Slog - Comments on Benazir Bhutto is the Best Hope Against Al Qaeda...

Comment by SeattleR

SeattleR — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:57:35 -0800

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...

Comment by stinkbug

stinkbug — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 19:01:40 -0800

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).

Comment by Gidge

Gidge — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 19:02:14 -0800

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.

Comment by CripKev

CripKev — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 19:21:55 -0800

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.

Comment by Prospero

Prospero — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 19:42:54 -0800

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.

Comment by Jo

Jo — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 19:57:02 -0800

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.

Comment by catalina vel-duray

catalina vel-duray — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 19:58:04 -0800

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

Comment by Jim Demetre

Jim Demetre — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 20:22:48 -0800

@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.

Comment by Eric in Boulder

Eric in Boulder — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 20:32:33 -0800

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?

Comment by Gomez

Gomez — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 20:32:55 -0800

Way to show your irrelevance, Times.

Comment by Gomez

Gomez — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 20:37:41 -0800

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).

Comment by Sporting Fellow

Sporting Fellow — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 20:38:26 -0800

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.

Comment by Gidge

Gidge — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 20:52:51 -0800

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.

Comment by elenchos

elenchos — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 21:21:50 -0800

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?

Comment by Gitai

Gitai — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 21:27:47 -0800

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

Comment by Tank

Tank — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 21:50:21 -0800

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!

Comment by I Got Nuthin

I Got Nuthin — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 22:04:10 -0800

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.

Comment by Reverse Polarity (formerly SDA in SEA)

Reverse Polarity (formerly SDA in SEA) — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 22:11:13 -0800

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.

Comment by Brooks

Brooks — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 22:27:59 -0800

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.

Comment by By the Way

By the Way — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 22:33:48 -0800

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"?

Comment by carissa

carissa — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 22:38:17 -0800

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

Comment by vooodooo84

vooodooo84 — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 22:52:53 -0800

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

Comment by Andy Niable

Andy Niable — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:07:47 -0800

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

Comment by Marmstro

Marmstro — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:40:00 -0800

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.

Comment by beans

beans — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:56:03 -0800

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.

Comment by Brandon H

Brandon H — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 00:10:57 -0800

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.

Comment by personality parade

personality parade — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 00:14:36 -0800

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.

Comment by Said it before..

Said it before.. — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 00:26:34 -0800

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.

Comment by Chris in Tampa

Chris in Tampa — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 02:39:25 -0800

@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.

Comment by Mr. Poe

Mr. Poe — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 06:35:01 -0800

Parade? Vomit.

Comment by God R.U. Amoron

God R.U. Amoron — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:22:25 -0800

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.

Comment by Curious

Curious — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:37:45 -0800

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.

Comment by TheTruthHurts

TheTruthHurts — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:45:55 -0800

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.

Comment by DOUG.

DOUG. — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:51:49 -0800

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.

Comment by krlock

krlock — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:55:35 -0800

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.

Comment by bigyaz

bigyaz — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:59:09 -0800

"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.