Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Debunking the Top Five Garbage Argu… | Only Foreigners Should Vote for US… »

Monday, October 22, 2012

Politics / Media Sky Valley Chronicle Schools Seattle Times on Journalism

Posted by Goldy on Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 6:37 AM

One of the best commentaries on the Seattle Times' baffling decision to spend $75,000 advertising on behalf of Rob McKenna comes from an unsigned editorial in the Sky Valley Chronicle:

What is equally stunning is that the entire management team at the paper that signed off on this crazy idea evidently did not know – or did not care – about the firestorm that would surely follow; a firestorm most second year journalism school students could easily have predicted for them.

The Times, mired as are all old line print dailies in a deathly quicksand of falling revenues, falling subscriptions, falling relevancy, massive overhead and a tattered relationship with a public that no longer believes as a majority that such newspapers report fair and impartially, appears to have sunk another three feet into that quicksand with a mind-blowing decision to back candidates and issues with money – a decision that simply reaffirms the public’s perceptions and suspicions that such newspapers have always played favorites, have always backed horses in races, have always had unseen hands in the background tipping the weights on scales.

The Sky Valley Chronicle describes itself as "the first and ONLY full service daily newspaper based in East Snohomish County." Never heard of them before. But really, read the whole damn thing.

FacebookShare

Comments (7) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

I share the Stranger's distress at the Times' ads. But if ever there was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, this is it.

The Stranger shilled its anti-tunnel stance in all its news stories.

The Stranger stuck with its pro-McGinn position, even after the rest of the city had the good sense to recognize him for the bully he is.

The Stranger routinely "reviews" books, music and other events it has a direct financial stake in. Amazingly, the reviews are usually positive.

The Stranger's political coverage of the presidential race is basically this: Mitt Romney is terrible, Obama is, well, ok. I happen to agree with the Stranger on this one, but there's no pretense of "objective" coverage.

So how is the Times different?

Posted by georges on October 22, 2012 at 7:45 AM

@1: The difference is: as you said, at the Stranger, there's no pretence of objective coverage. I've seen them repeatedly describe what they do around here as advocacy journalism.

From what I understand, the Times tries to claim to objectivity and to being a paper of record. Being an honestly partisan paper is worlds apart from the Times' "vow to continue impartial reporting."

Posted by Canadian Nurse on October 22, 2012 at 7:55 AM

@1 I have always said that I wear my bias on my sleeve, and trust my readers to read me in that context.

But even if you don't buy that... even if you think there's no difference between our open advocacy and what the Seattle Times is now doing... um... aren't they supposed to be better than us? Aren't they supposed to be "the paper of record" or something? Aren't we supposed to expect higher standards from our state's largest daily newspaper than from some foul-mouthed alt-weekly?

Because, if not, let's be honest about it and stop pretending that they have some sort of unique claim on credibility.

Posted by Goldy on October 22, 2012 at 8:32 AM

That IS an unbelievably good editorial.

The writer errs in one important respect. The boneheaded idea, the idea's construction and implementation is so mind-numbingly stupid it could only have come from a Blethen. Thus, no one gets fired. Except perhaps those who protest the insanity.

Posted by Rujax!

on October 22, 2012 at 8:54 AM

The Times decision was wrong and stupid, obviously, but why do people keep thinking the Seattle Times Co. and its publisher claim to be unbiased or objective. They are not the newsroom. Every elementary school child should understand that, you know, when they teach you what an editorial is. And if you believe the publisher is calling the shots in the newsroom, show some examples. Do you think the political coverage this year is biased? Let's see it.

Posted by flan on October 22, 2012 at 9:27 AM

from the linked ed: And it is a shame because whether the public realizes it or not, it still needs publications like the Seattle Times.

Love the Times, hate it, remain ambivalent about it, the public still needs what the Times can bring to the table.

It still needs the Times rooting out corruption and peeking into dark corners that the average person cannot do for himself or herself. It still needs those honest reporters and editors doing what they can against so many odds to bring the news to people.

so do i unsubscribe from the seattle times? i am so confused.

Posted by notaboomer on October 22, 2012 at 11:26 AM