Commentary by URI Reporters and Guest Contributors
During the Shady Cove Council open hearing Feb. 17, two separate comments were made about the Upper Rogue Independent which we need to address.
The first comment was made by Councilor Paige Winfrey.
In the Aug. 21, 2025 council meeting Winfrey read a lengthy statement into the record.
In our Aug. 27, 2025 edition, the URI noted several errors in Winfrey’s Aug. 21 statement.
During the Feb. 17 hearing, in a discussion with Councilor Kathy Nuckles, Winfrey referred to that Aug. 27 article saying, “You and your friend Christy went out of your way to disprove everything, and maybe my research was inaccurate…”
Here the URI wants to be perfectly clear. All of our reporters, both staff and guest contributors, research and write their own articles in their entirety. Period.
On the occasion where two reporters work together, both names are listed in the byline. Period.
We would never use the words or research of an outside source in a news article without crediting that source via quotes in the article, or if the contribution was substantial, in the byline. Period.
That said, the URI has obtained public records documents proving that Winfrey “wrote” her Aug. 21 statement using ChatGPT as well as with further help and instruction from former city administrator Michele Parry.
Winfrey used the prompt, “using uploaded files, create a letter from the perspective of a councilor in response to a council member making surprise motions in 3 consecutive council meetings. also, recind (sic) my 2 affirmative votes in these matters.”
The public documents obtained consist of emails sent back and forth between Winfrey and Parry – from their official city email accounts – as well as access to the ChatGPT document.
Winfrey included several of Parry’s suggested additions, sent via email reply, verbatim to “her” Aug. 21 statement.
Possibly this is why Winfrey believes that URI reporters do not do their own research and writing in its entirety; though research and writing is our entire job and we have decades of experience among us.
Additionally, while we have said nothing to date, the URI suspected Winfrey erroneously believed the Aug. 27 article was not our sole work when Winfrey sent us a text Oct. 8, 2025 reading, “Good morning, I am now home and would like a copy of your notes and research refuting my council comments of Aug. 21st. I want to be able to correct any mistakes I made. Thank you. Paige Winfrey”
This raised a big red flag for the URI – first because Winfrey never corrected “any mistakes” from her comments following that Oct. 8 text and only admitted in the Feb. 17 hearing that her “research was maybe inaccurate.” Which happens when you rely on AI to write for you.
Second, and of most import, you never ask a reporter for their notes. Never.
Oregon takes the protection of the media’s sources very seriously. They are protected under Oregon’s “Shield Law” ORS 44.510 through ORS 44.540.
Per ORS 44.520 no reporter shall be required by a legislative, executive or judicial officer or body, or any other authority having power to compel testimony or the production of evidence, to disclose, by subpoena or otherwise any information related to their work.
The “shield” even goes beyond information related to news and includes unpublished notes, out-takes, photographs, tapes or other information, regardless of whether it is related to published information.
The statutes protect reporters from being compelled to disclose: (1) a source of information obtained in the course of work, regardless of whether the information has been published; and (2) unpublished information obtained or gathered in the course of work. Reporters also are protected from searches of their papers, effects or work premises, unless there is probable cause to believe the reporter has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.
It does not seem accidental that Winfrey asked for “a copy of your notes and research” which are specifically and clearly protected from being subpoenaed in any legal proceeding.
With Winfrey now having publicly stated she believes Nuckles had some hand in the writing of the Aug. 27 article (again, no) and her comments in the Feb. 17 hearing that she believes accusations against her are a “coordinated attack” and were “simply an attempt to intimidate me and get rid of me,” her Oct. 8 text seems to be an attempt to end run the Shield Law and hope the URI would just comply.
We did not. Winfrey was instead sent a pdf copy of the published Aug. 27, 2026 edition of the URI in its entirety.
The second comment made about the URI (and in this case also the Rogue Valley Times) during the Feb. 17 meeting was made by Councilor Jeff Vanier who said maybe Winfrey had not leaked the confidential attorney-client privileged information – but the media had.
First Vanier asked, “At every executive session that we’ve had in regard to this matter, we’ve had a newspaper reporter?”
Continuing he then said, “We’ve had a newspaper reporter, and who’s to say maybe one of their newspaper reporters had a leak? Because this information was given to all of us, just like the newspaper reporters.”
First, no. The information was not given to “the newspaper reporters.”
The email stating Winfrey disclosed attorney-client privileged information outside of an executive session is not public record. No reporters have seen the email. Copies were not given to reporters to read in executive session.
Second, and again we are going to be very clear here: No representative from the Upper Rogue Independent has ever disclosed any information from an executive session.
We do wonder, however, if Vanier publicly makes false, unfounded and slanderous accusations to deflect attention from another councilor’s wrongdoing, where is his “line in the sand” should he be questioned by council or citizens at some point in the future.
