News Seattle Times: Contradictory. Stranger Not So Much.
posted by on May 1 at 18:27 PM
David Postman thinks he’s found a contradiction between Erica’s wariness of airing the Stranger’s endorsement process publicly and my insistence last fall that the Seattle Times publicly explain its endorsement of Mike McGavick.
Postman misses the point of my demand that the Seattle Times explain themselves. The Seattle Times McGavick endorsement contradicted a long list of other longstanding Seattle Times editorial positions.
Indeed, at the time I wrote:
So, the question remains: What does the Seattle Times like about McGavick? In fact, I challenge the Seattle Times to add up the issues on which it agrees with McGavick (based on its editorial, I count two: storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain and repealing the federal estate tax) and measure them against issues on which it disagrees with McGavick (I count eight: the detainees bill, gay marriage, ANWR, gun control, net neutrality and media consolidation, teaching intelligent design in public schools, the war in Iraq, and Social Security). Seattle Times editorial page editor James Vesely did not return my call, so I’m stuck going off the paper’s endorsement to figure it out.
However, our Stephanie Pure endorsement didn’t contradict any of our previous public positions. Pure was a pro mass transit, renters rights, nightlife advocate. She also supported the surface/transit option for the Viaduct. She was in synch with our defining issues.
Unless the Seattle Times wants to claim that repealing the estate tax is its defining issue, their McGavick endorsement demanded an explanation.
p.s. Had we endorsed Jamie Pedersen, I don’t think we would have owed the public much of an explanation either (even though he was a tunnel proponent). Pedersen is a gay rights champion, an issue that we’ve been out front on.
Sorry, Dave.
For the last five years, Stephanie has been an asset to the yahoo group for seattlepop. Many suggestions for dance ordinances, show annoucements and a couple years ago, a few informative and generous posts on the legalities, protocols and financialisms of non-profit groups. I unofficially nominated her in a post of mine to be the next moderator of the group after the other guy left town.
Is it true that some of you are friends with Stephanie Pure? If that is the case, then you definitely should have disclosed that in your endorsement. I think not doing that is extremely unethical.
And please, everyone, stop the "Not So Much" thing. It's really tired and not the least bit funny or clever at this point.
I think Postman has a point here. Even if there are policy contradictions between previous Times editorials and McGavick's endorsement, the bottom line is that Frank Blethen, as the majority owner, can pull rank and insist on the endorsement. To Blethen, the inheritance tax issue probably trumps all else anyway.
Postman doesn't need to explain his paper's endorsement process any more than The Stranger, and frankly, I would prefer you follow their example, rather than post your internal pissing matches on Slog.
I don't remember Jamie campaigning on the tunnel. I believe that he has signed a letter calling for (or perhaps just a study of?) the surface transit alternative. I don't think he favors either the tunnel or a rebuild at this point.
@5,
At our endorsement edit board meeting during the election, JP came out strongly for the tunnel.
During the session, he signed the surface/transit letter.
egad, i've been up late, too late, recording, then I remembered this blog site of mine from last year. i updated it with new pics and new walpaper from a neato lookin tvshow i've never seen. i'll try to be more diligent in posting on it, but with a whole new theme, reminicent of the route 66 song "get your kicks, from sad censorship!"
There should be a public disclosure of all contacts between all media people and all the rest of us. They should list drinks and meals shared, any romantic relationships, land deals and promises for jobs especially with local government agencies.
We should also know about personal wealth and any internal relationships on the editorial board, particularly romantic, just to know if there are voting blocks and when it goes public if certain members' defenses of others are motivated by more than journalistic thoughts.
Actually, who gives a damn about endorsements - how did the stranger's list do? - not when they picked the favorites but their "special" friends.
Actually, doesn't The Stranger have a responsibility and duty to discuss its
endorsement process simply on basis it practices advocacy journalism?
You can't change the argument now, Josh. Regardless of your reasoning (the endorsement not following previous positions), you specifically said the Times should open up its endorsement process. Yet now The Stranger doesn't have to, because, in your eyes, your paper has been consistent in its endorsements.
Why don't you open up the process and let others decide if there are conflicts of interest? Your hypocrisy is showing.
(And yes, enough with the tired "not so much.")
Josh,
Why do you and ECB seem overly defensive on this issue? Usually when someone is defensive they are either hiding something or in the wrong. Which one is it for you guys?
Josh, your link to the Pure endorsement takes the reader to a different editorial.
@9,
we did open up our process. We duked it out on Slog.
Duh.
@10,
We're hiding something. Definitely that one.
[url=http://it.orge.pl/ben-harper.html]ben harper[/url]
Hello everyone, wanna be part of some kind of community, possible here? anyone here?
MSN I NIIPET
MSN
MSN I NIIPET
MSN
MSN I NIIPET
MSN
MSN I NIIPET
MSN
MSN I NIIPET
MSN
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).