Slog Comments


Comments (42) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Will in Seattle 1
I thought the Blethens published Pravda?
Posted by Will in Seattle on October 19, 2012 at 1:47 PM · Report this
Pope Peabrain 2
Posted by Pope Peabrain on October 19, 2012 at 1:54 PM · Report this
Fucking hell, that was great, Joe!
Posted by gloomy gus on October 19, 2012 at 1:54 PM · Report this
He sounds like a teenager. Then I looked at his picture. Apparently he IS a teenager.
Posted by avocado on October 19, 2012 at 1:54 PM · Report this
Cato the Younger Younger 5
Why didn't you post a picture of Joe so we could swoon for awhile?
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on October 19, 2012 at 1:57 PM · Report this
Joe Szilagyi 6
All that this exercise has demonstrated is that the Times is apparently hemorrhaging readership and value as an advertiser. Why else would you throw away what remains of 100~ years of integrity for a valueless advertising gamble? You don't go all in unless you've got nothing else left to lose.

If you guys have access to their subscription numbers, post them. I notice this site:…

Just apparently lists market size and their online impressions. How many papers do they actually sell per day?
Posted by Joe Szilagyi on October 19, 2012 at 1:58 PM · Report this
Joe is an asshole.
Posted by What a little punk. on October 19, 2012 at 2:01 PM · Report this
Original Andrew 8
Betch. Slap.
Posted by Original Andrew on October 19, 2012 at 2:01 PM · Report this
Ipso Facto 9
So The Seattle Times Company gave away free advertising to a Republican candidate and a conservative referendum campaign, and is now essentially extorting money from Democratic and progressive campaigns in order for them to attain equal exposure for their messages.

Is this really legal?
Posted by Ipso Facto on October 19, 2012 at 2:18 PM · Report this
Overlooking (for a moment) that fact that The Stranger and Joe are in a "political marriage" this is a good take down of Blethen-Land.
Posted by howie in seattle on October 19, 2012 at 2:28 PM · Report this
biffp 11
@7, you're an asshole, Joe is totally fucking right. That letter is a piece of shit first draft, and sending it to a legislative office? unfuckingbelievable.
Posted by biffp on October 19, 2012 at 2:28 PM · Report this
pg13 12
This is probably the tipping point in my household to stop delivery of the Sunday Seattle Times (having given up daily local news delivery years ago.)

I think my wife would find just as much to read in the Sunday New York Times...and I'll be able to read more than just ten free NYT articles a month that way.
Posted by pg13 on October 19, 2012 at 2:30 PM · Report this
Fnarf 13
@9, your comment worries me, because if you think R-74 is a conservative bill, that means you might mistakenly vote against it, and so might a lot of other supporters of marriage equality.

YES on R-74 = YES to allow same-sex marriage.

It's not a conservative referendum. Quite the opposite.
Posted by Fnarf on October 19, 2012 at 2:32 PM · Report this
imbecile 14
@13: it's APPRVOVE R-74
Posted by imbecile on October 19, 2012 at 2:42 PM · Report this
seatackled 15
If they wanted to prove the power of advertising, they should have given free ad space to support accused child molesters. Now if Inslee wins, it means that advertising doesn't work.
Posted by seatackled on October 19, 2012 at 2:45 PM · Report this
Occupy Seattle 16
Joe, you fucking rock! This is the difference between Republicans and Democrats. When Democrats smell rotten corruption, they speak up. When Republicans get wind of it, they jump in as fast as they can and wonder if why they didn't think of it first. Case it point: another awesome Democrat Adam Kline exposes right-wing Tea Party organization Freedom Foundation, who has been working with our Republican Secretary of State and the Republican candidate Kim Wyman behind the scenes to suppress our votes this election:

"Over its three or four years of existence, members of the press—proponents of transparency—have come to dominate the Sunshine Committee. The Committee voted 8 to 1 to place on its agenda a suggestion from a right-wing corporate advocacy group, the Freedom Foundation, that will, if it is acted upon, make the Committee complicit in a campaign to suppress many citizens’ right to vote. The Freedom Foundation has a long and sordid history of joining in campaigns funded by the Koch brothers on the national level, the modus operandi of which is to create public fear and anger at a supposed effort by large numbers of non-citizen immigrants to vote in American elections, which is hijacking the votes of true Americans. Freedom Foundation’s ulterior purpose is blatantly partisan: to suppress the votes of likely Democratic voters, namely three classes of people who, though US citizens, are less likely for various reasons to have a drivers license or other photo-identification. These are the elderly, of whom many no longer drive; the very young, particularly urban, voters who have no need to drive; and racial minorities, particularly immigrants. By running campaigns in many states, especially “swing” states where narrow elections are expected, to pass laws that would keep these three classes of citizens from the polls, the Koch brothers and their network of right-wing organizations are determined to throw national and state elections to the Republicans, and to foster a helpful campaign against immigrants generally."…
Posted by Occupy Seattle on October 19, 2012 at 2:48 PM · Report this
Pithy Name 17
@16 - No need to quote a wall o' text. Just link to the article, and I'll be more likely to read it. When I see a wall o' text, I assume it's a Sgt. Doom-ish rant, and skip to the next comment. . .
Posted by Pithy Name on October 19, 2012 at 2:53 PM · Report this
Ipso Facto 18
@13: Maybe my phrasing wasn't clear, but what I meant is that the campaign against R-74 is a "conservative campaign".

And now The Seattle Times Company is extorting money from marriage equality proponents to attain equal exposure for their message.
Posted by Ipso Facto on October 19, 2012 at 2:54 PM · Report this
Ipso Facto 19
Ah fuck, my error. The Seattle Times ran an "Approve R-74" ad? As in "approve marriage equality"?

And they ran a "vote McKenna" ad?

I'm mixed up now.
Posted by Ipso Facto on October 19, 2012 at 3:07 PM · Report this
MacCrocodile 20
@18 - Then you are confused. The Times is giving advertising to the Approve R-74 campaign, not Reject.
Posted by MacCrocodile on October 19, 2012 at 3:07 PM · Report this
mikethehammer 21
As a non-Washingtonian I don't know much about Mckenna (though spend enough time on the slog to have a distinctly unfavorable impression of him.) That said, there's plenty of Republicans out there in favor of marriage equality. No doubt more in opposition, but the paper's endorsing these two entities simultaneously would hardly be groundbreaking (though the advertising for any candidate is obviously appalling.)
Posted by mikethehammer on October 19, 2012 at 3:19 PM · Report this
Would love to know how many subscribers the Times has lost so far. The phone call to drop my subscription turned into a ten minute argument with the woman at the Times. She kept insisting that I opt for a temporary suspension of service until after the election. She was sure that that was the best route for me to make a statement about the whole affair.
Posted by Senor Guy on October 19, 2012 at 3:20 PM · Report this
Keister Button 23
Golly, just last year The Seattle Times was doing well enough to reject paid advertisements for School Board candidates who did not share editorial's zeal for education reform and charter schools. Revenues must be plummeting.
Posted by Keister Button on October 19, 2012 at 3:23 PM · Report this
It's even more ridiculous that they're trying to convince local politicians, whose districts cover a tiny fraction of the Times' circulation area, to use newspaper advertising as a "cost-effective" alternative to direct mailers.

I'm sure all of the Times' subscribers in Bellevue and Snohomish care a whole lot about Joe's race.
Posted by sevenless on October 19, 2012 at 3:31 PM · Report this
Which option is worse:

A. The Times has made itself into a partisan paper (at least for the year), or

B. The Times is tinkering with the machinery of self-government for commercial gain?

In the letter they tout option B, but it is unclear to me why I should despise them less for it.
Posted by High Federalist on October 19, 2012 at 3:33 PM · Report this
So here we have the Stranger, which makes no bones about being in the tank for the lefties of its choice, whining about a lack of objectivity at the Seattle Times. It's so nice to see the blatant hypocrisy of "progressive" Seattle on display.
Posted by Mister G on October 19, 2012 at 3:36 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 27
@26 most people realize that The Stranger is right of center in Seattle.

But, hey, thanks. Nice try.
Posted by Will in Seattle on October 19, 2012 at 3:38 PM · Report this
Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In 28
@26 There's a big difference between a paper that claims to be objective & unbiased and a paper that is up front about it's political slant. One is dishonest & hypocritical when it's stories, editorials & advertising is highly partisan. The other is simply living up to it's character.

Besides the fact that there are two very different business models at work here.

Before you accuse folks of hypocrisy, you might want to use things like logic & reason. It makes you look far less stupid.
Posted by Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on October 19, 2012 at 4:12 PM · Report this
Reverse Polarity 29
@26, That is entirely the point. The Stranger is open and honest about its bias. They make no claim of being neutral or unbiased, and never have. You can agree or disagree with their views, but they are not hiding anything.

The Seattle Times, like Faux News, claims to be objective and unbiased. And like Faux News, they are lying weasels. I don't care if they want to shill for conservative causes. I only care that they claim to be unbiased when they shill for conservative candidates. They just took a giant shit all over their claim to be an objective neutral news source.
Posted by Reverse Polarity on October 19, 2012 at 4:19 PM · Report this
#29 This is the Seattle Times Co. that is doing this -- the publisher. Not the newsroom. Now I realize that a lot of people who think they're smart but actually know nothing think that the publisher is in the newsroom calling all the shots. Think that if you want. But if you are claiming that the publisher claims to be neutral and unbiased, how do you explain year after year of political endorsements? How do people not understand the first thing about newspapers??
Posted by avocado on October 19, 2012 at 4:51 PM · Report this
#30: Many members of the ST newsroom staff have gone to the dark side along with their bloodless boss Blethen. I chuckled when I read their oh-so self-righteous letter and saw some of the hypocrites who actually had the balls to sign it with those who are honestly sincere, ethical journalists.

Joe: You rock!

Posted by Fizgig on October 19, 2012 at 5:21 PM · Report this
#31 Were you trying to convey information in that post? Cause you don't.
Posted by avocado on October 19, 2012 at 5:49 PM · Report this
@30: In some cases, that might still be true. But the newspapers have gone through cycles over the years of catering to their owners' political beliefs (and outright whims), and with the rise of people like Rupert Murdoch that cycle has been trending upward for years.

Go have a look at Harold Evans' Good Times, Bad Times regarding Murdoch's attempts to control the London Times' editorial content once he bought it. Better still, go find a copy of Tim Crouse's The Boys on the Bus (not too hard, since it's still in print as a frequently-required text for journalism courses), see what the situation was circa 1972 in accurate reporting vs. publishers' agendas...and then reflect on how little has changed in four decades.
Posted by DonServo on October 19, 2012 at 6:25 PM · Report this
#28, until you learn how to use an apostrophe I see no reason to respond to your idiotic drivel.
Posted by Mister G on October 19, 2012 at 6:31 PM · Report this
Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In 35
@34 Yeah, sure. So I screw up sometimes. That doesn't change the fact that your use of "hypocrisy" is flat out wrong. You shouldn't use words that you don't understand. It makes your ideas look like... well, idiotic drivel.
Posted by Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on October 19, 2012 at 7:01 PM · Report this
Free Lunch 36
That "1.8 million readers" claim seems like bullshit. Their daily circulation is 250K, and their Sunday is 350K. This is subscribers plus purchasers.

A one-day ad will reach at most 350K people, so this 1.8 million is what? Some multi-day figure, assuming different people buy it day to day?

It's paper! It doesn't report back on who bought it. There is no possible reliable way to determine, say, yearly unique readers. This is one of the reasons print advertising is so inferior.

And even if they do reach 1.8 million uniques in a year, saying the number without specifying the time interval seems pretty slimy.

Am I missing something?
Posted by Free Lunch on October 19, 2012 at 7:15 PM · Report this
Fnarf 37
@34, a whole truckload of apostrophes wouldn't make your drivel any more comprehensible. You can talk all the smack you want but you lack any kind of sense or interest; just straight medulla oblongata reactionary bullcrap. Get it? You are a BAD WRITER. Maybe you should work on that instead of attacking others for trivial errors of grammar or spelling.

@36, I think the idea in newspaper circles is that every copy is read by three or four people, which inflates the numbers.
Posted by Fnarf on October 19, 2012 at 8:30 PM · Report this
lauramae 38
The newsroom should be separate from the publisher, but no one can or should split those hairs. A paper placing a free ad for one candidate completely obliterates any sense of fair reporting the Seattle Times may have still enjoyed.
Posted by lauramae on October 19, 2012 at 8:59 PM · Report this
Free Lunch 39
@37 - Ah, that makes sense. Still, looks like the Times is assuming 7 readers per paper.

I do love this story. It'll be embarrassing to be a city with no daily newspaper, but not nearly as embarrassing as being a city with this one.
Posted by Free Lunch on October 19, 2012 at 9:12 PM · Report this
The NYT managed to get Iraq wrong and the syndicate the Tacoma News Tribune is part of got it right.

I'm not sure NYT is as good as their reputation and you won't see much Washington State news there.

Just a suggestion.

Posted by david on October 19, 2012 at 10:22 PM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 41
The NYT is a New York paper, David. It should come as no surprise that they don't have a lot of Washington news. I'll bet the Tacoma News Tribune doesn't have much New York news either.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty on October 20, 2012 at 3:59 AM · Report this
#37, I do hope for your sake that your avatar isn't your real picture.
Posted by Mister G on October 21, 2012 at 11:15 PM · Report this

Add a comment