was said. This is not a healthy attitude for a reporter to have.
Needless to say, I feel that my information was mistreated by Mr. Thelin in his misquotation of my remarks. Your stated mission at Willamette Week is to “provide your audience with an independent and irreverent understanding of how their worlds work” This should not be done at the expense of accuracy.
Respectfully,
Scott Dolich Chef-owner, Park Kitchen
10 Responses to “Scott Dolich Writes Letter to WW Editor RE: Public Market”
- Posted by: Nancy Rommelmann:
Reason #1 why any journalist, when doing more than a quick scene/character sketch, must use a tape recorder. #2, transparency. #3, who can write as fast as people talk? #4, avoidance of misunderstandings and lawsuits.October 5th, 2007 at 1:21 pm - Posted by: Kevin Allman:
Tape recorders are good, particularly digital ones where you can download the convo as an mp3 and post it along with your story should there be any questions.Also good: email.October 5th, 2007 at 2:37 pm - Posted by: Amelia Hard:
Thank you, Scott. Those of us involved in the Public Market project already know that you have a remarkably broad and inclusive vision of what it takes to nurture our local food economy and make it thrive. Now everyone who reads your letter will know that, too.Anyone interested in how and why the Portland Farmers Market and the proposed Public Market can work together to support local agriculture should listen to the Sept. 28th City Club presentation by Scott, Ron Paul, and Scott Exo (Food Alliance), available as an MP3 on the City Club’s website: http://www.pdxcityclub.org/forums-events/friday-forums.phpOctober 5th, 2007 at 6:00 pm - Posted by: devilchef:
While I understand the need for clarity and public disclosure on the topic of a public market, I cannot understand why anyone who cares about anything in this fair town would engage Willamette Week as a reliable or accurate public forum.Willamette Week, in my humble opinion, is an affront to concerned educated people. It’s a music calendar and sex-ad paper with absurd aspirations to legitimate journalism. Hypocritical, poll-driven, we’re-hip-and-you’re-not bed-wetters who couldn’t get a job at a real newspaper (not that that’s a good thing, either) in any other city in America.The moron who misquoted Mr. Dolich (and yes, I believe anyone who would kiss Mr. Zusman’s morally superior arse for a minimum-wage check is a moron) did serve one purpose: he got some discussion focused on the issue. Not to say that was his intention. Thank you for a great forum where ideas can be exchanged without fear of misinterpretation or outright fabrication.Those of us who are in the biz can do the city a world of good by ceasing to curry favor in WW by purchasing ads. Can anyone say “reviews for sale”?
October 6th, 2007 at 11:16 am
- Posted by: Kevin Allman:
Questioning the quality of the WW (or any other paper) is certainly legit, but: “reviews for sale”? That’s not an issue of opinion – that’s a direct charge that deserves a specific example or two.I can think of two examples of reviews that could’ve cost WW advertising dollars: Nancy Rommelmann on Saucebox and Heidi Yorkshire on Ten01. Or is the argument there that those restaurants didn’t participate in the “reviews for sale” program, and the reviewers were then instructed to slam them?Disclosure: I’ve freelanced for WW (and the O, and Portland Monthly), but devilchef, if you have proof on “reviews for sale” at the WW, please get in touch with me. Seriously. Because I’ll follow up on it, and if it’s true, I’ll have a hell of a story to sell to a paper larger than any in this town.October 6th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
- Posted by: devilchef:
Obviously I have some problems with WW, but I probably need to point out that in using “reviews for sale”, I was trying to impact public opinion, in a rather crude way, not actually reporting any fact.Kinda like the crew at WW, eh?Won’t happen here again, I respect the space. My point was that the rag is a detriment, not an asset, to any serious public debate.October 6th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
- Posted by: mikethelin:
I feel the need to respond to Mr. Dolich’s letter. I’ve also posted additional comments regarding the market within Food Dude’s original Public Market forum. Thank you for your comments.Here is the text of WW Arts and Culture Editor Kelly Clarke’s Friday web story regarding my Wednesday column:Earlier today, Portland Farmers Market vice president and Park Kitchen chef-owner Scott Dolich emailed a Letter to the Editor to WW saying he’d been misquoted in Mike Thelin’s most recent “Eat Me” column, which focused on the proposed Portland Public Market. Scroll down to the bottom of this post to read Dolich’s full letter to WW.Now, we’d been planning to run a clarification regarding Dolich’s quote in next Wednesday’s print newspaper. But since a copy of Dolich’s missive is now posted on local foodie website portlandfoodanddrink.com , we figured we’d just let you know what the quote in question was. It’s the bolded sentence from Thelin’s column pasted below:
While the public market has floundered, its inspiration, the Portland Farmers Market, has grown into a financially stable entity operating four markets, three days a week, nine months of the year—and without a penny of the dole. “The city hasn’t given us dick,” says Farmers Market Vice President and Park Kitchen chef-owner Scott Dolich. “And we haven’t asked for dick.”
Arts & Culture Editor Kelly Clarke spoke with the chef via phone earlier this afternoon. During that conversation, Dolich clarified his quote. In short, he says he clearly said “shit.” Not “dick.”
According to Dolich, Thelin transposed the order of the chef’s phrases in the quote. Dolich says it should have read:
“We haven’t asked for shit. And the city hasn’t given us shit.”
“’Shit.’ I say that [that word] all the time, and I did use that term in the interview,” Dolich told Clarke. “But not dick.”
As for the “Eat Me” columnist, Thelin says he didn’t tape record his phone interview with Dolich (the chef called him back while he was at a coffee shop, and Thelin says he didn’t have a recorder available). Thelin insists he heard the original four-letter word as “dick.”
“I agree with Scott Dolich that our interview was informative,” Thelin says, “but I was a bit caught off guard when he phoned me this past Wednesday to accuse me of altering his four-letter words to add ‘flair’ to my story, as he put it. I’m not exactly sure what I, or my story, would have to gain in changing one four-letter word to another four-letter word in a story where neither Scott nor the farmers market was the primary subject. Scott’s input was instrumental in helping me to understand both markets, and I’m thankful for that. But his accusation that I altered his quote on purpose is ludicrous.”
Again, “shit,” not “dick.”
October 7th, 2007 at 11:33 am
- Posted by: Nancy Rommelmann:
Yeesh. I can’t speak for Dolich — and, full disclosure, I know all the people involved in the above letter — but I’m going to go out on a limb and say his initial umbrage had more to do with his comment being cherry-picked in order to illustrate a point in the story, rather than “shit” versus “dick.” If you’re Dolich, who has years of experience in the local food/market scene, and gives a comprehensive interview, and then read that your knowledge and time and opinion has been distilled to the referenced one-liner, you’d be pissed, which he is, which he should be. It’s all context, and his was stripped. I’ll go further and suggest that, had he been given his due, he might not have even flagged the shit vs: dick comment, because it would have been a little squirt of color, rather than standing in for the man. In my opinion, Dolich is a really honorable and hard-working guy; he’s got authority, and was not merely not given it here, but made to look sort of cheap.October 7th, 2007 at 12:10 pm - Posted by: pdxcity-state:
Nancy Rommelmann is correct, but I think it’s important to mention here that writers do not have final say over pull quotes nor final copy. These are editor’s tasks.October 7th, 2007 at 12:31 pm - Posted by: Flask Mama:
The WW’s response is emblematic of their paper. As Nancy points out, the issue is not which four letter word was printed, rather the quote chosen to represent Dolich’s sentiments regarding the market’s prospects and the city’s involvement. I heard the City Club presentation that Amelia Hard references above, and while I thought that the general pacing was a bit slow, the information was interesting, and painted a picture more of community involvement to solve the market issue than one of divisiveness. Everyone agrees that there are many issues surrounding the Portland Public Market, but the WW choosing to be pricks about it doesn’t really help.Long gone are the days when the WW was a half-decent paper. Now it seems to be filled with gossip and nastiness. Sigh.October 7th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Leave a Reply