Comments

1
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?

2
@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."
3
@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.
4
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.
5
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.
6
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.
7
@ 6...

If you were a boomer you'd KNOW what to do.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.