Yeah? So what?

Sorry to intrude on your moronic logic, Jost, but I don't think people are using the Teen Dance Ordinance as the litmus test on this issue.

Why not go back and do some research on where each paper stood on say political endorsements for President, Governor, Senator, etc?

Why not go back and do some research on where each stood on the War in Iraq?

And, just for kicks, why not explain to us your position of why you don't care either way of having more editorial voices in the Seattle market? why, oh why, josh, if you're such a progressive, don't you care about the public having choices in media?

seems like you may not only being contradicting eli sander's story, but also the mantra of alternative journalism, too.

Who Gives A shit?,

I'm using the Teen Dance Ordinance as a litmus test because my original Slog post, the one that some readers though contradicted Eli Sanders's editorial, was, wait for it... about the Teen Dance Ordinance. That's why I wrote in my follow-up Slog post today: "Let’s set the record straight on this idea that the P-I provides an alternative view to the Seattle Times on teen dance rules." Well, the record shows it didn't.

As for "josh, if you're such a progressive" ??? I'm not such a progressive. I'm just against a crackdown on teen dances. I think that's stupid public policy...and bad for kids.

Meanwhile, with or without the PI, the public already has several media choices: from Right-wing talk radio to predictable KUOW; from Seattle Channel to KING-5; from The Puget Sound Business Journal to the Seattle Sinner. There's also plenty of blogs for alternative views. I hardly think a member of the Hearst chain that endorses Democrats in Seattle is particularly important. And lemmee guess—and I didn't have to do any research here— I'm betting the PI came out against the war.

Now, as you know, there are several mantras here in alternative journalism land. There's "Kill Whitey!" (That's my favorite mantra.) There's "Morning in America!" And there's "Be fruitful and multiply."

Now, which mantra do you mean?

I switched to the Seattle Times for four days because the PI is such a propaganda rag. Holy shitski! The first day the Seattle Times had a front page article on Riechert that was clear shameless propaganda for image rehabilitation! At least the PI shows their love for Bush somewhat covertly and has regular ongoing disconnect between local and national Herts paper editorial policy. Plus the Times has some seriously not-ready-for-prime-time local (column) writers. And the baseball reporting is better in the PI, say I. I will not start my day ever ever again with the Seattle Times on the other side of my cereal and coffee, no matter how sucky the PI is or whether it disappears.

Josh Feit: Let's Go to the Video Tape

OK, Josh: Let's do a reality check on your revisionist slogging -- from the Slog itself.

You say: "I'm using the Teen Dance Ordinance as a litmus test because my original Slog post, the one that some readers though contradicted Eli Sanders's editorial, was, wait for it... about the Teen Dance Ordinance. That's why I wrote in my follow-up Slog post today."

While, yes, your original post was specific to the TDO, in looking at the posts that ensued -- including your own -- the discussion became far more generalized about PI and Times editorial stances.

In fact, the first posting that questions whether you contradicted the Sanders' article doesn't even mention the TDO. Rather, it raises a broad issue about whether you think having two daily newspapers is good, as well as questions whether your opinion on the subject contradicts the Sanders article.

In fact, you responded that you DID CONTRADICT THE SANDERS story; and in your response, you also speak in generalities not exclusive to the TDO issue about the two newspaper situation and Sanders story.

Then, later on in the thread, other posters also raise the issue in differences between the two papers' editorial stances. Their posts ALSO SPEAK IN GENERAL TONES THAT ARE NOT RESTRICTED SOLELY TO THE TDO.

Don't believe me? Well, let's go to the actual slog postings -- maybe these will jog your revisionist memory, Josh:
--------------------------------------

So Josh, basically what you're saying is, it IS good to have two daily newspapers in this town?
Doesn't that contradict your cover story from a couple of weeks ago in which the Stranger declared who would give a shit if the PI closed?
Posted by Everett - March 30, 2006 11:58 AM

Yes, it does contradict that story.
But I didn't write that story. News writer Eli Sanders did. And even though I'm the news editor here, news writers like Eli Sanders are free to write long feature pieces that I might disagree with. (I wont hold my breath for the long editorial in the Seattle Times by a Seattle Times staffer that contradicts Balter's edit on the TDO.)
Although, correct me if I'm wrong: The real point of Eli's story was about the rise of web-based journalism and the opportunity for the PI to break out of the paper vs. paper scenario and go 100% on-line.
Posted by Josh Feit - March 30, 2006 12:12 PM

Speaking of revealing editorials, The Stranger has become the most outspoken proponent of becoming a one newspaper town. They insists that the Times and Post Intelligencer are the same, same, same. But The Stranger, a rogue empire builder, spills gallons of ink when the dailies disagree and show their two colors, which, one might notice, are red and blue. Let's review:
Times: Bush
PI: Kerry
Times: Blame the kids
PI: Blame the killer
Today’s Times: No assisted suicide
Today’s PI: Liberty at Risk
So I think this warrants the question, "Why is The Stranger so adamant that the more progressive of Seattle's dailies should be flushed?"
Without the progressive PI, The Stranger could take try a new edge in reporting - and advertising. Never mind the news would come a week late, the daily voice would be more conservative and The Stranger would be a few mere drops for the thirsty. Perhaps this push for a one newspaper town is not in Seattle's best interest, but in The Stranger's.
Posted by Street Smart - March 30, 2006 04:16
----------------------------------------

Based on the above evidence (not to mention your own short, selective memory), the only conclusion can be that you're wrong, you're a revisionist and you're a liar.

And yes, wait for it ... you're a moron!

(And this doesn't even take into account your altering your argument to fit your self-righteous needs of never being wrong in regards to the basic tenent that journalistic diversity makes for a better society).

Sorry for having to dispell your delusions by using your own paper's blog, and your own writings, for that matter, to set the record straight.