The headline says it all.

In a gesture of absolute control freakdom at a newspaper in total free fall, the Oregonian has gone to their “golden goose”, Luke Heimlich, for a seventh straight day. Only this time, readers can’t comment. This has actually been the policy for several days now. If there is dissent, they lock the comments.

Kind of ironic, since the Oregonian will likely hide behind “free speech” when this goes to trial. Per reports in the comment section of my blog (from members who know the family) a lawsuit is in the offing. Even if that doesn’t happen, why would a Beaver fan ever read that site again, and why would any athlete grant an interview knowing The Oregonian will do background checks and smear them? Total free fall! By egging the golden goose, they’re simply cementing their fate.

John Canzano and the Oregonian continue to double and triple down on their Luke Heimlich hit piece. Today, Canzano beat a dead horse and posted yet another piece in which he seems to think that having a DA from Oregon, John Foote, on the program gives his staunch stance merit. The DA goes on to opine about how serious the crime was (nobody doubts this), and how it would be handled differently in Oregon. The very obvious logical flaw is that the crime didn’t happen in Oregon; it happened in Washington. So, they’re comparing apples to oranges. Canzano and Foote, fueled by self-righteous emotion, simpleton logic and this flawed comparison, once again crucify a man who served his legal punishment and was on his way to becoming a contributing member of society. Canzano is milking Heimlich’s misfortune for all the ad revenue he can get, and get that revenue he does.

During a break, an ad plays from Dolphin II, a strip club in Beaverton, Oregon. From what I understand, this club basically hires young women to dance. In 2011, the owner of Dolphin was accused of sex crimes. In 2015, a pimp went to trial for selling a 15 year old girl to Dolphin II and received life in prison. Jurors found him guilty on seven counts of using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct.

On Twitter, Canzano addresses this problem and appears confused or ignorant that Dolphin II advertises on his show, and goes on to say he’ll ask for them to be removed. Shortly later, at 2:23pm, the ad plays again.

You can’t make this stuff up.

Truth really is stranger than fiction. Canzano is throwing stones; today we confirmed he lives in a glass mansion.

When the story of Luke Heimlich broke a few days ago, I patted the Oregonian on the back and said job well done. Reporting sexual assault of a star jock, going up against a powerful institution, and talking about a prevalent yet taboo subject all seemed like noble moves on the surface.

However, as the Oregonian continued to double-down on the story at every opportunity, I began to realize this wasn’t just a “public service” announcement, but rather that they seemed to have an agenda. My opinion changed decisively on Friday, when John Canzano wrote this piece.

The problem? Canzano telling Heimlich, an adult who has no pending criminal charges, and by all accounts an adult who has been a model student since arriving on campus, what is best for his future. If Canzano was simply upset and felt the original punishment was too lenient, then writing a piece saying so would have been appropriate. But this case went through the courts and everyone got their day and/or served their time.

Take a look at Canzano’s wording:

But I do know what Heimlich should do today. Recuse himself. Sit down.

I know we’re talking about two men named John and Luke here, but these aren’t apostles, they’re laymen, and his self-righteous wording sounds eerily biblical. It was at this moment I sensed we had a virtue-signaling, self-aggrandizing, self-righteous, high-horse hit piece on our hands.

“Recuse himself”? That sounds like a demand you’d hear from a God-fearing minister 50 years ago. “Sit down” [and not pitch]? For what active crime? As widely reported, Heimlich pleaded to certain charges and served the punishment that the courts, not John Canzano, deemed appropriate. My advice for anyone upset with a verdict, yet not a direct party in said verdict: if you didn’t like the outcome, and you are truly an advocate for victims (which would be noble, if true), then take it up with your local politicians and the courts. Become a true advocate through meaningful causes that enact change. In this instance, why doesn’t John/The Oregonian donate all ad revenue generated by this sensationalized story to the victim or a social program specializing in molestation rehabilitation?

But that hasn’t happened. I’m not convinced this was ever about the victim.

If we take a closer look at John Canzano, the picture isn’t of a man who sincerely cares about victims.

1. According to Canzano’s article, if you extrapolate National figures, there should be approximately 70 registered sex offenders on the OSU campus. How many of their victims has John reached out to for stories?
2. The State of Oregon as a whole has 28,736 registered sex offenders. Again, how many of these victims has he reached out to?
   
3. There is strong evidence, from psychologists (acknowledged by the Oregonian themselves, and also strengthened via anecdotes shared by my readers, which I will post at the end of this article), that suggest making victims relive the experience is actually worse for them. So what does John do? He supports the publication of this story on the eve Heimlich is set to pitch the biggest game of his life. The story, of course, would be picked up by National papers, placing National attention on Luke, but more importantly, on the victim Canzano claims to care about most.

So personally, I don’t see a strong advocate for victims here. In fact, his words ring hollow, and the self-righteous nature of the piece screams of a man reacting emotionally in a way that just happens to benefit his newspaper. And that’s what this was always about: the Oregonian receiving the most attention possible to drive ad revenue, while hiding behind a thin veil of morality, caring, indignation, and justice. I can’t speak for the victim, but I know if I were the victim in this case, I’d find their transparent insincerity nauseating rather than visceral. On top of that, the entire world would know I was molested. Canzano never explains how this helps the victim he claims to care about so much. Nor does he ask the victim’s mother. One would think a sincere, caring individual would follow up and ask how much his article has helped. Yet, as of today, there is no article where the mother is quoted saying how this story has helped her daughter.

In my research of John Canzano articles, he almost always takes the contrarian position in order to maximize the Oregonian’s ad revenue. Even to the point he contradicts himself continuously.

Canzano opens himself up to examples of contradiction via the firm stance he took on the issue.

Some people, myself included, don’t believe a registered sex offender has a place on a major college athletics team. I don’t believe an athlete who has committed a violent offense, including domestic violence, belongs there either. — John Canzano

Let’s see if that’s true. Nope. In 2009, Canzano wrote an article praising Oregon for letting Rodney Woods, a Duck who committed Felony Assault in a case involving murder, get a “second chance.” Clearly John believed this player, who committed a violent offense, belonged on a football team. A football team in Oregon no less. If you read the article, he seems to view it as an uplifting redemption story. In the same article, he is open to giving LeGarrette Blount a second chance as well. Why? Well, because John is being contrarian to sell newspapers, and stories of redemption sell. Later, John writes this piece, which is a feel good story about how Blount made the most of his second chance.

Again, this from the man who wrote:

I don’t believe an athlete who has committed a violent offense, including domestic violence, belongs there either. — John Canzano

And what standard does he hold coaches to? When Oregon State head coach Mike Riley swept sex abuse under the rug, Canzano didn’t call for his firing. Yet, when Oregon basketball coach Dana Altman did the same with a (alleged) rape case, Canzano called for his head. Or did he? Two years later, when the Ducks are in the Final Four under Altman, Canzano shifts his tune and calls Altman:

A terrific coach. A deeply religious man. — John Canzano

How did Altman go from being an awful human being who covered up rape to being a terrific coach who is a deeply religious man? You could say Canzano got more information and changed his mind. Fair. But there is such a long pattern (Google his opinions of Ben Roethlisberger and Michael Vick) of inconsistent opinions that it’s hard to believe Canzano stands for anything except writing whichever stance will drive the most clicks on any particular day. Some days, being contrarian and bashing a coach gets the most attention, and some days writing a feelgood story sells the most papers. Canzano knows when to write which, and so that’s what he does. It leads to wildly inconsistent viewpoints and just exposes the man: his moral compass has a dollar for a needle.

What Canzano did is what I would call a “virtue signaling money grab”, veiled as a moral crusade for victims. It is truly sickening. Virtue Signaling is defined as:

noun: virtue signalling; noun: virtue signaling

1. the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one’s good character or the moral correctness of one’s position on a particular issue.

One more piece of brilliant yellow journalism must be discussed. In this piece, still riding high on his horse, Canzano states, “The warm ovation for Heimlich from the crowd of 4,000 before Oregon State’s game on Friday night was troubling. It’s the kind of stuff I’d expect from fans at Baylor or Penn State. Maybe I’m missing what that ovation was about. But I don’t think so.”

Note how distorted, self-righteous, and sensationalized his viewpoint is.

1. John wasn’t even at the game. Fans who were actually at the game confirm what was being cheered were general introductions.
2. John compares the situation to Baylor or Penn State, two places where the institution was actively covering up ongoing criminal activity.

I could literally go through every bullet point in that article and point out Canzano’s distorted perception and grandiose, but I won’t insult your intelligence and instead will just assume everyone can see through him at this point.

So on that note, on to Danny Moran.

Moran could, and probably is, making the argument that, “I just reported facts that I found,” which is a fair stance. But the question with Moran is how he found those facts. He claims it was during a routine background check. However, per two former Oregonian sources, background checks are not “routine” (more below).

This is the Oregonian’s official stance on why they published the story.

Danny Moran, who covers the Oregon State baseball team for The Oregonian/OregonLive, didn’t set out to tell this story when he began interviewing Heimlich in March for a profile about his success as a pitcher.

He interviewed Heimlich on three separate occasions about his baseball background and his emergence as one of the Beavers’ biggest stars.

But journalists must always follow the story where the facts lead us.

After those initial interviews had been conducted, Moran performed a routine background check – something we do on profile subjects

This leads to more questions than answers.

1. Why do a background check after conducting three interviews?
2. What does he mean that journalists must always follow the story where the facts lead? Luke said something that lead them to do a background check?
3. As noted, background checks are not routine, per sources, so why was one done in his case?

It seems more likely that they had completed their three interviews with Luke, and then someone tipped them off. This would fit the timeline better and explain why they did a background check after finishing interviews with him. A comment on the Oregonian article, which I can’t verify as fact, suggests as much and read as follows:

leahyfan
Routine background check is a lie. Heimlich’s estranged mother tipped them off the night before the most important start of her son’s career. Background checks are not SOP and most Oregonian reporters questioned said they had never run one on an athlete in 20+ years of beat reporting.

In researching this article, I made direct contact with a Oregonian writer who said in 30+ years of reporting for that paper they never conducted a background check. A second Oregonian writer confirmed background checks are not routine. Today, on After the Whistle, Moran confirmed that he has been talking with the victim’s mother, and that she continues to support what the Oregonian is doing.  This is consistent with the mother working with the Oregonian to push this story.

Another piece to this story, and one that I think was completely overlooked by Moran, is the significant distinction between juvenile courts and court for adults. As a member of my site eloquently explained it: