Letter: Rob Port went from watch dog to lap dog

Jordan is writing in response to Port's recent column defending Attorney General Drew Wrigley.

A person holds a letter with the text "letter to the editor" overlaid on the image.
We are part of The Trust Project.

I have followed Rob Port for eight years; from when he wrote for while having his sayanythingblog, to his then selling his words and his soul for money and opportunity, even when it meant selling out the people that once read what he wrote because he appeared trustworthy. Now, he acts like a cross between Jerry Springer and a bad movie.

Often what Port writes is an insult to the intelligent-minded and it raises the question why is he still employed because he brings a new low to media. So much of what he writes lacks common sense or factual information. He slings enough mud so eventually some of it will stick.

Former Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem had over 20 years to perfect a sound records retention policy. He failed to do so and Liz Brocker exploited what she thought she could; likely requiring both litigation and prosecution to get to the truth. It's similar to how he made a mess with open records law, which has so many errors that it does not even define what a “copy” is.

Proper opinion requests were often wrongly rejected and records were often withheld or destroyed. Furthermore, his task force did not include regular members of the public that rely heavily on open records law, and Stenehjem often inexcusably delayed opinion requests to protect public entities. But Port would rather suck up to government than expose the truth.

S. Paul Jordan lives in Mandan, N.D.


This letter does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Forum's editorial board nor Forum ownership.

What to read next
Koehler responds to recent letters about abortion.
Charles writes, "Now it looks like climate change will be the new weapon of control and your coverage is falling right in line."
Sims writes, "Voting to discontinue saying the Pledge of Allegiance because it includes “under God” was not a wise decision. It was not only an unpatriotic decision, but a foolish one."
Minch writes, "Our children and their teachers are not served by self-indulgent, virtue signaling motions from a member of the board that do nothing but display his inauthentic and misplaced 'wokeness.'"