← Back to all posts

How Local Media Slanted Coverage of Map C

In November 2024, Deschutes County voters overwhelmingly approved Measure 9-173 to expand the Board of County Commissioners from three members to five. That vote wasn’t even close — 65% said yes. But when it came time to draw district maps, something changed. The local media stopped reporting the story and started picking a side.

Over the past six months, we tracked coverage of Map C — the proposed five-district map — across every major outlet in the region. What we found was a clear pattern: reporters quoted more opponents than supporters, used loaded words in their headlines, identified the political party of one side but not the other, and left out key facts that supported the map.

Here’s what we found, outlet by outlet.

The Source Weekly: Five Critics for Every Supporter

Bend’s alternative newsweekly published the most one-sided coverage. In a November 24 article about the canceled DMAC meeting, reporter Kayvon Bumpus quoted five named sources opposing Map C and just one supporter — Commissioner DeBone. None of the four DMAC members who voted for the map were quoted.

That same article opened with a creative writing bit about “Mr. Mander” moving to Deschutes County — treating the gerrymandering accusation as a settled fact before the article even got started.

In a December 4 article, the Source identified Phil Henderson as the “former Chair of the Deschutes County Republican Party.” That’s true. But the article didn’t apply the same treatment to opponents. Commissioner Chang’s Democratic ties, Mayor Kebler’s political leanings, and the partisan makeup of the Deschutes Defend Our Democracy Coalition went unmentioned. The article also described “an icy silence” in the boardroom — the kind of dramatic editorializing you’d expect in an opinion column, not a news report.

The Source’s editorial board made its position official in a November 25 editorial titled “Are County Districts a Solution in Search of a Problem?” That’s fine — editorials are supposed to take sides. The problem is that the editorial’s viewpoint was already baked into the newsroom’s reporting.

The Source also published articles on February 4 and December 4 that continued the same patterns — leading with opposition voices and using the word “controversial” as though it were a neutral descriptor.

OPB: Opposition Gets Top Billing

Oregon Public Broadcasting ran three major articles on the redistricting. Every single headline adopted the opposition’s framing:

In the December 3 piece, OPB called DeBone and Adair “both longtime Republicans” — but didn’t call Chang a “longtime Democrat” in the same way. OPB also described the Republican party’s “thinning ranks countywide,” a characterization that frames conservative support for the map as coming from a shrinking, less legitimate group.

The February 5 article put the opposition’s main argument in the second sentence — before any supporter had a chance to speak. That article was also picked up by KLCC, spreading the same framing across the state.

Central Oregon Daily: “Backlash Grows” in Every Headline

Central Oregon Daily’s coverage leaned heavily on drama. Their headlines tell the story:

Words like “backlash,” “disputed,” and “narrowly” aren’t neutral. They tell the reader how to feel before they’ve read a single paragraph.

KTVZ: The Most Balanced — But Not Perfect

KTVZ came closest to fair coverage. Their February 4 report on the final vote quoted three supporters and three opponents by name — the only outlet to achieve that balance.

Still, KTVZ wasn’t immune to the pattern. In a January 20 article, the reporter stated public feedback was “mostly Negative” — an editorial judgment presented as fact, without citing a specific count. Earlier coverage on November 13 and December 3 used “sparks debate” framing that emphasized conflict over substance.

The Bend Bulletin: Best Coverage, Still Not Perfect

The Bend Bulletin published the most thorough and balanced reporting through journalist Clayton Franke. A November 22 article quoted supporters and opponents side by side, and even brought in independent academics from Princeton and Carnegie Mellon. The Bulletin published guest columns from both sides and letters to the editor for and against the map.

But even the Bulletin’s headlines leaned toward the opposition’s energy. “Amid outcry, committee draws new Deschutes County districts” and “Deschutes County voters will decide fate of controversial district maps” both lead with words that frame the map negatively.

What They All Left Out

Across every outlet, several facts that support Map C were underreported or ignored entirely:

  • Almost all Oregon counties with five commissioners already use geographic districts. This isn’t unusual — it’s the norm.
  • 65% of Deschutes County voters approved expanding to five commissioners. The public wanted this.
  • The DMAC’s guidelines banned drawing maps to favor any political party. The committee was told to be nonpartisan.
  • Unaffiliated voters are the largest group in Deschutes County — bigger than Democrats or Republicans. Predicting outcomes based on party registration alone doesn’t hold up.
  • District lines will be redrawn after the 2030 census. This map is temporary.
  • Rural voices from La Pine, Sisters, and Redmond were almost completely absent from coverage. These are the communities that stand to gain dedicated representation — and reporters barely talked to them.

Meanwhile, Commissioner Chang’s word — “gerrymandered” — appeared in headlines at OPB, the Source Weekly, and Central Oregon Daily. The supporters’ framing — “geographic representation” — never made it into a single headline at any outlet.

The Bottom Line

We’re not saying reporters made things up. We’re saying they made choices — about who to quote, what words to put in headlines, whose political party to name, and which facts to leave on the cutting room floor. Those choices, over and over again, pointed in one direction.

Deschutes County voters will decide Map C’s fate this November. They deserve coverage that gives them all the facts, not just the ones that fit one side’s story.

Vote YES on the district map →