Slog Comments

 

Comments (19) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
matt 1
Logic would suggest they make ads on both sides of any issue they are giving free advertising for.
Posted by matt on October 17, 2012 at 12:06 PM · Report this
Sargon Bighorn 2
How is it the Seattle times and many many others don't understand that it's NOT a Yes/No on a referendum? Are we as a nation so poorly educated (don't answer that).

If a citizen opens their ballot and sees, "Approve R74" and yet they are told to vote YES, but don't see the word, it simply adds confusion to an already poorly educated population.

And this from a News Paper.
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on October 17, 2012 at 12:07 PM · Report this
3
@2 sort of undermines their claim that political advertising in newspapers will be effective if they cannot even get the terminology right.
Posted by Lisasanswer on October 17, 2012 at 12:09 PM · Report this
4
Editorial pages not withstanding, it seems like a company that gets a big ass tax break from the state should be prohibited from this sort of activity.
Posted by I Got Nuthin' on October 17, 2012 at 12:10 PM · Report this
very bad homo 5
McKenna is against R-74. He said he voted to approve R-71, but not R-74, and he thinks it is perfectly acceptable to vote on gay people's rights.
Posted by very bad homo on October 17, 2012 at 12:13 PM · Report this
Original Andrew 6
Trying to understand the (mis)management at the Seattle Slimes is like trying to understand an Italian train ticket--it's ultimately futile.
Posted by Original Andrew on October 17, 2012 at 12:14 PM · Report this
Pope Peabrain 7
All that political money can't corrupt them any more than they are. Can it?
Posted by Pope Peabrain on October 17, 2012 at 12:15 PM · Report this
8
Sounds hugely desperate, misguided and futile. Status quo for the Times.
Posted by dbgill56 on October 17, 2012 at 12:43 PM · Report this
9
Does it seem a little less than prudent to back a horse that's not a sure thing? How's it good for business to antagonize a guy with a better than 50% shot at becoming the Gov?
Posted by Westside forever on October 17, 2012 at 1:39 PM · Report this
10
If they want to demonstrate the awesome might of their dead trees, why are they running ads for things they think will win anyway? (taking their word at face wrt McKenna)

Shouldn't they instead run ads for, say, Mickey Mouse or some absurd shit like that if they want to demonstrate the awesome ability of their dead trees to sway morons who vote?
Posted by mayberrymachiavelli on October 17, 2012 at 2:20 PM · Report this
Geni 11
If I still kept cage birds, I wouldn't insult them by putting that rag in the bottoms of their cages. God, the Blethens disgust me.
Posted by Geni on October 17, 2012 at 2:32 PM · Report this
12
What?
Posted by KatTheCanuckistan http://soundmusing.blogspot.com/ on October 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM · Report this
13
Just neoliberalism in action. Promote a warm and fuzzy cause that doesn't impact the bottom line while going all out to place a Scott Walker clone in the Governors mansion.
Posted by artful_bodger on October 17, 2012 at 3:01 PM · Report this
14
The Seattle Times should put more effort into ethical, honest journalism, rather than desperate attempts to be an edgy "leader." Better yet, this paleolithic irrelevant rag should fold its withered, feeble hand.
Posted by Fizgig on October 17, 2012 at 3:09 PM · Report this
TVDinner 15
There's a world of difference between practicing advocacy journalism (The Stranger) and the craven disregard for manipulating the narrative that the Times is doing. It must be a really tough day to be one of the actual reporters still working there.
Posted by TVDinner http:// on October 17, 2012 at 3:13 PM · Report this
Jubilation T. Cornball 16
Why didn't they initial cap "launches" in the header? Boneheads.
Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball on October 17, 2012 at 9:51 PM · Report this
17
Everyone should protest this vigorously and let them know you'll cancel your subscription if they don't rescind this move. #seattletimessucks.
Posted by Traven on October 18, 2012 at 8:28 AM · Report this
18
Hhmmm, the editorial writers at the times cannot prevent themselves from saying nice things about McKenna, witness the column just yesterday by Sharon Pian Chan -"McKenna has done the math on Education." Yet now we are to believe they are independent from the business side? And please, am I the only one who feels it a bit patronizing of the times to also support Referendum 74? You know, lets throw the lefties a bone..wink wink. Even if the times is instrumental in getting that tea bagger pos McKenna elected I don't think it will save their pathetic paper from imminent extinction. I for one won't miss it.
Posted by Player on October 18, 2012 at 9:49 AM · Report this
19
"The Times" is already not a part of my life because of some of their questionable business decisions as well as their questionable journalistic standards BUT I think this is gonna cost them a lot of readers and hopefully may ultimately be the final nail in their coffin (if Karma does truly exist).
Posted by WeaverHChrist on October 20, 2012 at 10:14 AM · Report this

Add a comment