We love you. Specifically YOU. YOU, sitting there at your computer.

We love you SO MUCH. We should talk about moving in together.

Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Woah! Math Nerds! | Currently Hanging: Ryan Molenkamp,… »

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Politics / Media Why the Seattle Times Endorsed Pete Holmes

Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 10:23 AM

Goldy:

I’d say the biggest loser [on election night] was the Seattle Times editorial board, considering the woeful track record of its endorsed candidates within the city whose name the paper misappropriates. In fact, you gotta wonder if a lot of Seattle voters don’t take a look at the Times’ top of the ticket endorsements, and just vote the opposite....

Compare that track record to, say, The Stranger’s candidate endorsements, which saw a clean sweep in the races above with the possible exception of King County Assessor, where Lloyd Hara currently leads their preferred Bob Rosenberger by a small but significant margin. Considering which paper appears more in touch with the values of Seattle voters, perhaps the two publications should just swap mastheads?

A commenter over at HA points out that the Seattle Times endorsed Holmes over Carr so maybe the Blethen Daily Butt Trumpet isn't entirely out of step with Seattle voters. Ah, no. The Holmes endorsement was a transparent and wholly insincere effort on the Butt Trumpet's part to cover its pasty white ass. That's why the Holmes endorsement came first and then came the Butt Trumpet's endorsements of Hutchison, Mallihan, Rosencrantz, Israel (what a disappointment she turned out to be), which were of a piece with the paper's McGavick, Rossi, and Bush endorsements. The Holmes endorsement wasn't about Holmes or Carr or the city attorney's race or the crack down on the clubs or drug prosecutions or anything else. It was about creating a little plausible deniability for the Butt Trumpet. It gave the Butt Trumpet an endorsement it could hold up—a fig leaf it could don—when readers complained about that the paper's conservative, right-wing, anti-urban, anti-progressive, pro-right wing bias was showing again.

Comments (16) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Gomez predicted The Stranger would have no real effect on the outcome of these races and predicted a pretty large loss for you guys.

In case you've ever stopped and wondered, "what's Gomez up to today?"

Posted by Baconcat on November 5, 2009 at 10:27 AM

God damn it, I want my daily paper, but the Times is really pissing me off. I know there used to be another one, but I can't find their boxes anywhere.

Posted by Fnarf

on November 5, 2009 at 10:32 AM

The only reason the Seattle Times endorsed Holmes over Carr is because Carr did not believe that the City Attorney's principal duty is to compile and deliver public records so the Times can spend less on investigative reporting. The Times has a long record of single-issue self-centered fixations, headed by public disclosure and repeal of inheritance taxes.

If Carr had been less protective of his clients' confidences (one of the principal ethical responsibilities of lawyers), the Times would have endorsed him in a heartbeat.

Posted by kk in seattle on November 5, 2009 at 10:32 AM

I would so gladly pay for a subscription to any paper called "The Daily Butt Trumpet."

Posted by Kris on November 5, 2009 at 10:40 AM

Your insane conspiracy theory lends some insight into how SECB works but has no basis in reality with the Times.

The Times picked Holmes over Carr because Carr subpoenaed 3 Seattle Times writers. End of story.

Posted by What a stupid theory on November 5, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Right, so none of you will mourn the demise of the Times once Blethen's creditors stop falling for his "Hey, if I don't get another extension I'll be forced to file for bankruptcy and seek Chapter. 11 protection!" gambits and demand payment in full?

Posted by You didn't hear it from me on November 5, 2009 at 10:54 AM

They just don't or won't learn.

Posted by Vince on November 5, 2009 at 10:56 AM

Also, Holmes has promised to go lenient on dog-shootings.

Posted by DOUG.

on November 5, 2009 at 11:00 AM

The Seattle Times has become completely irrelevant.

Posted by wedgwood reader on November 5, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Impressive use of synonyms, Dan. Their bias is both "right-wing" and "pro-right wing"? Both "conservative" and "anti-progressive"? Wow!

Posted by A gay homosexual on November 5, 2009 at 11:09 AM

@10
like Fox News and their their all-star idiot Beck, Dan has to emphasize the emphatic of the emphasis.
Sensationalismzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Posted by dnt trust me on November 5, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Seattle wants a paper that represents our values - not that of Nazis.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on November 5, 2009 at 11:53 AM

The Seattle Times is still in business?

Posted by slag on November 5, 2009 at 12:02 PM

So their Holmes endorsement was kind of like The Strangers Albro endorsement.

Posted by Renton Mike on November 5, 2009 at 12:27 PM

Hey, they're probably catering to their paper-paper reader base. Older, more conservative Seattleites (my grandpa still gets the paper). Just because they *have* a website, doesn't mean they have any concept of how to run one... or the rest of their reader-base.

Posted by raawr on November 5, 2009 at 2:40 PM

And was their endorsement of Referendum 71 just a cover, Dan? Or their opposition to 1033? Or last year's Obama endorsement? Or the endorsement of John Kerry before that? Or of Patty Murray, or Jim McDermott?

And do you recognize that -- unlike your paper -- the edit-page endorsements and the news coverage are clearly separate? If you don't believe that, ask Susan Hutchison.

Your Times-bashing is just so boring ... and unbecoming.

Posted by A Journalist on November 5, 2009 at 3:02 PM