Are those circulation numbers for all Seattle newspapers in general, or just for Seattle Weekly?

Yikes. This is gonna get ugly...

I guess I am mising the point.

It's like I said before about The Stranger -- it's a business and it does things to make more money.

If liberals in Seattle don't like pictures of black people (which seems a bit far-fetched) or of US soldiers (more likely) on the covers of their free-papers what are you going to do as a rational business-person? Go tell your readers to fuck-off?

Of course you'll bend; and I am quite sure that the Stranger also adjusts its covers to attract readers.

(In fact I have no idea what people in Seattle prefer in their free-paper covers -- I NEVER pick up yours...they are always just too cute for my taste and I have stopped even glancing at them.)

This sort of race-baiting is sickening, and is cheap even for Slog. Knock it off, cocknockers.

So why do you bother commenting here, Raw Data, if you think this site's paper isn't worth a shit?

As for this development... I keep telling people that Seattle is a city full of closet-racists, and that statistic only serves to prove my point.

If this story is true, and I suspect it is as I can't imagine Barnett putting it out publicly if it wasn't, then the Weekly needs to explain. If it came out that KEXP wouldn't play a band in their top 10 because they were non-white or they already had too many non-white bands in their top 10, people would be freaking out.

I have been reading the posts and thought this was all about the stranger just having fun at the weekly's expense. But because the reasons the Weekly have given for not putting Blue Scholars on the cover are actually false, and in light of Erica's post, it at least seems plausible Blue Scholars didn't make the cover based on race. That would be truly scandalous.

This whole "covergate" has been blown way out of proportion.

Listen, I prefer the Stranger to the Weekly, but your own insecurities and need to "one-up" the other guys gets a bit tired.

And, these accusations are just plain silly and far-fetched. It really comes off poorly for the SLOG, in my opinion.

Seattle Weekly is full of racist biggots!

Stranger staff are Seattle's PC police!

Making it onto the cover of the Seattle Weekly is the most important career breakthrough any band can have! A black band has been denied this because of racism.

To make up for this egregious racism, The Stranger will put Seattle's best black band on the cover of the next six Strangers!

But what if Seattle's best black band is not on the cover of the next six Strangers? Could that mean that The Stranger is racist too?

Is everyone racist? Is my cat racist? The sun is racist because it won't allow the moon to be seen during the day! How will the Stranger's PC police seek out and destroy all this blatant racism?

yes, your cat is racist. it's american ain't it?
and yeah, this city has a very ugly shadow. my vibe- and that of many nonwhites i know- since moving here has always been one of a subconscious, politely condescending racism. but such an allegation is of the utmost offense to the citizenry of such a 'liberal' city, that feels it's clearly progressive, that thinks racism is like polio- something their great-grandfather might of had, but science has since cured.

another interesting conversation is happening on this at http://seattle.metblogs.com/archives/2006/05/seattles_altwee.phtml

I think the issue now isn't just about one band being or not being on the cover. It's about the Weekly's overall editorial policy concerning putting non-whites, musicians or not, on the cover.

The Weekly should respond. I couldn't care less about which local band is on the cover, but I would be shocked if the liberal editorial staff at the Weekly was actually making decisions about who gets on their cover based on race. That is plain and simply called racial bias, also known as racism. It brings into question the almost-all white staff, definitely all white editorial staff, at the Weekly and their biases. This has actually turned into a real story.

Hey Stranger...when was the last time you beat your wife?

Hey, Seattle Weekl- ERRRRRR Not Amused, when was the last time you hung a black man in your front yard?

Talk about discrimination. What about all the bitches, whores, pimps slapping their bitches, niggers shooting faggots?

Why are most hip hop music videos full of pretty women with big tits, with 'niggas swiping ATM cards down their ass cracks?

This (non) issue is the typical crybaby Hip Hop response to any perceived slight. I'm so bored of Hip Hop promoting itself as holier that thou because of it supposed social message.

The Stranger is the perfect champion for a crybaby genre like Hip Hop. I hope The Stranger devotes all it's music resources to the important Seattle Hip Hop scene. Hip Hop deserves a publication like The Stranger to promote it.

So get the word out everyone, Seattle Weekly promoted a rock group instead of Hip Hop! Seattle Weekly is racist!

The Stranger is the only place to hear about Seattle's real music of the people Hip Hop. Hip Hop has real social consciousness. Hip Hop is not about promoting itself. Hip Hop is not about making money. Blahh, blahh, blahh.

ordinary reader, you clearly have never listened to the blue scholars. and if you have, then you are simply mad, because only the mad can connect the world Blue Scholars with the world on BET rap videos.

and FYI, this issue has not been brought up by the Blue Scholars, but by fans and journalists. ya dig?

Why should I listen to band that cares more about appearing on the cover of Seattle Weekly than making their music?

If they were real musicians they would have never allowed you to use them as pawns in your editors pissing match with New Times media. Sour grapes about another band's media coverage is a loser's game. Real musicians would have graciously congratulated all the winners and told The Stranger to shut up about the whole thing.

Also I beg to differ, Blue Scholars are in the same world as rap videos. Thanks to media saturation we are all in that world. Five year old children can do stripper dance and sing about bitches and hos.

Please don't not preach to me about the social consciousness of Blue Scholars. Their level of social consciousness is obvious from their recent actions, the hissy fit they threw about this nonsense.

Even Dolly Parton has more social consciousness than those lame ass hippie crybabies, and she could wipe the stage with their asses in a music contest too.

But by all means keep writing about how Hip Hop musicians are holier than thou, Hip Hop deserves people like you defending it. Make sure The Stranger devotes even more music resources to holier than thou Hip Hop. Fill a whole issue with social consciousness raising prose about how Hip Hop musicians are better than the rest of us and how we need their songs to enlighten us about the world's problems, blah, blah, blah.

The we're socially aware and you're not, blame everyone else for the world's problems attitude of Hip Hop is a perfect fit with The Stranger.

Their level of social consciousness is obvious from their recent actions, the hissy fit they threw about this nonsense.

the Scholars are on tour. they have not said word one about this. they have not thrown a hissy fit. get it thru your skull.

Also I beg to differ, Blue Scholars are in the same world as rap videos. Thanks to media saturation we are all in that world. Five year old children can do stripper dance and sing about bitches and hos.

so every single hiphop artist is at fault? this is bullshit, and the kind of logic the xtian right used to witch-hunt rock bands back in the day.

listen Tipper, how about, instead of questioning the legitimacy of hiphop as a whole, you address the actual issue brought up in this post?

eeeeeewwww....

Everyone else is racist and white people are to blame for the slap my bitch, and bang my ho's. Anyone who doesn't like songs about slapping bitches is a member of the Christian right.

"We want to be on the cover" "Why can't we be on the cover." is really all about social consciousness. The band accepts no responsibility for this publicity generating hissy fit.

eeeeewwwww...

More Hip Hop crybaby bullshit. The band may be on tour but they could get on their cellphone and send a gracious thank you to The Weekly for hosting the contest. Congratulate the other bands, and tell The Stranger to stop using them as a pawn in their fight with New Times Media.

But this is just a typical Hip Hop Hissy Fit...were holier-than-thou...everyone's racist...this is not about our ego's it's about social consciousness...blah...blah..blah...

I'd love to chat more but I've got to go turn over my Pink Floyd album.

OR - you don't know shit about anything. Neither Blue Scholars nor The Divorce have commented at all and neither should. Props to them both. They are both good bands deserving of any credit they get. The Stranger was poking fun at the weekly like they always do. Pretty meaningless. That original rib jabbing has now brought out some non-meaningless shit about the Weekly editors and their possible racial biases. It has nothing to do with music, bands, hip hop, or rock anymore.

This is not meaningless and has everything to do with Hip Hop which is always discussed along with race.

The Hip Hop scene is always ignored by Seattle media except for The Stranger. Erica Barnett's courage has shown everyone that because of racism, Hip Hop is not getting the media coverage it deserves.

It's possible that racists are currently editing Seattle Weekly, and choosing to promote rock bands instead of Hip Hop.

Blue Scholars could be bigger than Pearl Jam if the racism in Seattle were not holding them back. Seattle likes to think of itself as liberal, but I see a lot of hidden racism. In a lot of ways Seattle is as bad as the deep south.

The Stranger will continue to favor Hip Hop music and that should help get great music out there and fight racism too.

At least thanks to The Stranger Blue Scholar fans got the word out - Seattle Weekly is edited by racists.

I believe you've all been had by Dan Savage and his Nigga Scholar. They've stirred up this pissing match over race to show ya'll how stupid racial issues are.

Dan's mentor Andrew Sullivan had related nonsense recently about black millionaires suing their contractor over a remodel on their mansion. They called the contractor racist.

Race is a non issue in America with the rise of the black middle class. The Stranger is the first publication to use nigger, and now this pretty meaningless jabbing at the Weekly has shown how stupid claims of racism are.

Erica, where do I even start with your assertion about the Weekly? I've worked there for four years and have not once heard an assertion in any direction about African-Americans on the cover and what such images might/might not do to circulation. So what the fuck are you talking about? Do you have one shred of proof for your statement? Back it up with date and place and people involved. Did this happen under Audrey or Skip? Step up to the plate, Erica...and Josh and Dan and the rest of you Strangeristas for that matter.

Is the KoolAid at 11th and Pine so strong that not only did you instantly change your opinions of the monorail the minute you walked into the temple of wannabe journalists (from critic to sycophantic supporter in mere weeks!), but you are now, as far as I know, making up shit about the Weekly? Then again, why would I be surprised? You have Dan Savage and Josh Feit as models.

And for the few who might be thinking that there are racists at the Weekly get your butts down to our offices and say it to my face. Or did ya' miss that cover story my colleague Nina Shapiro did on immigrants being fucked over by the feds a couple of weeks ago?

And, as for where I stand on this musicially, I love the Blue Scholars and own their recordings. I love the Divorce and own their recordings. And in case you were asleep/drunk/sitting on Josh's lap at the time, Erica, I believe the Weekly named Blue Scholars as having put out the album of the year in 2004.

Erica, where do I even start with your assertion about the Weekly? I've worked there for four years and have not once heard an assertion in any direction about African-Americans on the cover and what such images might/might not do to circulation. So what the fuck are you talking about? Do you have one shred of proof for your statement? Back it up with date and place and people involved. Did this happen under Audrey or Skip? Step up to the plate, Erica...and Josh and Dan and the rest of you Strangeristas for that matter.

Is the KoolAid at 11th and Pine so strong that not only did you instantly change your opinions of the monorail the minute you walked into the temple of wannabe journalists (from critic to sycophantic supporter in mere weeks!), but you are now, as far as I know, making up shit about the Weekly? Then again, why would I be surprised? You have Dan Savage and Josh Feit as models.

And for the few who might be thinking that there are racists at the Weekly get your butts down to our offices and say it to my face. Or did ya' miss that cover story my colleague Nina Shapiro did on immigrants being fucked over by the feds a couple of weeks ago?

And, as for where I stand on this musicially, I love the Blue Scholars and own their recordings. I love the Divorce and own their recordings. And in case you were asleep/drunk/sitting on Josh's lap at the time, Erica, I believe the Weekly named Blue Scholars as having put out the album of the year in 2004.

Phillip. Seems like Erica has already put the goods out there. You should ask your bosses. I think we'd all love to hear from them. I am assuming the decision to put one band on the cover over the other had nothing to do with race, but all we've heard from the Chuck and Brian is ill-informed reasons. How about your editors directly deny Erica's claims. And Phillip, did you even work at the Weekly while Erica was there. Maybe a few months of overlap?

The racism in Seattle is subtle. And it's widespread. It's completely possible editorial decisions at the weekly have been made by good people who are in no way consciously racist, but who still have made editorial decisions based on race. I'd like to believe it's not so, but ECB's claim needs to be answered.

Jake, I worked with Erica for 12 months. We were friends and sat in adjoining cubes. Then, she went over to the Stranger and started stabbing her former colleagues in the back in typical passive-aggressive Seattle style. I think Erica had been at the Weekly for about a year before I got there, so any discussions of African-Americans on the cover had to have happened before I got there...and well before Skip and Chuck were on the scene. Erica and I are no longer friends.

Your point about the Weekly needing to answer her assertions assumes that her assertions have a basis in fact. As far as I know, they have no basis in fact. I think Chuck, Brian and I have done the best we can to answer hers and Charles' fictions.

The sad thing here is that in recent months there had been a measure of detente (dare I say respect?) between the two papers, especially in the wake of the Kyle Huff insanity where both of our papers kicked the dailies and tv stations' asses. Oh, well, guess Erica was having trouble finding news at City Hall and needed to stir up a hornet's nest. I still have respect Eli Sanders and Tom Francis, however. In fact, I think Tom was out drinking with one of my colleagues yesterday. In fact, I almost went along. Instead, I went home and watched the M's get slaughtered. Clearly, I should've been out slaughtering my liver.

Hope that helps, Jake. If not, let me know what questions you have.

The only honorable thing for the Blue Scholars to do is to give back the award. Taking an award from a racist is a disgrace. Blue Scholars will be better off telling The Weekly to take their music award and shove it. The Stranger will do more for Blue Scholars than the Weekly ever did.

Erica has been very brave to speak out for the racism at Seattle Weekly. We must all stand behind her on this because often the more someone denies being a racist, the more racist they really are.

So the more The Weekly says this is not about race, the more we all know that they are racist.

Ok, Stranger Reader, I've about had it with this horseshit. You are delusional if you think my paper is racist. And saying that by denying anyone is racist makes us racist all the more is the kind of shit that makes it impossible to even have an intelligent discussion with you. But if you care to make these assertions any further, get out from behind your computer and come on down to the office and do it to my face. As for Erica, she ain't brave--she's a lying piece of shit. Unless something strange went down before I worked there and there was another set of editors running the paper--one of whom now writes for the Stranger.

Blue Scholars must stand behind Erica the brave woman who spoke out about this racism.

It's about more than music now, it's about Blue Scholars standing with Erica, and refusing to accept an award from racists.

If the Blue Scholars keep this award now it would be caving in to racism and a courageous woman who spoke out and is now being called a lair for it.

The Blue Scholars and Erica should march over to The Weekly and hand back all the awards they ever received from those racists.

Blue Scholars are bigger than this, and don't need any best album of the year awards from racists.

Philip,

I'd love to believe the Stranger doesn't, and hasn't ever, made cover decisions based on skin color. In fact, I think most people give you the benefit of the doubt on this. But you and Chuck are creating doubt with your crazy posts on the Slog. You two are just making your competitor's blog more interesting to read and you both sound a bit crazy. Chuck coming over here and calling Charles "...a lazy hack". Then you calling people delusional, challenging them to fight, and calling another journalist in town a 'lying piece of shit'. You two sound like Jr High boys.

You say "Your point about the Weekly needing to answer her assertions assumes that her assertions have a basis in fact. As far as I know, they have no basis in fact. I think Chuck, Brian and I have done the best we can to answer hers and Charles' fictions."

The best Chuck and Brian can do is make claims that are clearly false. That's not very good. Why can't one of your editors counter Erica's claims? All we know is that you obviously weren't in the decision making meetings about the covers that Erica was in. That is more about the level you operate on than it is about Erica.

If I worked at the Weekly I would be concerned that my editors were making cover decisions based on race. Aren't you? Have you asked them?

This isn't about which band is on your cover, it's about much more important, and real, issues.

Now The Blue Scholars for sure need to give the award back. The Stranger has proof that Seattle Weekly is a racist sack of shit.

Blue Scholars should never again give an interview to Seattle Weekly, and deal only with The Stranger.

The Blue Scholars should make a public statement that they stand behind Erica Barnett and The Stranger and denounce racism in all it's forms.

Blue Scholars stand with Erica Barnett, she's being call names simply because she had the courage to step up and speak the truth.

Charles and Erica have proven that this is about much more than an music award. The Blue Scholars should thank them for telling the real story behind these awards.

A real anti-racist band will of course refuse to accept this award and take sides with The Stranger.

um i haven't threatened anyone with anything, jake. say something to my face simply means get out from behind your computer and back your shit up. how is that a threat? sounds to me like a challenge to people making dumb assertions about the weekly to actually prove their case with facts.

and erica is a lying piece of shit until she can establish that the conversations she alleges took place actually took place. and who was there. and so on. i'll die laughing if it took place when audrey was editing the paper because that will mean bethany was the managing editor....and she now writes for the stranger.

so step up erica. names, dates, places, context. and if this really happened then i wonder why erica took 3 years after leaving the paper to make an issue out of it. hm, sounds pretty opportunistic to me.

jake, you are the one who is sounding a bit off. to call me crazy for throwing shit back in the faces of people who are lying and making fool assertions is just childish. and under the circumstances, chuck calling charles a hack is totally fair, esp given the playground taunting the weekly has had to endure from the land of savage the last few years.

but yeah there's likely something beyond 'who was on the cover of the weekly' going on here in seattle. not just in slog and the recent discussions of the n word in the stranger, but there was something a day or two ago on sound politics about seattle schools' definition of racism. i'd hope though that whatever form whatever discussion takes that it isn't examined through the lens of hip-hop v. rock or blue scholars v. divorce or stranger v. weekly. it's all a bit bigger than that, don't you think?

Justin, what exactly are you claiming that erica and charles have proven? and by what means have they proven it? and how would one cover of the weekly with a white band on it make us racists when the blue scholars have been on the cover--if i remember right--of the weekly in recent years and when the weekly has written glowingly of their work?

An atmosphere of racism is hard to prove. People will always deny they are racist, and the more they deny it the more racist they are.

I'm glad The Stranger has the courage to call out racism even if it means getting called names.

It's clear to everyone now that The Stranger is right in calling Seattle Weekly a racist sack of shit.

I'm sure Blue Scholars could care less if racists like their work. It's about more than the music now.

The Blue Scholars will join Erica and Charles in facing down Seattle racism and refusing to ever again appear on the cover of the racist publication, The Seattle Weekly.

It's like that quote about the holocaust, they came for the...and I never spoke up and then they came for me.

Erica and Charles are preventing another holocaust from happening by speaking up about the wrong band appearing on the cover of a racist publication.

Brave and courageous people always get called names.

Stranger Fan, all I can say is yikes. you don't know me yet you are tossing around words like holocaust and calling me a racist. breathtaking. why don't you check in with carl mack about how he feels about me? why don't you also check in with ofc. ken saucier's widow or brother-in-law about me? why don't you check in with the racial disparity project on me? why don't you talk with...ah nm. you made up your mind long before this ugly little thread ever got started.

philip, judging from the style of writing and the poverty of imagination, I think stranger fan and justin are none other than the student--read any of mudede's post and you will see the similarities. jake, though, is a real intelligence.

According to The Seattle School district Blacks, Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asians, are always oppressed by the members of the agent racial group who have relatively more social power (Whites).

So yes all white people are racist no matter what they do and the more a white person denies being racist, the more racist they are.

Just try being Asian in America and see how easy it is to get a job and make a good living. White people always have the advantage.

Unless publications like The Stranger call out every single white person as being racist, nothing is ever going to change.

The Seattle Weekly can't help but be racist because racism is in the whole system, there's no way a white person can not be a racist, no matter what they do.

Until we get a black woman as president, and a congress of Asian women there'll be only more wars and oppression.

A black woman in power would never allow wars and oppression.

Thank you Erica and Charles for calling out racism, and we stand behind you no matter what names they call you.

The Weekly is racist and The Stranger is helping to make things better.

blue scholar fan also appears to be the student, so ignore those posts as well.

hey Philip...I think you need to take a chill-out here...as an independent observer w/out a dog in the fight, I'm reading Stranger Reader/Justin/Blue Scholar Fan as total satire...it's just too insanely over-the-top to be for real. Just trollin' and getting a rise outta you.

I think...I hope

philip, one more to look out for is racial watch. all of those posts are produced by the same program.

several posts on same theme...

What's insanely over-the-top is that Charles and Erica brought up this nonsense in the first place.

Shame on them for playing the race card.

oh philip. dumb move to reply to erica's rumor with venom and mouth foam and crazy. come tell it to your face? some of your best friend's widows...? that's really sad. if you weren't so fucking crazy, you'd probably be embarassed for yourself.

yeah some these folks are quite the treat. then again, i have been a bit overwrought today dealing with a sick cat (ie, foaming at the mouth sick).

wf, whoever you are, don't pretend to ever tell me anything about anything. i know why you are using the term crazy with me, little hater.

Philip, I recall this:

Weekly managing editor Chuck Taylor, responding to criticism about the Weekly’s decision to put the Divorce, a white band, on its Music Awards cover instead of “best band” winner Blue Scholars, a non-white band, writes in our comments: “We’ve had people of color on our cover twice in the past month.” Those people were: Harpeet Gill of Punjab Sweets (featured in a special issue on—cringe—“ethnic eateries”) and Steven and Julio Gonzalez, brothers of a jailed immigrant.

In other words, your paper willingly admits that the decision to not put the Blue Scholars on the cover of their paper was an intention act of racial discrimination. They had two covers with people of color, and decided not to put Blue Scholars on the cover BECAUSE they were a hip hop act OF COLOR. BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION.

Yes, your paper racially discriminated. Your editor admitted to it. Cut the shit.

BTW, that was taken from here.

The Stranger wins this round.
They've once again managed to fill Seattle's music scene with a shot of their venom and hate. We're so lucky to have writers like Erica and Charles helping us to build a supportive music community. (not)

why don't you cut the shit gomez ?

My god, what a stirring comeback. I retract every comment I have ever posted.

wasn't even an attempt gomez. let me close with what i opened with: erica is full of shit, the blue scholars and the divorce are great. and that settles it. bye.

Philip Dawdy didn't really just do the "Some of my best friends are black" thing, did he? Oh God, he did. He really did.

...."why don't you check in with carl mack about how he feels about me? why don't you also check in with ofc. ken saucier's widow or brother-in-law about me? why don't you check in with the racial disparity project on me?"....

And in an earlier comment, he said he almost went and hung out with a real live Stranger writer.

Dawdy might sound a little crazy and defensive, but give it up for him people, he's actually like totally down.

Keep pumping out the venom and hatred folks. That's what the Seattle Music community expects from The Stranger. Hey Blue Scholars with friends like The Stranger who needs enemies?

reposting here for dawdy eyes (now with grammar and spelling goodness):

Please, philip, tell me how come, if you've given the scholars so much print, why haven't you given them a front page spread in either this past issue or the issues that garnered them album of the year or top hiphop?

2004 cover:
http://www.seattleweekly.com/diversions/0419/040512_cover_big.php
2005 cover:
http://www.seattleweekly.com/diversions/0519/050511_cover.php

something is getting over spread, and it ain't the blue scholars, and it ain't hip hop.

I mean, why if Blue Scholars are so popular amongst your readers, are they not ever featured on the front page? the divorce is interesting sure, but when blue scholars won best hiphop album you didn't throw them up on the cover, now did you?

I guess they'll have to recieve less than overall votes, and win in the pop/rock category before you guys would ever consider doing that.

Philip wrote "but yeah there's likely something beyond 'who was on the cover of the weekly' going on here in seattle. ... i'd hope though that whatever form whatever discussion takes that it isn't examined through the lens of hip-hop v. rock or blue scholars v. divorce or stranger v. weekly. it's all a bit bigger than that, don't you think?"

I agree Philip. The thread has evolved past the music awards. When people ask for a response from Weekly editors about how they choose their covers, it's not about Weekly v. Stranger, any bands, or anything else, it's about how issues of race are handled at the Weekly. And it is prety straight up question. Either the editors discussed past covers in terms of skin color or Barnett is lying. Let's here from the accused. Your defense of them is laughable and childish, if not crazy. Your managing editor has been here to post twice already, it should be no problem hearing from him on something more serious.

Knowing how the made decisions in the past is certain to shed light on their decision about the current cover.

I applaud Jake for resisting the temptation to get involved in the kooky tangents here and stay sane & focused on the issue. His last comment summed it all up and asked the direct questions that need to be asked. Thank you, Jake.

You all need to calm down. I'm not accusing the Weekly of racism, and I don't think the Weekly's editors are racist. All I said was that, in several meetings I attended, the Weekly's editors, including the current editor, noted the fact that putting a person of color on the cover depressed circulation, a fact that circulation numbers backed up. I didn't take obsessive notes at staff meetings, so I don't have "dates, places and times." (Frankly, that's kind of an insane standard to hold someone to. Unless you're planning a defection or a lawsuit, you don't generally obsess about the details of weekly meetings.) I feel completely comfortable asserting that the discussions took place, repeatedly.

But more to the point, I think if there's any racism at play here, it's Seattle alt-weekly readers', not the Weekly's.

For the record, I started at the Weekly in July 2001 and left in April 2003. I guess Philip and I overlapped by about a year; again, I didn't keep track of exact dates.

Finally, I am neither lying nor a piece of shit, literally or figuratively, whatever my former colleagues may allege.

Erica, I (and I'm sure dozens upon dozens more like me) totally got your point the first time, with the comment Josh posted. Wish you commented here sooner so the thread never got as stupid out of control as it did. Non-whites = less advertising dollars. It wouldn't hurt anybody in Seattle to think about why that is. A little personal reflection, and then let's move on...

no shit...the rapidity with which utterly silly online sparks flare into full on flames never ceases to amaze me...

Erica,

explain how making a choice to keep someone off the cover of the Weekly based on their skin color is not racist.

And explain what you mean that the racism at play is among the readers.

we are still at the same point. Erica has made a serious accusation, Dawdy has denied it, the Weekly editors have ignored it after they already jumped into the debate here.

Jake,
As I read it, what Erica meant about racism among readers is that she remembers Seattle Weekly circulation numbers showing a drop when blacks or minorities were on the cover. If true, those statistics would implicate Weekly readers.

Simone Zealot: Exactly.

Here we go again.

"I wanted to be on the cover!" "Put me on the cover!" Everyone's a racist. How do you like my social consciousness.

ewwwwww....
You didn't just say that now it's not the Weekly Editors who are racists, now all the Weekly readers are racists?
ewwwwwww...
Why does every discussion of Hip Hop end up with whining about how everyone's racist? Please read Andrew Sullivan's posting today on why Hip Hop is so lame, and so over.

Ha..Ha..Ha..Just read Andrew Sullivan's posting.

The Weekly may have pulled a brilliant move. The smart money is looking for the next trend. Feature a fun new Pop band, and leave The Stranger with the Hip Hop whiners.

Erica does touch on a good point, that the trends of reduced circulation and readership when people of color are featured on the SW's cover are indicative of the tendencies of the SW's readers more than anything else. I don't, however, condone playing to such race-driven tendencies. You're only positively reinforcing closed mindedness.

Whether or not there is any legal guarantee of the winning band being featured on the cover, the fact remains that the band that won the SW's music contest did not get featured on the next SW cover, passed over for a white indie rock band because the winning act was an act of color.

Whether or not the SW's readers have some race-driven attitude problem, the point is that the SW caved and played along with their readers' own backwards prejudices, instead of exhibiting some sense of journalistic integrity and social responsibility. That's the biggest problem of all with this whole issue.

Also, if hip hop sucks, why was the winning act a hip hop act? I would think, if hip hop sucked, that local hip hop's best act wouldn't even warrant consideration in an annual music contest. The ass-coverage's logic isn't adding up.

Shoot us all...

Erica...while I appreciate your clarification, I still think you threw gas on a fire in this discussion, and given your own sense that you wanted to clarify, I think you realize that as well.

I have never worked at a Newspaper, but I'm sure the cover image decision weighs lots of different factors. Charging racism in the decision is a serious charge and if you are going to imply it, as I think Erica et. al have done, then you best have your shit straight.

Finally...let us not fool ourselves into thinking that the Band the wins the readers poll in any paper is necessarily the most popular band among the entire demographic of readers. Those contests are notorious for being won by the band that does the best to mobilize their own supporters to stuff the ballot box. So, it's entirely possible that the winning band is not well known by the readership, even though "hey, they won!" If you think this proves what the Weekly readers think, you likely misunderstand these contests.

All in all, I can't this a loss for the Stranger in the entirely unnecessary but all-too-prevalent pissing match between two papers who serve different markets.

Wow, the anger and pissiness over something so simple. I'd officially like to welcome Seattle to the 20th century. Cover and circulation correlation is nothing new people - this shit has been going on for years. It's been going on for years - it was a huge issue at Vogue magazine and it wasn't until the late 70s that there were Black (from any continent) models on the cover, I think not the until the eighties that there was a Latina.
Vogue's long defense was, ciruclation numbers will not be maintained if we a person of color on the cover. Period. If folks aren't comfortable with the term "racism" then let's try simple "predjudice". If there is a person of color on the cover, the "majority" folks tend not to pick it up/buy it. How these decisions are then elevated to "institutional racism" by the business entity is another story.

But, geez, you guys, did you really have no clue this shit goes on, either overtly or covertly?

The question that never got answered for me was: Why was The Divorce on the cover?

Are they on tour at the moment, has their coverage been poor, radioplay down - (shit, I've heard "connect 4" now more times than I ever played the damn game - and I played a lot. And I do love me some common market.)

So folks, welcome to the class "Circulation decisions we make at one point or other 101" and maybe someone can say what the tie in was for the Divorce on the cover.

PS: Stranger, now that you've called out the weekly, maybe all your covers in June can be works of art done by people of color who live in the region. Dare ya! (And if you enumerate like the Weekly the past covers... well, how does that make you somehow better? Or are you all really just about the swing and not the follow thru? Or as my aunt used to say: "instigatin')

Stone and everyone parading the cover/circulation issue, there's one significant difference between the Weekly (a difference which the Stranger shares) and major newspapers: the Weekly is a FREE publication, with a mostly built-in readership. With no financial cost to the consumer, there's no purchasing decision involved, that would warrant the need to judgmentally place and not place items on the cover, because the Weekly isn't going to lose any money from a short-term cover placement decision. Putting a certain someone on the cover is not a deterrant. Most people will read the SW no matter who is on the cover. Ditto the Stranger.

Circulation correlation among newspapers people pay to read is not a valid argument when the paper in question is a free paper.

i used to read mr. dawdy's articles, albeit only if i was on the bus and had nothing else to read. after his incredibly childish behavior here, i am bypassing anything with his byline. having a sick kitty is no excuse to dump on someone else, and quit taking things so personally, sonny. it ain't about YOU.

Gomez, good point but free weeklies answer to their advertisers and if advertisers perceive there is less circulation, they can ask for lower ad rates or not advertise based on certain covers. There is potential to lose revenue because of a short term decision when your advertiser quit you over types of covers or if they feel a low ciruclation cover is not delivering on the promised numbers.

You're right that advertisers are a factor, but what does it say when, even if the context is more involved, an advertiser drops a weekly or asks for a lower rate because the weekly had someone of color on the cover?

I cannot imagine featuring a hip hop act of color, that won a music contest of theirs, on a single cover is going to cost the Weekly enough circulation that any of their advertisers leave them for it or try to demand a lower rate whenever someone of color is on the cover, with a straight face.

And of course, what if said weekly runs an item in the next paper where they mention that X advertiser left or demanded a lower rate over someone of color being on the cover? How could you not mention that as a news source, especially when it hits you hardest of all?