This was actually mentioned on Drudge the day of her assassination. The story was framed, however, in a way that Parade would still run the cover story out of respect for her. Interesting that they're now saying it was because of their printing schedule...

Don't blame the Seattle Times.

Listen to Parade's publisher in this All Things Considered segment for some more info on the lead/print time issue.

Parade even put out a statement about this last week.

Many newspapers that include Parade had a statement about the issue in their regular portion of the paper (as you can see on google news - link deleted since this post was marked as spam).

Parade is (unfortunately) nationally distributed. Their website has a totally different headline, which would certainly seem to indicate that they f'd up and arenow just spinning it.

Parade(as well as Times' Sunday magazine)gets printed a few weeks before the issue date. Furthermore, Parade's printing is not handled by the Times. For all of the Seattle Times' other faults,it's not fair to call this a local Q.C. problem.

Yeah, you can't blame the Times for this. Parade isn't their publication and this issue was printed on Dec. 27. Apparently, Parade felt it wasn't worth the expense of reprinting the issue.

You really can't blame the Times for this one. Those type of inserts are printed totally separate from the newspaper and are just inserted. My guess is that everyone at the Times saw this when they opened their papers this morning.

Now, you could ask why newspapers still insert a piece of shit like Parade in the first place, but that's probably a whole long conversation about the revenue they get from inserts.

Well, it's a rather hysteria-ridden headline to begin with, isn't it?

@7, you're absolutely right -- The Seattle Times cannot be blamed for running the piece but they can be faulted for inserting the dreadful and utterly useless Parade. The only reason I ever open it is to look at the sentimental and patriotic porcelain figurine advertisements.

The porcelaine figurine ads, sure, but aren't you forgetting Walter Scott's "Personalities on Parade" column? One can't ALL one's celebrity gossip just from Slog! And what about the advice column from the World's Smartest Woman?

Way to show your irrelevance, Times.

re: Parade... this only serves to illustrate the Times' irrelevance further. What purpose does it serve to put an insert whose content is nationally syndicated and weeks old in your Sunday papers, other than to pad your paper's dwindling coffers? There would be more utility in ditching the insert and canning the more irrelevant op/ed writers on your staff (and lord knows the Times has a ton of them).

hey #'s 1 through 8: really now, did you expect anything deeper from josh "monorail! monorail! monorail!" feit? fact-checks? oh sure. secondary sources? yeah right. if we've learned anything from the current presidential administration, it's at least that shit rolls down hill. this rag has a sex-advice columnist for an editor for crying out loud. stop making excuses for the authors of these inane "news" articles, people.

Cute, Sporting Fellow, using SMP's website as your website.

Personalities on Parade is ok, but what about "What People Earn"? There's nothing like seeing what a poor waitress in Kansas makes to make you feel better about yourself.

In far more important media news, I've found a big piece of Bill Kristol smeared all over my NYT op-ed page. Is this permanent or can one somehow remove it with club soda or vinegar or something?

It's fucking Parade. What the hell do you expect, the fucking Pentagon Papers?

That's embarrassing. Nontheless, she wasn't much hope for anything. Horrible...woman...but just as horrible as any other politico given that much opportunity. Ask Fatima Bhutto about how wonderful auntie was, and how deftly she actually dealt with islamic extremism!

I gave up my daily print subscription about a year ago, because they were just collecting in the corner while I read the "news" online. I kept the Sunday paper, well, I don't really know why, except maybe for the ad inserts. Whatever the reason, I'm having a damn hard time justifying it. If I spend 15 minutes on Sunday pawing though the paper, that's doing pretty well. Meanwhile, I find plenty of time to visit Slog, HorsesAss, and other favorite blogs throughout the day.

Yes, Parade is nationally syndicated and was printed weeks ago, and the Seattle Times had nothing to do with it.

However, the Times had a choice of distributing it or not. They could have decided, no, this is too tacky, too out of date, and they would pull it. But they didn't. They were lazy. They shrugged and said: fuck it, run it anyway. They were lazy. Yes, they probably have some kind of contract with Parade. But I'm sure if they really wanted to, they could have pulled it. There was certainly a legitimate reason to.

Like the article itself, the Seattle Times is outdated and irrelevant, if not a bit tacky.

Heya, Reverse Polarity, it may be that the Seattle Times was contractually obligated to distribute Parade. Sure, there are phone calls and fine print and lawyers and whatnot, but it's plausible that they didn't want to rock the boat with their new NYT arrangement.

Speaking of the Sunday Times, did anyone else see the Horizon Air ad in section A that promised to help readers "fly over the Slog"?

Hey! Hey, the Stranger. I just thought you should know you can't blame The Times for this one, you douches.

What about Marmaduke? thats the only reason i read Parade. Marmaduke in Parade is watching a little car accident inside a bigger car accident.

And the latest tombstone for the failing print-MSM is....

Who reads the Times anymore anyway? I will stick to reading online except for once in a while. Although my views are far more to the right than the majority here, it is refreshing to hear people respond to a variety of topics. Also you get peoples full statement and not some glossed over condensed clip that was taken out of context.

I appluade "The Stranger" and other online sites that I read daily. Many contain insightful, well written posts and have the views of 100 various people.

Blaming the Times for this is pure ignorance.

"...you'd think the Seattle Times would have caught that one." !?

Wow. That's ... um ... not a firm grasp of how all this works.

Ya'll are beating up on the Times but every town has a corporate shill of a news paper, why do you expect Seattle to be any different? Why then are you surprised that they pad their paper with shit like Parade?

What concerns me more is all these (insert random american city) Times and (insert small town) Bee's are all owned by the same people so the information and ideas are the same in Fresno, California, Albany, New York, and Seattle, Washington. The corporations are the ones we should be mad at.

As for the Buhto story, why didn't they just pull the entire Parade this week? It's a Sunday paper insert for christ sakes! It's not like it's The New Yorker or something. Their loyal "readers" would have understood or gotten over it.

Next thing you know, you guys will be complaining that the Valassis coupon insert is out of date.

Yes, some publications have long lead times. The article simply underlines the pathos and tragic effect of the assassination, like receiving a letter home from a dead G.I.

You're right, the Times is worthless. You should boycott by not linking to anything from the Times in slog ever.

Seriously asshats, they give you half your content. Show a little appreciation.

@22 - Parade never ran Marmaduke. They did run Howard Huge, which is basically the same thing. However, they've been replacing it with new comics for the past few weeks.

Not that I read Parade, or anything.

Parade? Vomit.

Thus proving AGAIN that you've never worked at a real newspaper, Josh. Your "understanding" of the business makes you look like an even bigger moron. Keep talking, assjack.

Josh,

What would the Stranger news section be with out the Times and the PI's coverage? How many times a day/week do you link to a story their reporters broke?

No one reads the paper? Well, Josh certainly does.

Defending why it was normal to see the headline so late missed his point. How can a news medium survive in the era if it is printed so early and cannot be changed. Also, regardless of the newspaper business, it was creepy to see it appear that she is still alive.

What's most astonishing to me is that the morons at PARADE apparently didn't think that it was a possibility that Bhutto may not live to see their publication date. She was a sitting duck and their headline should've been tempered to reflect the possiblity that she may be dead when it was read.

But PARADE sucks dick, so who really cares.

The Chicago Tribune sent out the Parade magazine and they didnt' even have any disclaimer/mention of it at all that I saw in the main newspaper.I haven't looked at their website. But I agree, it's ridiculous.

"Yeah, you can't blame the Times for this."

Josh can. He blames the Times for everything, including not hiring him and his pitiful little paycheck.