The Seattle Times Explains
Seattle Times Managing Editor Dave Boardman just sent me an email explaining why his newspaper isn’t supporting Seattle Congressman Jim McDermott in McDermott’s big First Amendment court fight.
(I wrote about the McDermott case in this week’s Stranger, and earlier this morning, on the Slog, I raised some questions about why the Seattle Times hasn’t joined the 17 other media organizations that are backing McDermott through a “friend or court” brief—or, if you prefer the Latin, an amicus brief—that’s been filed in the case.)
Hi, Eli.I was out of town when your question about the McDermott amicus came in. Without access to my records, I couldn’t recall absolutely whether we had been asked to join in the case, though I thought we had. On returning, I confirmed that we had in fact been asked by McDermott’s lawyer to file an amicus brief. We declined, not because we don’t support the underlying First Amendment issue but because of the journalistic conflict of interest that would arise with us taking an active position in a case which we continue to cover closely. We weighed that conflict against the negligible legal benefit of The Seattle Times joining a long list of amici already involved, and decided the conflict prevailed.
It’s an interesting position — but it’s also worth noting that this is not the position taken by the Hearst Corporation, owner of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
Still for a one newspaper town, Eli?