so why is the Seattle Times outselling the PI? why is the Times the only paper that's going to survive?

You're right Josh. This is nothing new. Man, that's awesome, and you get paid for this!

Tone Deaf,

Yeah. I do. A lot.

Don't go for second best baby. Put your love to the test. You know, you know

Josh,

The Seattle Times is not a Seattle paper. It's a regional paper and most of it's editorial board lives outside Seattle and I would suspect most of its readership/circulation (or at least the growth)is outside Seattle.

Maybe it should be called "The Seattle Area Times" or "The Washington State Times" because it doesn't reflect our city.

The Seattle Times was wrong about I-920 and I-937 too. They were on the right side against I-933, but that's one that almost every daily in Washington got right.

Make him express how he feels and (baby?) then you'll know your love is real!

And oh god they endorsed Stephen Johnson?! (barf) Susan is a great lady AND she has a hot son.

Express yourself, hey, hey, hey, hey. If you want it right now baby show me how. Express whatcha got, baby ready or not!

Or should I say instead?...nice post Feit!

This is exactly why I cancelled my 13-year Times subscription a year and a half ago, and subscribed to the P-I instead.

Another area in which the Times is woefully out of touch is its nightlife coverage - the P-I always seems to be the only one covering stuff I want to see.

I suspect many on the Times' editorial board disagree with the endorsements. Bottom line: Frank Blethen owns the printing press, so he gets the final say. I also suspect Blethen doesn't care how much his opinions are out of synch.

I'll take Tim Keck's bully pulpit over the one on Fairview any day.

I think your point is irrelevant Josh. What is the paper's responsibility when it comes to political endorsements? Is it to anaylze and issue and make a recommendation based on that anaysis or is it to simply tell voters which way the winds are blowing in the city/county/region?

Does the SECB make its recos based simply on how they thinks voters will actually vote or in line the paper's politics?

Providing an opinion, no matter how popular it happens to be, is democracy. Making recommendations based on how they think everyone will vote anyway is American Idol.

And besides, there's a place for a minority opinion in a democracy right? Democrats should be keenly aware of that after the last six years.

PA Native,
Yes, endorsements are about analyzing an issue. That's my point. The Seattle Times ed board analyzed and made recommendations on a number of issues. Similarly, voters in Seattle analyzed the issues—and voted.
Well, the Seattle Times analysis appears to be out of sync with its readers' analysis. That's not irrelevant.
However, judging from the outcome of the elections, it sure seems like the Seattle Times ed board is a bit irrelevant.

Thank GOD I didn't subscribe to the Seattle Times, despite all the PRETTY PRETTY BOYS they sent to my door BEGGING me to make them my morning news tool!

Two newspaper town, bitches!

Mmmmm. . . .Tim Keck's bully pulpit. . . .

Really Josh? Do you get paid enough to sign a release form for an artist to film and act like a jerk outside your office? Nothing too controversial, just something like reciting de Tocqueville's 'Democracy in America' while you write Psychedelic Furs on their chest in some fake cum?

The Editorial Board at the Seattle Times should be honest with their endorsements if they expect to have any credibility, which they don’t anymore.

They agreed with Maria Cantwell on every issue (except the estate tax, of course) and wrote several articles praising her job performance, then went on to endorse Mike McGavick based on nothing more than their gut. Well, their gut sucks.

Their endorsements were so contrary and inconsistent with the opinions that are regularly published in the paper that they don’t make even the slightest bit of sense. It’s the total hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty that people are pissed about and rightfully so!

I should also add that they disagreed with McGavick on every issue (except the estate tax) and they endorsed him anyway. That is so sleazy, yuck!

And what did the Seattle School Board do that got the Times' knickers in a twist? The Times HATES the Board and they can't even say why. Somehow, according to the Times, everything good that happened in Seattle Public Schools for the past three years was directly due to Raj Manhas and despite the Board, yet everything bad that happened is directly due to the Board despite Raj Manhas.

This was the first year I saw the voters agree with SECB endorsements as a whole. Usually whatever the Stranger endorses loses. Congrats on one of the best years on record!

Nap XIV:
I will not have my bully pulpit objectified by you.

JOA rules!

Anyone notice that when the Times did its week in review on Sunday that it mentioned the failure of I-933 (the land use initiative) and the overturning of Ref 1 (the strip club referendum) but conveniently forgot to mention the ass whooping I-920, Frank's beloved estate tax killer? An oversight? Perhaps...