Every unflattering sentence in its District 4 profile was about Mike Hutchinson, but it elided his reasons for the votes it described. The challengers' records were cut to "parent" and "union rep."
Thank you for exposing the one-sided reporting by Oaklandside. Mike Hutchinson of D4 is actually the one who has sought actionable and realistic solutions to the budget crisis, only to be castigated by some of the school board reps who have close ties to the union. The pretend budget that was passed doesn’t identify the millions of dollars cuts that must be made. And these people have either taught our kids or served in other capacities at OUSD? It is a huge conflict of interest for union reps - current or past - to be serving on the school board.
I’m Tasneem Raja, editor-in-chief of The Oaklandside. I have repeatedly raised the below concerns about this story with Oakland Report since it was published, and asked that they be corrected in the piece itself. No corrections have been issued, and no one has explained why not. I’m posting them here so readers of this story can see them.
We welcome feedback on our stories, and we correct course when it’s warranted. We expect other local news outlets to treat correction requests the same way: a timely, professional response, in the piece itself.
I have also asked Oakland Report to publish a letter to the editor from me in full. It hasn’t.
The Oaklandside does not favor or disfavor candidates in local races. Every election story involves choices about what to include, shaped by length, what we’ve already reported, what readers already know, and what the candidates themselves emphasized in hours of interviews. People can reasonably argue that a different detail should have made the cut. Jumping to “bias” is unfair and unwarranted.
Errors and misleading claims in this story:
Oakland Report claims our District 4 profile offered “none of his explanations” when discussing Mike Hutchinson’s votes and that he was “not given the opportunity to explain” his reasoning. Both claims are wrong. Ashley McBride interviewed him for an hour, and the profile quotes him at length. That includes his case that the current board majority pushed out the superintendent and chief business officer and weakened the district’s finances, and what he would do if voters elect a new majority. Your own piece later says our profile “relayed Hutchinson’s account.” The headline and conclusion should be corrected.
Oakland Report claims the challengers’ records were cut to “parent” and “union rep.” The profile covers Sylvia Williams’ career teaching English and GED classes to adults in OUSD since 2000, her work as a special education aide, and her Georgetown certificate in education finance. Her union work is noted, followed by her answer to our question on how she’d handle that relationship as a board member. Your story should reflect that.
Oakland Report piece notes that Kathryn Camp’s full professional and academic background wasn’t relayed in the profile. That’s a fair critique, but calling it “bias” isn’t warranted. In our piece, Camp’s section gave a little-known challenger space to explain her views on district contracts, academic interventions, special education, and school closures in her own words. We think that’s valuable to readers and fair, and we haven’t heard concerns from anyone but Oakland Report about how Camp was described in our story.
Oakland Report’s piece calls “failed,” “blames,” and “languished” loaded words, then concedes the statements are “technically accurate.” Hutchinson lost two elections before winning, and it’s not uncommon to call such outcomes “failed” campaigns; “blames” reports Hutchinson’s own position on the current board majority in a sentence that outlines his reasoning. Your own review of his votes, which found he abstained on 53 of 59 items at one meeting, confirms our line that he “abstains or votes against most board actions.”
Oakland Report's piece faults us for not listing endorsements in the race. Our profile told readers an Oaklandside story on campaign funding, and endorsements is coming, as your piece notes. In the past, we’ve published these pieces later in October, when the majority of school board endorsements and big donations have landed. It’s not a hard and fast rule; we publish these pieces when we feel we have enough information. Feel free to argue that we should publish them earlier, but accusing us of “bias” is unfair and unwarranted.
Oakland Report's piece concedes our profile gave roughly equal space, quotations, and photos to each candidate, that our handling of Hutchinson’s ethics case was “if anything softened,” and that Camp’s literacy and math figures check out. It also acknowledges that our District 2 profile reported “tensions” and “turnover” under the union-backed incumbent. Your conclusion says these profiles can’t settle whether any of this reflects an editorial view, or simply format limits, stylistic choice, or “an incumbent who invites the treatment.”
Yet you ran this story under the label “Media Bias” with a headline underlining that claim.
Problems with Oakland Report’s approach:
No one at Oakland Report contacted Ashley McBride or anyone at Oaklandside before publishing a story questioning our work. Standard practice is to give the subjects of criticism a chance to respond. We were not given this standard courtesy.
This article’s author note says “Charlene Price” is a pseudonym, and that Oakland Report has “verified the identity of the writer and the accuracy of the facts.” The author is described only as an Oakland resident with “extensive interactions with OUSD.” This person could work for the district, a charter organization, a campaign, a union, or an advocacy group, and readers wouldn’t know. Oakland Report should disclose whether this author has conflicts of interest relevant to what it is publishing under a pseudonym, and share more about their background and professional qualifications.
Ashley McBride’s name, bio, and email are on every story she writes. She has covered nearly every OUSD board meeting for six years and has produced hundreds of stories on Oakland education issues. In 2024, she received the California School Boards Association’s Golden Quill Award for fair and accurate reporting on public schools.
If you’re going to challenge Ashley’s integrity with an anonymous critique, we should all know more about who is behind it.
Dear Tasneem - Thank you for your comment, but it doesn't address the substance of our analyses. As you know, we encouraged you to publish your response in your pages so your readers can hear them directly from the source. It seemed appropriate that your publication should break the news first. We offered to republish your cover letter in Oakland Report and link to your published response, if one is published, with no remarks from us attached to it aside from one sentence stating that we had your permission to republish it.
So far, you haven't done that, nearly two weeks after you first wrote to us. It seems like you don't want your readers to hear your concerns, which to be clear, we believe are neither supported by the evidence we presented nor by the tone and approach of our analyses. We also note that Oaklandside doesn't allow comments on its website.
One point of clarification: our analyses do not say that Oaklandside is biased. Our analyses point out relevant facts that were left out of Oaklandside's candidate profiles, supply those missing facts, and provide evidence suggesting an apparent pattern where the same interests or "side" seem to benefit from Oaklandside's profiles. Our analyses present these facts so readers can consider them and decide for themselves what to think.
Thank you again for your comment, and for reading Oakland Report. We wish you well.
Tasneem, I’d like to ask about a pattern in your coverage of me that deserves a response. Across your 2020-2025 reporting, I’m repeatedly described only as a “controversial organizer” or “activist and agitator,” while other political figures get substantive biographical context (occupation, organizational leadership, relevant history).
In your 2022 campaign finance story, for example, other candidates were identified by their professional and organizational backgrounds; I was listed simply as a “former District 3 council candidate” — no mention of my work as East Bay director for SEIU Local 1021, despite SEIU appearing elsewhere in that same article.
I also haven’t found a single instance of your coverage noting my national publication bylines, CBS contributor role, Cornell degree, or community garden work — while my role leading the successful Thao recall is consistently paired with negative characterizations. Can you explain this pattern of selective framing, and will Oaklandside correct the record?
It seems like the latest focus of Oakland Report is attacking Oaklandside. Wouldn't the best attack be to provide better, fact-based reporting that you allege is missing from their reporting? As a reader, I've seen a lot of what Oakland Reports is complaining about in the Oakland Reports articles (including grievous misinformation and one-sided articles that make no effort to mention the arguments raised by the unfavored side). Do fact-based reporting and soon other people will draw the comparisons for you, if your ongoing complaints are compelling.
Anne, thank you for your comment, but you are deflecting. If you have a specific rebuttal to the substance of one of Oakland Report’s articles, we encourage you to share it. Otherwise, people can read Oakland Report, the evidence it presents, and decide for themselves what to think about it.
Oakland Report’s analyses cover a range of topics, only a handful of which are about media bias. This one concerns Oaklandside’s series of asymmetrical candidate profiles that treat the OEA-backed candidates differently than the others.
Thank you again for commenting; your engagement is appreciated — even when it is a deflection.
The biggest deflection is that these education articles are pseudonymously written. I sincerely hope "Charlene Price" isn't a play on Charlene Wang and Pamela Price's names - as that would be super weird. Please at least confirm that it is not.
So, with this logic, the Oakland Report is objectively reporting about another journalist's supposed bias, and turning that into some kind of advocacy against "asymmetrical candidate profiles," rather than just producing their own symmetrical candidate profiles.
Sean, this is selective framing of selective framing, and calling it journalism. McBride does a great job of reporting on Oakland educational issues.
Rich, thank you for your comment, but like Anne, you are misdirecting, rather than addressing the substance of the article. Also, your comments about the identity of the author give the impression that you seek to personally discredit them somehow, rather than offer a rebuttal to the content of their work. Thank you for being an Oakland Report reader; your interest in our work is appreciated.
Maybe people are worried they’ll be treated like me and smeared with coordinated attacks from our own city working with Oaklandside (don't believe me, I can prove it).... It got so bad that I had to recall Thao just to get them to leave me alone ;)
Wanna take a look at how Oaklandside attacked me for 4 years nonstop until I called them out and stated hitting back?! Great work!!
Thank you for exposing the one-sided reporting by Oaklandside. Mike Hutchinson of D4 is actually the one who has sought actionable and realistic solutions to the budget crisis, only to be castigated by some of the school board reps who have close ties to the union. The pretend budget that was passed doesn’t identify the millions of dollars cuts that must be made. And these people have either taught our kids or served in other capacities at OUSD? It is a huge conflict of interest for union reps - current or past - to be serving on the school board.
Sorry state of affairs.
I’m Tasneem Raja, editor-in-chief of The Oaklandside. I have repeatedly raised the below concerns about this story with Oakland Report since it was published, and asked that they be corrected in the piece itself. No corrections have been issued, and no one has explained why not. I’m posting them here so readers of this story can see them.
We welcome feedback on our stories, and we correct course when it’s warranted. We expect other local news outlets to treat correction requests the same way: a timely, professional response, in the piece itself.
I have also asked Oakland Report to publish a letter to the editor from me in full. It hasn’t.
The Oaklandside does not favor or disfavor candidates in local races. Every election story involves choices about what to include, shaped by length, what we’ve already reported, what readers already know, and what the candidates themselves emphasized in hours of interviews. People can reasonably argue that a different detail should have made the cut. Jumping to “bias” is unfair and unwarranted.
Errors and misleading claims in this story:
Oakland Report claims our District 4 profile offered “none of his explanations” when discussing Mike Hutchinson’s votes and that he was “not given the opportunity to explain” his reasoning. Both claims are wrong. Ashley McBride interviewed him for an hour, and the profile quotes him at length. That includes his case that the current board majority pushed out the superintendent and chief business officer and weakened the district’s finances, and what he would do if voters elect a new majority. Your own piece later says our profile “relayed Hutchinson’s account.” The headline and conclusion should be corrected.
Oakland Report claims the challengers’ records were cut to “parent” and “union rep.” The profile covers Sylvia Williams’ career teaching English and GED classes to adults in OUSD since 2000, her work as a special education aide, and her Georgetown certificate in education finance. Her union work is noted, followed by her answer to our question on how she’d handle that relationship as a board member. Your story should reflect that.
Oakland Report piece notes that Kathryn Camp’s full professional and academic background wasn’t relayed in the profile. That’s a fair critique, but calling it “bias” isn’t warranted. In our piece, Camp’s section gave a little-known challenger space to explain her views on district contracts, academic interventions, special education, and school closures in her own words. We think that’s valuable to readers and fair, and we haven’t heard concerns from anyone but Oakland Report about how Camp was described in our story.
Oakland Report’s piece calls “failed,” “blames,” and “languished” loaded words, then concedes the statements are “technically accurate.” Hutchinson lost two elections before winning, and it’s not uncommon to call such outcomes “failed” campaigns; “blames” reports Hutchinson’s own position on the current board majority in a sentence that outlines his reasoning. Your own review of his votes, which found he abstained on 53 of 59 items at one meeting, confirms our line that he “abstains or votes against most board actions.”
Oakland Report's piece faults us for not listing endorsements in the race. Our profile told readers an Oaklandside story on campaign funding, and endorsements is coming, as your piece notes. In the past, we’ve published these pieces later in October, when the majority of school board endorsements and big donations have landed. It’s not a hard and fast rule; we publish these pieces when we feel we have enough information. Feel free to argue that we should publish them earlier, but accusing us of “bias” is unfair and unwarranted.
Oakland Report's piece concedes our profile gave roughly equal space, quotations, and photos to each candidate, that our handling of Hutchinson’s ethics case was “if anything softened,” and that Camp’s literacy and math figures check out. It also acknowledges that our District 2 profile reported “tensions” and “turnover” under the union-backed incumbent. Your conclusion says these profiles can’t settle whether any of this reflects an editorial view, or simply format limits, stylistic choice, or “an incumbent who invites the treatment.”
Yet you ran this story under the label “Media Bias” with a headline underlining that claim.
Problems with Oakland Report’s approach:
No one at Oakland Report contacted Ashley McBride or anyone at Oaklandside before publishing a story questioning our work. Standard practice is to give the subjects of criticism a chance to respond. We were not given this standard courtesy.
This article’s author note says “Charlene Price” is a pseudonym, and that Oakland Report has “verified the identity of the writer and the accuracy of the facts.” The author is described only as an Oakland resident with “extensive interactions with OUSD.” This person could work for the district, a charter organization, a campaign, a union, or an advocacy group, and readers wouldn’t know. Oakland Report should disclose whether this author has conflicts of interest relevant to what it is publishing under a pseudonym, and share more about their background and professional qualifications.
Ashley McBride’s name, bio, and email are on every story she writes. She has covered nearly every OUSD board meeting for six years and has produced hundreds of stories on Oakland education issues. In 2024, she received the California School Boards Association’s Golden Quill Award for fair and accurate reporting on public schools.
If you’re going to challenge Ashley’s integrity with an anonymous critique, we should all know more about who is behind it.
Dear Tasneem - Thank you for your comment, but it doesn't address the substance of our analyses. As you know, we encouraged you to publish your response in your pages so your readers can hear them directly from the source. It seemed appropriate that your publication should break the news first. We offered to republish your cover letter in Oakland Report and link to your published response, if one is published, with no remarks from us attached to it aside from one sentence stating that we had your permission to republish it.
So far, you haven't done that, nearly two weeks after you first wrote to us. It seems like you don't want your readers to hear your concerns, which to be clear, we believe are neither supported by the evidence we presented nor by the tone and approach of our analyses. We also note that Oaklandside doesn't allow comments on its website.
One point of clarification: our analyses do not say that Oaklandside is biased. Our analyses point out relevant facts that were left out of Oaklandside's candidate profiles, supply those missing facts, and provide evidence suggesting an apparent pattern where the same interests or "side" seem to benefit from Oaklandside's profiles. Our analyses present these facts so readers can consider them and decide for themselves what to think.
Thank you again for your comment, and for reading Oakland Report. We wish you well.
Tasneem, I’d like to ask about a pattern in your coverage of me that deserves a response. Across your 2020-2025 reporting, I’m repeatedly described only as a “controversial organizer” or “activist and agitator,” while other political figures get substantive biographical context (occupation, organizational leadership, relevant history).
In your 2022 campaign finance story, for example, other candidates were identified by their professional and organizational backgrounds; I was listed simply as a “former District 3 council candidate” — no mention of my work as East Bay director for SEIU Local 1021, despite SEIU appearing elsewhere in that same article.
I also haven’t found a single instance of your coverage noting my national publication bylines, CBS contributor role, Cornell degree, or community garden work — while my role leading the successful Thao recall is consistently paired with negative characterizations. Can you explain this pattern of selective framing, and will Oaklandside correct the record?
I notice Tasneem doesn’t like to answer questions but she sure likes to ask them from others. She is a crumb bum hack is why.
It seems like the latest focus of Oakland Report is attacking Oaklandside. Wouldn't the best attack be to provide better, fact-based reporting that you allege is missing from their reporting? As a reader, I've seen a lot of what Oakland Reports is complaining about in the Oakland Reports articles (including grievous misinformation and one-sided articles that make no effort to mention the arguments raised by the unfavored side). Do fact-based reporting and soon other people will draw the comparisons for you, if your ongoing complaints are compelling.
Anne, thank you for your comment, but you are deflecting. If you have a specific rebuttal to the substance of one of Oakland Report’s articles, we encourage you to share it. Otherwise, people can read Oakland Report, the evidence it presents, and decide for themselves what to think about it.
Oakland Report’s analyses cover a range of topics, only a handful of which are about media bias. This one concerns Oaklandside’s series of asymmetrical candidate profiles that treat the OEA-backed candidates differently than the others.
Thank you again for commenting; your engagement is appreciated — even when it is a deflection.
The biggest deflection is that these education articles are pseudonymously written. I sincerely hope "Charlene Price" isn't a play on Charlene Wang and Pamela Price's names - as that would be super weird. Please at least confirm that it is not.
So, with this logic, the Oakland Report is objectively reporting about another journalist's supposed bias, and turning that into some kind of advocacy against "asymmetrical candidate profiles," rather than just producing their own symmetrical candidate profiles.
Sean, this is selective framing of selective framing, and calling it journalism. McBride does a great job of reporting on Oakland educational issues.
Rich, thank you for your comment, but like Anne, you are misdirecting, rather than addressing the substance of the article. Also, your comments about the identity of the author give the impression that you seek to personally discredit them somehow, rather than offer a rebuttal to the content of their work. Thank you for being an Oakland Report reader; your interest in our work is appreciated.
Maybe people are worried they’ll be treated like me and smeared with coordinated attacks from our own city working with Oaklandside (don't believe me, I can prove it).... It got so bad that I had to recall Thao just to get them to leave me alone ;)
Maybe that’s it?