Home | « Prev Next »

Media Under New Management

Posted by on April 11 at 10:02 AM

… New Times’ Seattle Weekly takes on the little guy: How contrarian. How interesting. Real Change’s Tim Harris responds.

CommentsRSS icon

1

I have volunteered as a writer for Real Change and it is an organization run by passionate, extremely hard working people. They're in it because they care about poor and homeless people and because they care about reporting news. I can't believe how tacky it is of The Seattle Weekly--an established, big money paper--to be attacking Real Change. What's next, high school papers? If the paper actually helps some folks get off the streets, they should be congratulated for it, not attacked because they fail to stop letting them sell papers. Come on, Weekly, find some real news. Stop trying to drum up phony controversies. And stop beating up people who are smaller than you.

2

And yesterday the Weekly had the audacity to criticize Tim for taking umbrage at the approach that the Weekly's reporter took in writing the article.

It was really kind of sad and yet somehow totally predictable.

3

well, real change could always do a response piece, about where the ad money for the weekly ends up (out of state) and does not lift a single finger in helping the local community.

4

let me be more specific in defining local community, cause someone from the weekly is bound to come here and try and take it to task. local community = the local homeless community.

5

I don't work for the Weekly (I prefer fair compensation for my work), but I don't believe it should be required to "give back" to the local homeless community just because it prints a predictable, alt-weekly expose of Real Change. That's like telling one of the dailies to contribute to McGavick's campaign after exposing his drunk-driving arrest.

6

seattle98104 As an avid reader of both publications, I can't help but laugh at this comment seeing how both have Ruxton as one of their main outside advertisers.

I don't think that the article was that bad, it's a discussion piece and if you feel that there is something wrong, then discuss, don't bash. I like how this was going, but bashing... not needed.

7

Nobody worth a shit gives a shit about the Weekly. Calm down.

8

@5 i was referring to ad money as the weekly's revenue stream where the profits are sent out of state, where as real change profits are invested in the local community it reports on. I wasn't talking about where the ads come from.

9

As somebody who strongly supports REAL Change, and what they do, not only for the homeless, but for Seattle's poor. I have to say, I agree with "What?", Huan's article wasnt all that bad. Certainly I didnt agree with his approach of "telling" people coming out of stores that the vendors werent homeless, that was certainly lame and uncool, but I thought that he did an ok job with the piece. I dont think he was picking on the vendors, and he had some good quotes from the vendors, Tim, and Street Sense from his former home in DC. Huan's style seems to be more east coast and more like his former City Paper in DC, and he will soon learn that its a wee different here, for better or worse, but hopefully he wont change his style.

I do hope that Tim answers him on the next issue of Real Change. Tim's hissy fit and f%%& the Weekly rant on his blog was pretty lame, but Im sure he will do a better job when they (he) writes it up in the next Real Change.

And for the record, I dont really care if the folks selling the paper are not all homeless. Im sure most people dont care either and will continue to support Real Change and their work.

10

How brave of them to take on such a powerful interest group. My suggestion for next week's Seattle Weekly piece: "The Disabled: They're Ugly, Slow, And Ruining Your Morning Commute." (Care to contribute to that one, ECB?)

11

The problem with the article was that it was set up like a take down and then the reporting was wish-washy. Casual Weekly readers who don't read the piece will think they shouldn't give to Real Change and people who read the article will wonder why they wrote the article when they didn't have the goods.

12

Before this, I'd assumed that the vendors were homeless. It doesn't bother me that a few of them aren't, but it is interesting to know more about how the paper works. I don't really understand the (over)reaction to the Weekly's article [#]

13

It's been somewhat common knowledge for a while that vendors of Real Change aren't necessarily homeless, and this is just SW trying to rub it in the world's faces. Too bad no one worth a damn is reading.

14

I completely agree with SeMe and Josh. Did any of you read the article? Agree with it or not, it's a very well balanced piece. Barnett pointing this out in the Weekly: how contrarian.

15

BULLSHIT this is a fair and balanced article.

Real Change employs roughly 250 vendors, who the paper claims are "the poor and homeless of Seattle." "We don't have to means test to know that we're serving poor people, because it's fucking obvious," says Tim Harris, executive director of Real Change. (This is apparently a sensitive subject for Harris, who, before this story was even written, wrote an 833-word blog rant entitled "Seattle Weekly: What the Fuck?" Harris' post castigates the Weekly for its supposed "angle" and says, "The word is that the Weekly is a pretty sucky place to work." Harris, who moved here from Boston in the '90s, also criticizes the paper for hiring "out-of-towners.")

No "fair and balanced" article would bother to add a parenthetical with the entire purpose of saying "Look how CRAZY this guy is. Look how NORMAL we are!"

The article is now an attack on Real Change.. however, once again, in classic New Times mode, the one chance of them putting together a potentially great piece gets ruined by the inate desire to pat themselves on the back before the piece is done.

So will all the New Times commenters on this thread under various psuedonyms praising the "fair and balanced" article just quit it already? You're all becoming incredibly fucking obvious.

16

Tim Harris admits in his response that the story was fair. His point is that he doesn't like the Weekly; and it seems that's the peg for Barnett's post. It's been a few weeks since the Stranger has set off another us-versus-them battle, hasn't it? Time to get your staffers to fan the flames by posting "yeah man the Weekly sucks" responses on the Slog to make it look like you have more people in your corner.

"How contrarian, how interesting" just comes off as jealousy, Erica. You wish you'd have written that story first - it's how we all feel when we get scooped.

IF the Weekly's story had been a one-source wonder or propped up by a Greek chorus of like-minded quotes, I'd see the point. But the story was well-written and frankly I didn't see any snark, as Tim Harris claims, in the piece at all. The only snark came from Erica. Indeed, how interesting ...

17

for my @15, change "now an attack" to "not an attack"

18

So, explain to me, all of the New Times people who commented on this thread, if this is a truly fair and balanced article, why is the title of this article "Not All the Pushers of Seattle's Homeless Paper Are Homeless"?

If it doesn't matter that Real Change employs only homeless people to help raise money for the homeless, then that's a superfluous article title, isn't it?

I don't expect actual humpback whales to ask me to donate to Greenpeace efforts either. So why make it the FUCKING TITLE OF THE ARTICLE?

The amount of battered spouse syndrome and delusion that many New Times reporters happily work under is unfathomable.

19

I never said, it was fair and balanced, I said it wasnt that bad of a piece. Ive been a supporter of Real Change since it started. Not only by buying it, but by supporting their auctions, fund raising, as well as their other work.

"If it doesn't matter that Real Change employs only homeless people to help raise money for the homeless, then that's a superfluous article title, isn't it?"

I agree.

Finally, can we we play the ball not the man. What up with the corny attacks?

I dont think Erica posted this out of jealousy. She is one of the better wonky journalists out there. She has no reason to be jealous of this piece. She just doesnt agree with it.

And I dont think people who think that the article had some merits are "New Times" types. Whatever that means. Thats just plain goofy.

I think Huan missed a lot on this piece, but it didnt read like an all out attack on Real Change. He is done some good work since he has been here. Hell Im always happy when a young writer of color writes for an alt weekly. Any alt weekly.

Like I said, Im looking forward to TIm's piece on the next issue.

Finally, I dont think this is going to stop people from buying Real Change, if it does than theyre lame.

20

I like the headline. I didn't even think to think if all the pushers were homeless. Now I know they're not. I'm OK with that. The article makes the case that other homeless newspapers employ a similar practice.

I also can understand Tim Harris' displeasure about the Weekly digging up an issue that isn't exactly news. But that is what alt-weeklies are designed to do. Perhaps he needs a refresher course in media relations.

I do not understand, however, why the article is "contrarian." Can someone explain?

And for the record, I do not work for New Times. Journalism jobs do not pay. That is why most reporters are disgustingly unattractive.

21

The headline I am seeing online is: "Not All the Pushers of Seattle's Homeless Paper Are Homeless" with a deck: "Should that really matter?" Some seem to be overlooking the deck.




Huan's story points out that anyone can sell Real Change. There's a chance someone who desperately needs help getting on his/her feet is being denied the opportunity to become self-sufficient because of RC's lack of screening or checking process. I think Huan did a good job trying to find some sort of accountability for this and I don't think sales of the paper will drop because of one story.


I don't work for the Weekly (or New Times, as you refer to it).


22

"Contrarian" because it picks on the little guy, as opposed to championing the defenseless.

23

Well this is weird. I just read an artile in the SW, also written by Huan Hsu, that left me with a much more informed and favorable impression of Real Change than I had before.

24

It's no secret that all Real Change vendors are homeless. The Real Change annual report gives the 2006 breakdown: 53% currently homeless, 39% formerly homeless. 63% disabled. Etcetera. All of that stuff is public information.

I don't think the Weekly piece was that terrible, but it was the sort of contrarian, "look-the-do-gooders-are-really-capitalist-hypocites" slam-dunk crap that really isn't news.

A similar story ran about ten years ago in London. A successful vendor at The Big Issue streetpaper was stupid enough to exaggerate what he earned to a reporter. The story made the public feel betrayed, and the vendors got hurt.

I needed to remind The Weekly that people care about Real Change in this town a hell of a lot more than they care about The Weekly.

I'll write a response in the paper, and yes, it will be serious. In the paper, I'm an executive Director. In my blog, I'm me, the person who swears in front of his kids, likes scotch, and is always happy to tell some idiot to go fuck himself. I'm happy to report that we haven't completely merged into the same entity.

25

Tim #24

"it was the sort of contrarian, "look-the-do-gooders-are-really-capitalist-hypocites" slam-dunk crap that really isn't news."

Sure, in certain Seattle crowds, competition and capitalism are seen as the root of all evil, and maybe that's how they read this article.

For me, the fact that Real Change uses capitalism to help the poor help themselves is what sets it apart from the standard charity treadmills (see Microfinance for another variation of this concept). The fact that some vendors are able to pay rent only proves its success.

Anyway, I will buy my first copy of Real Change to see your response. I'm hoping you'll address what was actually reported rather than what you imagine are the writer's motivations.

26

The problem is that there are hundreds of issues (thousands really) in Seattle and King Co. more critical and worthy of a lengthy investigative report that Real Change. It's lazy pathetic journalism and quite representative of where the Weekly has come to.

27

The Weekly staff will have to notice as they read the comments on various websites about this Real Change story the level of hard feelings that now exist among it's readership about the type of newspaper it has become.

28

Again I read both publications, and I myself have bought the Real Change several times, I've never read it, but I liked the cause behind it.

I used to write for local daily in a small town and I think it's refreshing to read any publication that doesn't pander to their advertisers or focus directly at protecting everyone's feelings, that's not what journalism is about.

Again, I like the Stranger, I think it's funny and entertaining. I like the Seattle Weekly I think it's a bit more mature and has more professional writers. That doesn't mean either is bad, they both serve a purpose and I don't understand why both papers can't understand that.

I think that people will continue to purchase Real Change, they might not really read it, but everyone likes to help people... I may be old-fashion like that, but I like to make people smile and every time I give one of the Real Change people a dollar or a bit extra I see that and you don't always get that now-a-days and isn't that what it's all about, helping?

But, Hey that's just me.

29

How generous of you to buy a paper that you don't even bother to read. Why don't you bother to read it? Do you think that a paper sold by the homeless and poor is not worth your time? The writing and reporting in Real Change is of a quality comparable to the Weekly and Stranger and frequently addresses issues and reports on stories these -corporate-owned-for-profit-so called alternative newspapers never touch. Real Change vendors are not beggars. They are selling a product that is easily worth the dollar they charge for it. I'd rather see you give the folks at Real Change the respect that they deserve and buy the paper to read. It might not make you feel as wonderful to purchase a product as to simply bestow your generosity on the vendor. But hey that's just me!

30

Has anyone else noticed that the negative "insider" comments come from disgruntled vendors that have been with the paper 3 months (Warren Goulet) and an implied 6 weeks (Donald Morehead)? Sounds to me like sour grapes. Pretty weak journalism -- a pointless attempt at muckraking.

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).