From Paul Wharff

I'm a big fan of Portland. It's a great town. There's little, if any, obnoxious snow or ice to throw off drivers, ruin shoes and break bones. The summer heat comes without the deadly summer humidity that plagues the summer months in the East. Everyone owns a Prius, another compact hybrid or feels incredibly guilty about driving something else. Sure, many Portland residents dress as if a walk downtown is a trek to base camp at Everest, but that has not stopped creative chefs from making the city one of the nation's most exciting places to dine.

But as much as I love the City of Roses, I have to wonder why The New York Times mentions Portland in so much of its reporting. Just this morning, reading the paper at breakfast, I noticed that not one, but two articles made passing mentions of events in Portland.

There were signs on Friday that more cuts might be necessary. At two malls outside Portland, Ore., the electronics stores were the only ones that were full of shoppers. But people seemed to be gravitating toward lower-priced items like video games instead of televisions. (Source)

At Washington Square, a suburban shopping mall in Beaverton, Ore. [a Portland suburb], most stores opened at 6 a.m., but the Disney Store was open at 4, and the J. C. Penney at 3:30. "Anyone motivated to get up that early is really looking for the deals," said Jonae Armstrong, the mall's property manager. (Source)

(Emphasis added)

It is as if simply mentioning Portland makes the Times more credible, more fashionable or more appealing. So strange.