Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, March 17, 2009
City / Media How Did the Seattle Times Become a Local Media Villain?
Posted by Eli Sanders on Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 8:00 AM
As Seattle's oldest newspaper gets tossed into its last recycle bins, it's worth asking: How did Seattle's other, younger newspaper, The Seattle Times—which at 112 years old isn't really that much younger—become the bad guy?
Because it's hard to ignore the fact that, amid the long death throes of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, a perception has somehow solidified that the P-I was the city's kooky, radical granny who unfortunately died too soon, while the Times is Seattle's rigid, angry, conservative grandad who many people quietly—and some people not so quietly—wish had died instead.
The negative sentiment regarding the Times isn't unique to our comment threads. The paper's reporters and boosters feel it in the world at large, and have been privately complaining of late that the Times is getting a bad rap. How, they wonder, has the newspaper owned by Hearst (meaning, the newspaper owned by a giant, suit-run, New-York-based corporation) become a martyr dying on the cross of local journalism while everyone in town prostrates themselves before the eternal beauty of its inherent goodness? How is it that Hearst strings a bunch of local reporters along for more than two months, keeping them in agonizing suspense about something as simple as their last day of work, then ultimately breaks the P-I employees' union in order to form a smaller, union-less online entity—and yet Frank Blethen, whose family owns the Times, is somehow still the city's worst employer and most notorious union-buster? How is the product run by a national conglomerate the underdog and the product run by an area family the establishment? How is it that in buy-local Seattle, the locally-owned paper is, in certain quarters, the subject of something akin to organ rejection at the same moment that the city is about to lose a vital civic organ?
Here's a representative (and not isolated) e-mail from a Times employee who has been wondering these very things, and is miffed that the P-I is currently leveraging its moment in the sympathetic spotlight to snag contributors like Congressman Jim McDermott for its online-only incarnation:
So how do supposed liberals like McDermott and etc. justify contributing to a "paper" that just shitcanned the union and hired back people at substandard wages and benefits? I am surprised no one has brought that up in this supposedly Union town.
The most basic way to answer this question is that, while journalists and politicos tend to understand who owns the city's media outlets, as well as the relevant details of those owners' beliefs and business practices, the average person really doesn't understand such things. What the average person probably knows is that the P-I has been around longer, has a liberal editorial page that is far more in synch with the Seattle ethos, and is so much a part of the city's fabric that Seattle's very skyline would be incomplete without the paper's iconic neon globe. While, on the other hand, the average person probably knows that the Times endorsed George W. Bush in 2000 and Dino Rossi in 2004 and 2008, has nothing close to a landmark presence in the cityscape, and is owned by a guy who once shot his neighbor's dog with a pellet gun. (Which is not even to get into the critique of more informed media observers who describe the Times as the more suburban, sluggish, and aloof of the two papers.)
Because of all this, the Times starts off with two strikes against it in the general consciousness. Its conservative editorial page makes it an outsider, as does the character (or, perhaps, caricature) of its owners. That's a hard hole to climb out of by trying to argue, as the Times and its supporters do, that whatever the politics of the paper's opinion-mongers, and whatever the eccentricities of its ruling family, it puts out a far superior news product.
More relevant to the moment at hand: Once the P-I is gone, the Times won't even be able to make the "superior product" argument. The two products are about to become so different that the old side-by-side style of comparison won't apply, with one a bloggy aggregator relying on a small news staff that is vowing to break a lot of old journalistic rules, and the other a slimmed-down behemoth still trying to straddle both the print and online realms while relying on more traditional journalistic notions.
In a way, there's an opportunity here for the Times. Right now, whatever the merits of the sentiment, the Seattle Times—the SEATTLE Times—is not seen by enough people as a true voice of this city. It wouldn't take much, though, to start turning that around. And, somewhat ironically, if they're looking for cues on what direction to take, the people who steer the voice and reputation of the Times could start by leafing through the recent archives of the paper that today just printed its last edition.
Photos from inside the Seattle Post-Intelligencer newsroom by Eli Sanders.
2
Something that those of you in the journalism business don't seem to "get": most of your readers and viewers are not as interested in the inner workings of the business as you are. We want to read or watch the real news, not to read or watch journalists' opinions and gossip on the news industry. In other words, while the staff at The Stranger and your friends in the biz might be sitting around talking about Seattle Times as the "bad guy", most of Seattle is not.
3
You'd think at $9/bottle Erica would just take someone out back and blow them for it.
Wait, that wouldn't be feminist.
Stealing is taking from the man!
Being liberal is fuuuuuuuuuuuuun!
Wait, that wouldn't be feminist.
Stealing is taking from the man!
Being liberal is fuuuuuuuuuuuuun!
4
It's Blethen. He really is a dick. He tried to kill the P-I for years, not realizing that he would end up falling on his own sword (you just watch). That nasty approach, combined with his antics re: estate taxes, conservative cheerleading etc. made him an ogre.
And of course there are the ridiculous republican endorsements...
And of course there are the ridiculous republican endorsements...
5
In a nutshell: It's the right-wing editorial board--with their insufferable, intelligence-insulting op-eds--and their general contempt for "liberal" Seattle.
I wouldn't piss on the Times if it were on fire.
I wouldn't piss on the Times if it were on fire.
7
I worked at the Times for nine years and loved competing with the P-I. I moved here from a one-newspaper town and knowing the P-I was down the street kicking ass made me up my game. Pretty much all the folks I worked with at the Times enjoyed that friendly competition, but I remember a certain amount of arrogance from a few Times managers when it came to the P-I (actual quote: "We don't consider them competition!" - followed by a "harrumph!"). WTF? I considered the P-I competition and they made me do a better job. Thanks, guys.
BTW: HATE the Times editorial board. Most of the newsroom does.
BTW: HATE the Times editorial board. Most of the newsroom does.
8
Endorsing that fool to end all fools, George W. Bush was enough for me. I wrote at the time he would be the worst President in our history. I'm no rocket scientist, but it seemed to me he left Texas with a shitload of problems. He didn't have any regard for logic and common sense. And he clung to dangerous notions that coddling the rich would benefit everyone. Add to that his contempt for women's rights and a thinly veiled appeal to racist notions about education would have long term consequences for our ability to compete on the world stage. So the Times showed it's hand as a tool of right wing ideology that left this country with ruined economy, ruined military, ruined health care, ruined education, ruined world reputation, on and on ad nauseum. So, what did they do for an encore? Endorse Dino Rossi! UGH!
9
A gem from Frank:
"The city has taken a strong ultraliberal, pro-labor stance," Blethen said in the article. "We have seen zoning changes at the whim of whoever is in charge and the city uses the Clean Air Act to penalize employees who have cars."
"The city has taken a strong ultraliberal, pro-labor stance," Blethen said in the article. "We have seen zoning changes at the whim of whoever is in charge and the city uses the Clean Air Act to penalize employees who have cars."
10
Technically the Seattle Times is 117 years old. The paper existed for 5 years before the Blethen family bought it. Frank tends to not mention that.
11
We used to subscribe to the Times for years. Why'd we switch to the PI? The strike. If you don't know about the strike, look it up. It encapsulated the entire Times vs. PI argument.
12
It really is Blethen's fault. I worked at the Times for several years and noticed a change in perception during the strike. Hearst sat back and smartly let Blethen play the bad guy. He huffed and sulked and then didn't have the balls to actually try to break the union. Then he purposely ran the paper into the ground to get out of the JOA, all the while looking like a douche. The people who work at the Times are talented and hard-working. They routinely break the stories that matter. But because of an idiot for an owner, the paper has become hated -- and unprofitable. Get out of the spotlight, Frank. No one likes you.
13
I seem to remember an anecdote about how union workers were treated during and after the strike earlier this decade. From what I remember, the Times immediately put a fence around their property as the strike began (as if reporters would deface the side of Fairview Fanny). And after the strike, returning workers were looked down upon by management. By contrast, the P-I didn't put up fences, and when the workers returned gave them a standing ovation.
I also don't like their conservative editorial board and focus on "regional issues" over Seattle proper, but I've always felt that I'd rather support a company that doesn't treat its employees with contempt (even if they paid for a bigger staff).
I also don't like their conservative editorial board and focus on "regional issues" over Seattle proper, but I've always felt that I'd rather support a company that doesn't treat its employees with contempt (even if they paid for a bigger staff).
15
It's quite simple Ely.
Basically this town is shifting more conservative, and away from the more liberal slant of the granola crunching, eco rabid activist, fringe, alternative vocal minority.
No longer willing to be silent, the average King county resident is standing up and demanding that they are tired of the ultra PC, eco terrorist cabal of liberals that try to shove their elitist agendas down the throats of the majority.
We've had enough. This is just a very public example of that feeling.
Get used to it.
Basically this town is shifting more conservative, and away from the more liberal slant of the granola crunching, eco rabid activist, fringe, alternative vocal minority.
No longer willing to be silent, the average King county resident is standing up and demanding that they are tired of the ultra PC, eco terrorist cabal of liberals that try to shove their elitist agendas down the throats of the majority.
We've had enough. This is just a very public example of that feeling.
Get used to it.
16
Eli,
Thanks for not mentioining that the Times endorsed Barack Hussein Obama in 2008. We wouldn't want to could your pre-planned narrative.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/ed…
Thanks for not mentioining that the Times endorsed Barack Hussein Obama in 2008. We wouldn't want to could your pre-planned narrative.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/ed…
18
No one's mentioned so far the endless editorializing for estate tax abolishment, Frank Blethen's ONLY business plan for the past 20+ years.
Also the financial problems of the Seattle Times were further exasperated by the personal extravagance and follies of the Blethen family. For example: purchasing most of the newspapers in Maine, living like software billionaires while their industry was in obvious decline, employing their weak minded children. In the Blethens defense however, the New York Times' Sulzbergers were no different and facing the same issues.
Also the financial problems of the Seattle Times were further exasperated by the personal extravagance and follies of the Blethen family. For example: purchasing most of the newspapers in Maine, living like software billionaires while their industry was in obvious decline, employing their weak minded children. In the Blethens defense however, the New York Times' Sulzbergers were no different and facing the same issues.
20
You know there's a P.R. problem when people prefer a Hearst run paper to the the local alternative...the Kane's, er, I mean Hearsts have been reviled for over a century...Frank really needs to hire a good p.r. company.
21
It's pretty simple to me. The Times has a more suburban orientation, which is where the money and the people are. That irks people in the core, but it doesn't matter. No one I know outside the city limits got the P-I.
22
How?
By not reporting on local news, except to hate on Seattle and our proud liberal patriotic traditions.
That's how.
Not. Buying. Seattle. Suburban. Times.
By not reporting on local news, except to hate on Seattle and our proud liberal patriotic traditions.
That's how.
Not. Buying. Seattle. Suburban. Times.
23
@21 FTW
Also, does the Times still even have an editorial page? I thought that got abolished along with the lifestyle section and local news reporting...?
Also, does the Times still even have an editorial page? I thought that got abolished along with the lifestyle section and local news reporting...?
24
Best P-I cover ever:
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/truk27.sh…
(original print headline: "This One's On The House")
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/truk27.sh…
(original print headline: "This One's On The House")
26
Just wait until P-I bloggers discover how much fun run and gun SLOGGING can be!
I'll have to go start promoting them to come over here
I'll have to go start promoting them to come over here
27
Speaking of @ 26,
Can we PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE get registered commenting, like now?
When the nutcase, rightwing psychos that stuff the PI's comments get done with Slog, it'll be unreadable.
We need commenter executions post haste!
Can we PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE get registered commenting, like now?
When the nutcase, rightwing psychos that stuff the PI's comments get done with Slog, it'll be unreadable.
We need commenter executions post haste!
28
@ 15,
Delusional to the bitter end, huh?
Your observation must be based on our Democratic super-majorities in the legislature and dominance in city and county governments.
If the Times strategy is to appeal to the middle-brow, macaroni-brained, suburbanites whose interest in the news is limited to screeching "no death taxes" every two years, well good luck with that. It doesn't seem to be working so far.
Delusional to the bitter end, huh?
Your observation must be based on our Democratic super-majorities in the legislature and dominance in city and county governments.
If the Times strategy is to appeal to the middle-brow, macaroni-brained, suburbanites whose interest in the news is limited to screeching "no death taxes" every two years, well good luck with that. It doesn't seem to be working so far.
29
The Times is an old, rich, stodgy white man who lives in Bellevue. The P-I is (or was) a younger, hipper Seattleite, with fewer resources but more attitude.
So yes, the P-I did resonate with Seattle. But the Times appealed to the Eastside and the more conservative rest of the state. That's why the Times was able to keep a circulation lead, even though Seattle folks complained to holy hell about it.
You want a young, hip, edgy newspaper? Read The Stranger. The Times, well, they *aren't* a-changin'.
It has very little to do with Blethen and the way he conducts himself. These are two papers going for very different audiences, and the Times caters to the one it wants.
So yes, the P-I did resonate with Seattle. But the Times appealed to the Eastside and the more conservative rest of the state. That's why the Times was able to keep a circulation lead, even though Seattle folks complained to holy hell about it.
You want a young, hip, edgy newspaper? Read The Stranger. The Times, well, they *aren't* a-changin'.
It has very little to do with Blethen and the way he conducts himself. These are two papers going for very different audiences, and the Times caters to the one it wants.
31
How did the Times become a villain? Let's see. It played hardball during the strike in 2000, fired all the columnists and editorial board members it had who refused to cross the picket line, then turned into a right wing newspaper in a town that's roughly 85% Democrat. It endorsed George Bush and Dino Rossi.
The Times has some great reporters. But it also has a management that's extremely easy to hate.
The PI, in comparison, conducted itself in a much more professional manner during the strike, and its editorial section was much more open-minded and representative of Seattle citizens.
The Times has some great reporters. But it also has a management that's extremely easy to hate.
The PI, in comparison, conducted itself in a much more professional manner during the strike, and its editorial section was much more open-minded and representative of Seattle citizens.
32
When I went to pick up the PI early at Bulldog News, another customer observed that she still got the Times, which used to be a liberal paper until sometime in the late 90s, but always liked the PI (which she was picking up).
That said, given the things I've seen them do, the Times will probably die in a few years, since they don't seem to get basic business decisions.
I mean, for a commentary on that, read Bill Virgin's column today in the PI - pretty close to the mark.
That said, given the things I've seen them do, the Times will probably die in a few years, since they don't seem to get basic business decisions.
I mean, for a commentary on that, read Bill Virgin's column today in the PI - pretty close to the mark.
33
I am still surprised that *nobody* has mentioned the smear job that Emily Heffter did on Darcy Burner last fall that may well have cost her the election. It's one thing for Blethen to be a union-busting asshole who publishes ignorant, conservative, anti-Seattle op-eds on his pages.
It's quite another for that attitude to bleed across the wall and into the newsroom itself. The Heffter article was a sign that the Times is totally lacking in journalistic ethics and is a cancer on the region.
It's quite another for that attitude to bleed across the wall and into the newsroom itself. The Heffter article was a sign that the Times is totally lacking in journalistic ethics and is a cancer on the region.
34
Who in their right mind would consider Seattle a union town? I guess maybe in comparison to the rest of the Western US but seriously, a great deal of the major employers in Seattle are non-unionized, especially if you compare the construction and manufacturing sectors to anywhere in the Midwest or East Coast.
35
Let's look at a bit of history. The Blethen family has made mistake after mistake. They became the laughing stock of the newspaper industry when they opted to take the p.m. position in the joint operating agreement. This occurred at a time when it was a given that a fresh morning edition had a far greater advantage against afternoon papers with stail news, including yesterday's sports scores and stock market quotes. The choice was viewed by many as a management blunder that would -- and did -- cost the times thousands of readers statewide. To top it off Frank Blethen trumpeted the false impression that the Times was the city's only locally owned publication. Those in the know understood that the now defunct Knight Ridder chain (Miami and Palo Alto based) owned 49 percent of the Times until two years ago when their interest was taken over by McClatchy Newspapers of Sacramento. Yes, Blethen had control, but not without suffering from the constant harping of Knight Ridder and McClatchy executives who possessed far greater newspaper acumen. So, Seattle is left with a three-section daily newspaper whose local hard news coverage is primarily crime and justice based. Seattle, one of the nation's most well educated cities, deserves far better from a publisher who claims deep roots in both the state and community.
36
I quit my job at the Times because management, including many in the newsroom, were full of themselves and insufferable about the quality of the paper. They saw no room for improvement. (This compared with my experience at top-tier papers that surprisingly had much less of that attitude.) Because Seattle is so livable, the Times attracted plenty of talent. They misattributed that draw to the paper's appeal and quality. Managers constantly patted the paper on the back. Retch. The back-patting was too much for me. I later joined the P-I, to the astonishment (and derision, I'm sure) of Times people. The P-I was a great place to work -- it was a newsroom that tried a lot harder, dollar per dollar, no matter who owned it.
I got the sense that Blethen was a slime bag even when I worked at the Times, but he conned many people at the Times. I felt vindicated by his behavior during the strike, and felt sorry for the believers who had been let down.
The Times is disliked for reasons mentioned by previous posters. But go to the source: Ownership matters. "Local" means nothing on its own if your local owner is a slime bag. It trickles down into management and your editorial pages.
I got the sense that Blethen was a slime bag even when I worked at the Times, but he conned many people at the Times. I felt vindicated by his behavior during the strike, and felt sorry for the believers who had been let down.
The Times is disliked for reasons mentioned by previous posters. But go to the source: Ownership matters. "Local" means nothing on its own if your local owner is a slime bag. It trickles down into management and your editorial pages.
37
Ignore the owner and get to know Danny Westneat, Mark Rahner, Brier Dudley. These people are pros at the top of their game. Yes, I work at the Times.
38
Shout out to Jeff @16 for saving me the trouble of searching for the inevitable Obama endorsement. Only cognitive dissonance enables the notion of a supposedly conservative newspaper that endorses Obama. "Conservative newspaper" seems mostly an oxymoron as evidenced by widespread conservative indifference to the demise of mass media.
40
The Blethens spent the last few years trying to eliminate the competition, rather than running the paper. And Frank's complete lack of management skills, that turned out to be a costly mistake. So, despite some fantastic talent and award winning writing, we are still waiting for the other shoe to drop. How long can he continue to put off creditors? Seattle needs a fully staffed daily newspaper. The self indulgent behavior of the Times leadership will likely take our remaining paper away. A shame.
41
So what that the Times endorsed Obama. It was a no-brainer in this election. Many conservative op-ed pages across the pages did just the same. I'm not saying the Times op-ed page is conservative or liberal, but it has endorsed many conservative candidates and issues over the years. And Blethen is a known conservative.
I worked there all throughout the 90's. And as been pointed out many times, while having many talented journalists, it is an arrogant newsroom generally. My managers were a-holes. I believe the culture emanated from the top. Blethen is a vindictive fellow. And the strike scars are still there I guarantee it. Frank has not forgotten it, nor have many of his managers.
The newsroom at the PI was much, much different. I worked there from time to time for a few years recently. Much more equitable. Much more team-oriented. And much less ego. As someone pointed out, all PI people were welcomed back with open arms after the strike. No grudges were held.
There were/are a lot of talented people at the PI. I feel their pain. And wish them the best.
I worked there all throughout the 90's. And as been pointed out many times, while having many talented journalists, it is an arrogant newsroom generally. My managers were a-holes. I believe the culture emanated from the top. Blethen is a vindictive fellow. And the strike scars are still there I guarantee it. Frank has not forgotten it, nor have many of his managers.
The newsroom at the PI was much, much different. I worked there from time to time for a few years recently. Much more equitable. Much more team-oriented. And much less ego. As someone pointed out, all PI people were welcomed back with open arms after the strike. No grudges were held.
There were/are a lot of talented people at the PI. I feel their pain. And wish them the best.
42
Uncle Frank is dumb. The majority of managers at the "times" are idiots who hire idiots. The Advertising Manager didn't have any experience in advertising when "she" was hired. They've all driven it into the ground. Now it's time to nail the coffin shut.
Amen.
Amen.
43
As a former Timesee I have a different sense of Frank Blethen than the posters here who have never met him, or other Times people who have but may not know him as well.
He's a complex character and vilifying him is unfair. It's true he's made some serious mistakes that his company is paying for now, but it's also true that the same ego that got him into trouble is what keeps the newspaper alive today despite revenues and losses that few publishers have been willing to sustain. You can't talk about one part and not the other.
I think when things went bad for Frank was the strike of 2000. It's where he parted ways with a strategy that had served him well for several decades prior, and where he parted ways with Mason Sizemore who arguably created the profitable business model the company enjoyed in the 1980s and 1990s. Lore has it that Mason opposed the vanity purchase of the Maine newspapers that created a significant part of the debt load the Times has today. But the strike seems to have somehow done in that relationship, and that's the story industry watchers need to explore further.
The strike too created an enormous drag on the company. Tens of thousands of dollars would have settled what millions were spent on fighting.
Frank's ego got the best of him in both cases. But it's also that same ego that gives him a higher threshold of financial pain than Hearst or McClatchy (the minority holder) ever had. Hearst could have won the market, but they didn't care. Frank cares. That says something. He could cash out and retire on a beach somewhere, but instead he's risking collapse. You have to give the man that.
As much as the strike, the Maine purchase, and Sizemore's departure set the company's current course, you also have to look at this current generation of Frank's Lieutenants. I'm not sure he's being well-served by those offering him advice, and that can just as quickly doom the company as any single strategic business decision. I'm very concerned about the people whispering in his ear. I don't think they're up to the challenge. Look at how the advertising department was decimated of its best and brightest. Look at the online initiative relative to more successful models nationally. Look at how space is allocated section-to-section. I don't see how any of these things put the company on a path to profitability, or stem the tide of losses, or for that matter encourage PI readers to stick with the Times.
More...
He's a complex character and vilifying him is unfair. It's true he's made some serious mistakes that his company is paying for now, but it's also true that the same ego that got him into trouble is what keeps the newspaper alive today despite revenues and losses that few publishers have been willing to sustain. You can't talk about one part and not the other.
I think when things went bad for Frank was the strike of 2000. It's where he parted ways with a strategy that had served him well for several decades prior, and where he parted ways with Mason Sizemore who arguably created the profitable business model the company enjoyed in the 1980s and 1990s. Lore has it that Mason opposed the vanity purchase of the Maine newspapers that created a significant part of the debt load the Times has today. But the strike seems to have somehow done in that relationship, and that's the story industry watchers need to explore further.
The strike too created an enormous drag on the company. Tens of thousands of dollars would have settled what millions were spent on fighting.
Frank's ego got the best of him in both cases. But it's also that same ego that gives him a higher threshold of financial pain than Hearst or McClatchy (the minority holder) ever had. Hearst could have won the market, but they didn't care. Frank cares. That says something. He could cash out and retire on a beach somewhere, but instead he's risking collapse. You have to give the man that.
As much as the strike, the Maine purchase, and Sizemore's departure set the company's current course, you also have to look at this current generation of Frank's Lieutenants. I'm not sure he's being well-served by those offering him advice, and that can just as quickly doom the company as any single strategic business decision. I'm very concerned about the people whispering in his ear. I don't think they're up to the challenge. Look at how the advertising department was decimated of its best and brightest. Look at the online initiative relative to more successful models nationally. Look at how space is allocated section-to-section. I don't see how any of these things put the company on a path to profitability, or stem the tide of losses, or for that matter encourage PI readers to stick with the Times.
45
I think The Times, quite simply, is (was) the better paper. It won more Pulitzers. It put more money into more stories that needed telling--the series on secret court records was outstanding, and something very few papers would take on, especially when it came to paying lawyers to get the files open. The PI also did good work (stories on police corruption being a prime example), but the Times' work on opening files that should never have been closed meant a lot more to folks who live and work in Washington than a story about asbestos contamination in Montana. Westneat is a far better columnist than Jamison. Postman (RIP) covered state politics way better than anyone at the PI. In the free market, the Times won, and it won because it was better, period. With shallower pockets than the Hearst-owned PI, it made huge investments in editorial. It's easy to cast Blethen as the villain, but I'd way rather have a publisher who plinks an annoying mutt with a pellet gun than one who ships the lucre to New York. Seattle is tremendously fortunate to have the Times. Ask anyone who lives in a town where the local rag is owned by Gannett. As for the union, it should accept responsibility, and consequences, for what's happened here. Both papers were unnecessarily bloated (170 editorial employees to put out the PI? Give me a break). The utterly-fucking-ridiculous strike accomplished zero. Contracts negotiated by the union had lousy salaries compared with contracts in other cities. In a perfect world, employees at the Times would throw out the union in the interest of saving the paper and, ultimately, their jobs. Some dead wood would disappear. But that's a helluva lot better than seeing another newspaper die.
46
Nice apology @43. "Mistakes were made..." "bad advice..." Did you write press releases for the Bush Administration?
Your assertion, "I think when things went bad for Frank was the strike of 2000," is laughable because it implicitly absolves Frank himself from blame. Things "went bad" because Frank was a belligerent asshole who refused to negotiate. Want to see my photos of the chain link fencing and uniformed goons videotaping the dangerous Jean Godden?
It didn't have to be that way, Frank made it so.
Your assertion, "I think when things went bad for Frank was the strike of 2000," is laughable because it implicitly absolves Frank himself from blame. Things "went bad" because Frank was a belligerent asshole who refused to negotiate. Want to see my photos of the chain link fencing and uniformed goons videotaping the dangerous Jean Godden?
It didn't have to be that way, Frank made it so.
47
Hubris.
The Times reeks of it. Not just the op-ed side. Reporters, too. Insufferable attitude - a steaming stink of self-importance. You would never have a beer with these people. After two swigs, they'd be listing your faults in that faux Ivy League tone that seems to be a prerequisite for employment. Talk to any one of them for 30 seconds - the who-do-you-think-you-are reflex will kick like a dog's hind leg.
They're not just stuck on themselves. They're a stuck-on-themselves herd of dweebs. Trust me. I once saw a group of them trying to dance. I felt a flash of pity, but quickly suppressed it.
The reasons for lack of Times-love are legion, but from a journo's perspective, the worst transgression is the way they appoint themselves as the region's journalism referee. If they have a chance to rip another outlet's coverage, they'll take it every time.
The Times reeks of it. Not just the op-ed side. Reporters, too. Insufferable attitude - a steaming stink of self-importance. You would never have a beer with these people. After two swigs, they'd be listing your faults in that faux Ivy League tone that seems to be a prerequisite for employment. Talk to any one of them for 30 seconds - the who-do-you-think-you-are reflex will kick like a dog's hind leg.
They're not just stuck on themselves. They're a stuck-on-themselves herd of dweebs. Trust me. I once saw a group of them trying to dance. I felt a flash of pity, but quickly suppressed it.
The reasons for lack of Times-love are legion, but from a journo's perspective, the worst transgression is the way they appoint themselves as the region's journalism referee. If they have a chance to rip another outlet's coverage, they'll take it every time.
48
Nice comments workharderworksmarter (#45). You seem to be missing a few things though. I'm not sure if Seattle is lucky to have Blethen or not. Sure we could be worse off. But we could be better off too. By many business people's opinion Blethen has done a poor job of running that paper.
And your quick dismissal of the PI's newsroom size - it was 170 - is funny. And arrogant. The Times currently has 210 newsroom employees, and as recently as Nov 08 had 260. What's more laughable?
The strike did accomplish little. But it appears you blame the union for that. Blethen could have saved himself 10 million in losses and lost prestige, by what, 1 million in pay increases?
How's a union supposed to deal with an owner that was content to take the ship down with him?
Sizemore tried to save Blethen from himself. He was let go in the middle of the night.
Blethen's more to blame then the union for the current crisis.
And your quick dismissal of the PI's newsroom size - it was 170 - is funny. And arrogant. The Times currently has 210 newsroom employees, and as recently as Nov 08 had 260. What's more laughable?
The strike did accomplish little. But it appears you blame the union for that. Blethen could have saved himself 10 million in losses and lost prestige, by what, 1 million in pay increases?
How's a union supposed to deal with an owner that was content to take the ship down with him?
Sizemore tried to save Blethen from himself. He was let go in the middle of the night.
Blethen's more to blame then the union for the current crisis.
49
As a cub reporter in this town, I once had the Times' cop reporter pull a "Don't-you-know-who-I-am?" in order to pull rank on me and get me to surrender the Kirkland PD's incident reports. Once, while sitting on a panel of editors from around the region, former Times technology editor Rob Weisman said, straight-faced, "We don't break the news. We define the news." I once heard a staffer at Pacific Northwest Magazine describe said weekly rundown of gardening tips as "the only real journalism in this town." When I was planning on moving to Seattle, I read the Times online (before the P-I had a real website) to get a feel for the city. When I arrived, I found a different city.
The Times has always smugly believed that it was the New York Times, and looked down on the damp dysfunctional backwater it was forced to be in. Nonetheless, it tried to paint the picture of the burgeoning metropolis, the "world-class" city that's the envy of the world, plugging our brilliant leaders and moguls, wagging their collective fingers at jaywalkers, while ignoring the cracks in the roads, the crack in the schools, the crackpots in city hall and the fundamental shifts in the economy that are now leaving everyone with their heads up their asses, from Fairview Ave. to Redmond, behind.
Yes, they had some dynamite investigative reports. You could set your watch to them, because they always came out around the deadline for the Pulitzers, which they never ceased to crow about. At the same time, behind the flashy I-team, their local coverage was middling at best, their columnists unbearably dull (they could both save half a mil and improve their paper by firing Nicole Brodeur), their editorial page reactionary in the extreme, and worst of all, reading Mike Fancher, as Dan Savage once wrote, slide his tongue up Frank Blethen's ass each week, was cringe-inducing in the extreme. Worst of all, the Seattle Times is dull. Boring. Uninteresting.
A lot of good journalists work at the Times, a lot more have left (Eric Nalder, for example), but over it all has been the nonstop disdain for Seattle while they conducted a smarm offensive among the downtown elites and at out-of-state journalism conferences. It's a paper that expects respect for what it is, rather than for what it's done. It's all about pulling rank on the rest of us, and trying to silence, or render irrelevant by ignoring those of us who like to point out that the emperor has no clothes. That, more than anything else, is why the Times is the bad guy in this town. And it comes from the top.
(And no, I have never worked for either the P-I or Times.
More...
The Times has always smugly believed that it was the New York Times, and looked down on the damp dysfunctional backwater it was forced to be in. Nonetheless, it tried to paint the picture of the burgeoning metropolis, the "world-class" city that's the envy of the world, plugging our brilliant leaders and moguls, wagging their collective fingers at jaywalkers, while ignoring the cracks in the roads, the crack in the schools, the crackpots in city hall and the fundamental shifts in the economy that are now leaving everyone with their heads up their asses, from Fairview Ave. to Redmond, behind.
Yes, they had some dynamite investigative reports. You could set your watch to them, because they always came out around the deadline for the Pulitzers, which they never ceased to crow about. At the same time, behind the flashy I-team, their local coverage was middling at best, their columnists unbearably dull (they could both save half a mil and improve their paper by firing Nicole Brodeur), their editorial page reactionary in the extreme, and worst of all, reading Mike Fancher, as Dan Savage once wrote, slide his tongue up Frank Blethen's ass each week, was cringe-inducing in the extreme. Worst of all, the Seattle Times is dull. Boring. Uninteresting.
A lot of good journalists work at the Times, a lot more have left (Eric Nalder, for example), but over it all has been the nonstop disdain for Seattle while they conducted a smarm offensive among the downtown elites and at out-of-state journalism conferences. It's a paper that expects respect for what it is, rather than for what it's done. It's all about pulling rank on the rest of us, and trying to silence, or render irrelevant by ignoring those of us who like to point out that the emperor has no clothes. That, more than anything else, is why the Times is the bad guy in this town. And it comes from the top.
(And no, I have never worked for either the P-I or Times.
50
If you think I'm apologizing @46, you obviously didn't bother to read what I wrote. To dismiss Frank Blethen as a belligerent asshole is belligerent itself. You can't fix what you don't understand, and it's clear you don't understand.
Frank is the biggest piece of the puzzle, but he's not the only piece. Using your own Bush metaphor, it's like blaming Bush for everything and not considering who he surrounded himself with. Rumsfeld and Cheney and Gonzalez and others did plenty of damage all by themselves.
The fact of the matter is very few people have looked very hard at the people Frank has surrounded himself with. Is Frank ultimately responsible? Of course he is. But he didn't get there by himself. The hubris @47 refers to is correct, but it's confined largely to the inner circle of leadership. I once told a very senior editor he and the company were perceived to be arrogant, and I got an indignant and belittling response which pretty much proved my point.
If you and others here simply decry Frank Blethen as being the devil, you really aren't part of the conversation on how to remedy the problem. It isn't as simple as blaming one guy even if it's his company. A lot of the newspaper's leadership has been forced out or retired in the decade since the strike - clearly the turning point in time for the company. Those in leadership now were second, third and even fourth tier leadership then. Just because they're in leadership now doesn't mean they're up to the challenge - and that's the point I was making.
Frank is the biggest piece of the puzzle, but he's not the only piece. Using your own Bush metaphor, it's like blaming Bush for everything and not considering who he surrounded himself with. Rumsfeld and Cheney and Gonzalez and others did plenty of damage all by themselves.
The fact of the matter is very few people have looked very hard at the people Frank has surrounded himself with. Is Frank ultimately responsible? Of course he is. But he didn't get there by himself. The hubris @47 refers to is correct, but it's confined largely to the inner circle of leadership. I once told a very senior editor he and the company were perceived to be arrogant, and I got an indignant and belittling response which pretty much proved my point.
If you and others here simply decry Frank Blethen as being the devil, you really aren't part of the conversation on how to remedy the problem. It isn't as simple as blaming one guy even if it's his company. A lot of the newspaper's leadership has been forced out or retired in the decade since the strike - clearly the turning point in time for the company. Those in leadership now were second, third and even fourth tier leadership then. Just because they're in leadership now doesn't mean they're up to the challenge - and that's the point I was making.
51
A few other things to know about Frank Blethen. He is one of the most complicated people I’ve worked for, and I’ve worked for a few of them. Much of what is posted here is true, but there is so much more. For instance, he is a staunch supporter of civil rights. Martin Luther King Jr. is a personal hero. And he really means it. In the early ‘90s when an editorial writer pointed out that his personal belief didn’t square with the newspaper’s policy of not honoring MLKjr. holiday, he changed that policy. He was committed to diversity in hiring and was a persistent advocate of public education.
During the ‘90s when I was editorial page editor, the page was not so much conservative, as schizophrenic. On those few occasions when Frank called the shots – Bush endorsement, “death tax crusade” – we were pro-business conservative. His unpredictable views made for some difficult days. But mostly, he supported editorial writers who, while not as predictably liberal as the P.I., were far from the Wall Street Journal. The best thing for an editorial writer on the page was that Frank encouraged each of us to write a singular point of view in our personal columns, even if it differed from the page’s editorial position. I took advantage of that freedom several times a year, often during endorsement season. That kind of freedom was unusual among my colleagues at newspapers across the country.
The 2000 strike changed everything, especially Frank. It was a senseless strike and both sides made stupid mistakes. But, to correct an error elsewhere in the string, no editorial writers were fired. One took a job elsewhere; others returned.
During the ‘90s when I was editorial page editor, the page was not so much conservative, as schizophrenic. On those few occasions when Frank called the shots – Bush endorsement, “death tax crusade” – we were pro-business conservative. His unpredictable views made for some difficult days. But mostly, he supported editorial writers who, while not as predictably liberal as the P.I., were far from the Wall Street Journal. The best thing for an editorial writer on the page was that Frank encouraged each of us to write a singular point of view in our personal columns, even if it differed from the page’s editorial position. I took advantage of that freedom several times a year, often during endorsement season. That kind of freedom was unusual among my colleagues at newspapers across the country.
The 2000 strike changed everything, especially Frank. It was a senseless strike and both sides made stupid mistakes. But, to correct an error elsewhere in the string, no editorial writers were fired. One took a job elsewhere; others returned.
52
The Seattle Times should publish an official apology in their paper for their poor choice of endorsing George W. Bush for president twice.
The Seattle Times calls our Seattle home twice a day begging us to subscribe to their paper without this apology. It is a sad state of affairs for the newspaper readers of Seattle that we are left with one paper that leans so far to the Right.
The Seattle Times calls our Seattle home twice a day begging us to subscribe to their paper without this apology. It is a sad state of affairs for the newspaper readers of Seattle that we are left with one paper that leans so far to the Right.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (52) RSS