Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Suck That Carrot, Girl | Josh Isn't Kidding »

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

It’s About Time

Posted by on January 18 at 14:55 PM

In a long-overdue Seattle Weekly cover story this week, Seattle’s elder weekly finally comes down from its snooty perch (“Seattle’s Smart Alternative”) and writes about the stuff we’ve been covering for years. They venture into the real Seattle—a city of bars and nightclubs and oppressed strip clubs—and, as we’ve been doing forever, attack Seattle’s lurch toward nanny statism. It’s a welcome editorial change.

For years, the uptight/upright Weekly has ignored these issues—hell, they’ve repeatedly attacked The Stranger for prioritizing these issues as news. But we’ve slogged on, pushing urban values and defending urban vices week after week—stripping, strap-ons, postering, drinking, getting high, mass transit, more drinking, density, free speech, getting high while postering , and all-ages shows.

As the Stranger’s news editor, I’m glad (and kind of flattered, actually) that the new owners at the Weekly are following our lead and allowing one of their writers to get a little riled about the issues we’ve been screaming about for years. The piece reads like a summary of issues that Stranger readers are all-too-familiar with, maybe even a little bored with already.

But these are not boring issues. So, better late than never. To encourage the Weekly’s new editorial direction, we’d like to help out by bringing them up to speed on issues that they’ve been a little too mature or uptight or too serious to cover. We think the Weekly’s new owners will find this quickie primer— including the story where we broke the news about the smoking ban’s idiotic 25 foot rule and the story where we brought the unconstitutional de facto ban on strip clubs to the city’s attention—super useful! Welcome to the city, Seattle Weekly. But what took you so fucking long?

Read up on strip clubs here, here, here, here, here, here, here , here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Read up on the Poster Ban here, here, here, and here.

Read up on the recent smoking ban, including our Edit Board recommendation to Vote No, here and here. Read up on team Nickels’s Anti-Club Joint Assessment Team here and here. Stuff on the Unfair Alcohol Impact Area here, here, here, here,here, and here. Read up on the Teen Dance Ordinance here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.


CommentsRSS icon

Speaking of stripper stuff, can anyone give me a recommendation on where to get stripper shoes? I tried Metro on Broadway, but I don't find their selection very impressive.

Josh is afraid of dogs.

Experience under the viaduct: http://www.experienceshoes.com/

Josh, GREAT post.

Excellent recommendation. Thanks!

Also, Broadway Boutique across from Jack in the Box on Broadway has a decent selection of cheap ones.

You guys may have covered the individual issues identified in Dawdy's Nanny State article, but you have NOT written the article he has written here.

Yes, you've written about each the Smoke Ban, the four foot rule, and Alcohol Impact Areas (though Dawdy's angle on AIAs is completely different than the Stranger's. Dawdy focuses on the discriminatory impact on poor folks who are not "public inebriates," but our neighbors who -unless we live in some tony ‘hood - we see in our corner stores buying Wild Irish Rose, Thunderbird, or whatever their fav cheap buzz is AND GOING HOME TO WHERE THEY LIVE TO DRINK IT!).

But you haven't written about this policy trend in Seattle and tied it all together with individual examples supporting a broader thesis. This Dawdy does.

Not only has the Stranger not tied it all together like Dawdy did this week, but the Stranger hasn't really examined the implications of the fact that, "The ick factor is at the core of most nanny-state laws." We are all engaged (and enraged) about the trend of decisions being made in the courts and at other levels of government, based upon a narrow (white, male, moneyed, hetero) definition of acceptable behavior. Shouldn’t we have the same conversation about how Seattle policy makers are making decisions with similarities to precisely what, we in Seattle claim, we dislike in national politics?

In your rush to tell us that you "got there first," I think you missed something really important.

Also, this piece was not the result of the blessing of the new owners of the Weekly. I had a drink (okay, drinks – AND cigarettes!) with Dawdy weeks back and he and I talked about this story idea then.

P.S. ECB – re: “Which people, Philip?” Dawdy talks to Meinert just like you do!

Holy Cats that's a lot about strip clubs.

Your beating up on the Weakly is unseemly. Please stop kicking them while they're down.

Maybe someday they'll figure out what they're purpose is and do it, but in the meantime focus on what you're purpose is, and make it better.

Someone's gotta kick them, Yacht boy. And who said they were down? Banal, yes. Fewer pages (as Dan's informed us ad nauseum), yes. But certainly not down. They just got bought by new ownership with deep pockets! Hell, they may be six months from glossy covers.

Criticism fuels improvement. And yes, please ignore my tongue in cheek haiku on the Forums that technically contradicts this statement.

Regarding the last long comment defending the Dawdy article, blah blah blah. I read the article too, and I think it's simplistic and whiny. I suspect it's the smoking ban, much more than any of the other issues, that really get Dawdy riled up. I frankly don't understand why some who choose to inhale carbon monoxide (and feed the coffers of these death merchants) get so upset that those of us in the majority who choose not to might wish to enact some sort of sanction against it in public. But I understand. Democracy's a bitch, brother.

LH,
The Stranger has written about the class issues of the AIAs. (It's the obvious point to make, don't you think?) Check the articles I linked. Also, go on our web site and search the topic. There's plenty of articles I left off the list.

Dawdy puts a lasso around several issues, which is perfectly legit for a think piece. As I said, his shot was a welcome editorial change up.

However: Dawdy's article leans heavily on the smoking ban as his main example of Nanny statism. I think that issue is much more complex than the sweeping treatment he gives it. The article sort of assumes that the smoking ban is oppressive. I don't think—as opposed to the poster ban or the TDO—that the smoking ban is that clear cut. Putting up posters or dancing doesn't hurt anyone else. Second-hand smoke does. Anyway, just check out the debates about it that have been raging among progressives for months in our Forums. With Dawdy relying so heavily on the smoking ban, his article felt a little forced to me.

For example, his awkward tangent about the Dept. of Health website as a form of discrimination against smokers was unconvincing. From his description, it sounded like the site—using a game—was aimed at pre-teens and teens. Sounds like public money going to fight big tobacco's efforts to addict young people to cigarettes. Is that the government's job? Totally! It's an obvious public health issue.

Anyway, the Weekly has always been more of a paper to throw lassoes around issues than to be on the ground breaking news and covering them consistently—so, I guess Dawdy's story was actually a pretty traditional Weekly story.

It's the subject matter that made it a bit different. And that brings me to what I said about the approval of the new ownership. I guess I should have said Dawdy was "seeking the approval" of the new ownership. While, New Times hasn't officially taken over yet, a New Times head honcho did come to Seattle several weeks back. I'm sure the sense of re-applying or auditioning for one's job has been in the air ever since. (Lord knows enough people have left the paper recently.) This Libertarian story by Dawdy is classic New Times. That's all I meant.

After all, it's curious, that the Weekly has been pretty silent on these issues for years.


Oh, and one other thing about Nanny Statism & the smoking ban that makes it more complex than the poster ban or the TDO or the strip club stuff.

The people, not "the State" , put it on the ballot and passed the fuck out of it. So, I'm not sure it's the best example of Nanny Statism.

Yes, that's the point. The smoking ban was actually put into effect by voters, not nanny state representatives. Not that they didn't have something to do with it. But anyway, let's do a little comparision: strip club restrictions result in fewer job opportunities, or worse, eliminating the means/livelihood for countless struggling artists, actors, etc., girls earning a few bucks while finding their way in the world. The smoking ban? It means that similarly minded young people who don't happen to smoke will no longer have to breathe it in and come home smelling like some ass ashtray. Or develop health problems because of it.

Dawdy is addicted to cigarettes and on a loony attack campaign against Roger Valdez. I grew up in a house with smoking parents (both dead, before 50, from smoking) and it gave me severe asthma which made me a giant fatass until my 20s and it is child abuse. Dawdy acts like even bringing this up is the arrival of the SS. Wanna freak on fascism? Listen to an hour of right wing talk radio. However he's right about everything else. Cheap beer and strippers will not give you cancer, or even asthma. I'm drunk right now, by the way. Don't have a car. End of story.

I am not usually much of a weekly reader, typically prefer the Stranger, however it is interesting the two most talked about Alternative Weekly articles in recent history are both coming from the Weekly. KEXP and the Nanny State. Criticize the shades of the content all you want, The Weekly has the city talking more than it has in a long time. Got to give them props and wonder who at the Stranger is sleeping or on vacation.

Touche (tooshay), Amy.

Although, it's here on L'Etranger's Slog that the city's talking! And that Seattle City Council Members are making news! And that people are checking in daily to see what's up in the City.

But touche touche. The Weekly did file a pair of notable articles. At least we're happy to talk about 'em. In fact, Eli Sanders followed up the Weekly's KEXP article, citing their good work, and then talking directly to John Richards about the controversy—a bit of journalism 101 that the Weekly neglected.

When we publish pieces that get widespread attention or break important news (most recently, I'm thinking Megan Seling's article on FSU from two weeks ago), the Weekly is scared to mention us.

I went back and read your links. AIA coverage in the Stranger has, in recent years, been exclusively focused on chronic public inebriates, which the paper sometimes refers to as "poor drunks."

I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about regular people like you and I, who work, have families, and places to live - but buy this stuff and go sit on their couch, watch tv and wind down after a long day. (I confess - I went through a stint in my salad years when I loved Mad Dog, Kiwi/Grapefruit. I have other friends - grown ups in their mid/late 30's - who buy some of these "banned" products too - you know, when one is a little light in the wallet!).

The Stranger has made no reference to people who are NOT drunks who LIKE these products because of cost, taste, and culture since the days of allyhollygolly (ever hear from her?) I remembered this, cuz I've been begging ECB to cover this angle. There are corner stores in every city with regular people as customers who buy this stuff.

I wish the distributors (or the Stranger!)would do a market analysis of their customer base. I'm willing to bet that 70% of the people who buy these banned products are not street drunks at all. I think THAT would be big news (and a fresh angle).

Josh, this story idea was under discussion for months -- since before the election, and therefore since before the merger announcment. It might be classic New Times, but I'm not so sure. It's definitely classic Seattle Weekly.

We aren't doing anything different in anticpation of the ownership change, in terms of news coverage or anything else.

As for John in the Morning, if we had explored his salary -- a digression from the broader issue of KEXP's fiscal health -- we would have asked him why he had so much back pay and bonus money that year instead of letting that stand as an unchallenged justification. That's Journalism 101.

I have to confess I'm puzzled by how breathlessly you guys nit-pick everything we do, as though your crap doesn't stink. You don't seem very comfortable in that Stranger skin. The two papers are very different, which is the whole point of having two papers.

Are you a writer for the Seattle Weekly?

I'm the managing editor.

The problem is, no one ever pays any attention to what you guys write. Leave the job to a better paper like the Weekly and the issues will finally get noticed.

Jack,
That's kind of an odd thing to say, since—like so many other people—you're posting here.

I guess the reason you had to cite your earlier coverage of these stories is because they were so easily forgotten. I really used to enjoy the Stranger and its gritty reporting of a decade ago. It made a difference. Now it's insultive and childish, kids playing newspaper. That's the worst part: You had class, once.

I like this site!

Hope you come back soon!!

Follow your dreams, you can reach your goals.

Hello! Very interesting and professional site.

Your site is amaizing. Can I share some resources with you?

Your site is amaizing. Can I share some resources with you?

Hey man...sorry I missed the party.

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).