TO THE EDITOR: Kathleen Wilson's column [It's My Party, Feb 3] was certainly not surprising. The smarmy make 'em then break 'em pseudo-Brit journalism of your paper is as familiar to Seattle as that skinny junkie who looks like Alice Cooper we all see wandering the Pike/Pine corridor. Don't get me wrong, Wilson's hits on Loveless and Pandemonium were dead on (although Pandomag.com and [John] Richards pay a fuck of a lot more critical attention to local music than you guys).

However, as the majority of the professional music community knows, Wilson employs her close friend and publicist-about-town Barbara Mitchell to write flattering Up & Coming previews for artists who employ her as their personal publicist (Ken Stringfellow, Gerald Collier, Marc Olsen, Marigold, the Delusions, Tube Top). That's not just a conflict of interest; it's borderline journalistic payola. As "culture brokers" and, um, editors, do you even pay attention to such details?

Jacob Peters, Seattle

ERIN FRANZMAN AND KATHLEEN WILSON RESPOND: Apparently we've paid more attention to the details than the confused Mr. Peters. Barbara Mitchell is indeed a publicist, but she hasn't written about Ken Stringfellow since she began representing him in November '99. She hasn't worked with Gerald Collier since early '98, and did not write about him while she was his publicist. She has sporadically represented Marc Olsen in the past, but the only mention she's made of him in The Stranger was in a preview written in November '99, long after they had stopped working together. She represents Marigold and has never written about them. Finally, Mitchell has never worked with the Delusions or Tube Top, and therefore is free to write about them 'til the cows come home. Mitchell is one of this town's most dedicated music fans; she constantly goes out in search of new bands and is therefore an asset as a critic. While The Stranger isn't perfect, we do work very hard to avoid conflicts of interest -- unlike Pandomag. Finally, that junkie looks like Mick Mars from Mötley Crüe, not Alice Cooper!

MS. WILSON: First off, you rightfully exposed Loveless Records for writing its own review of its showcase, and Pandemonium for sidestepping editorial integrity. But the rest of your criticism contains unwarranted stabs at a label that has yet to release a single record. And for what? Because it happens to have a member of the Nordstrom family as an investor. I don't see a problem with one Nordstrom investing in bands. Clearly, you take an image-conscious scenester approach to "listening to music." Congratulations for evading actual thought and replacing it with purely mindless commentary.

Anonymous

STRANGER: Good job on It's My Party this week. I've known Michael [Hukin, co-owner of Loveless Records] for a long time, back when we were both writing for Pandemonium in print. Back then, he used to write insightful columns about brilliant bands for The Stranger and Pandemonium, not because he was their promoter, but because he genuinely enjoyed their music. I think he has lost his writing talents along with his English accent. It's time he got a wake-up call.

"V," Seattle

TO KATHLEEN WILSON: While I'm all in favor of media watchdogs rooting out examples of [biased] journalism, your attack on John Richards and Michael Hukin/Reef Valmont is pretty much the scenester calling the scenester an idiot. C'mon now, we all see you at the Breakroom and the Cha-Cha shootin' the shit with Spencer, and then read your columns slobbering [over] your pals Murder City Devils.

I'm not a huge fan of the Loveless lineup, but I do respect John Richards for bringing new/great music to the masses through his KCMU show. And it's not like he's trying to hide anything: In John's Pandomag.com column it clearly states John works for KCMU and runs Loveless.

Yours from deep in scenester hell,

Bryan M.

TO THE EDITOR: Having read Kathleen Wilson's infantile editorial in Excellent ["Boy, You Sure Can Take the Fun out of Music," Feb 3], where she lacerates some guy who happened to know more about some band than she did, I would like to apologize on behalf of all women with brains to all men who have suffered a similar fate.

As a feminist, not a commodified chick with a cool haircut, I'm appalled that a woman would attack a man for being interested in music rather than physical endeavors. Perhaps if Kathleen actually educated herself she wouldn't feel so threatened when others display a passionate interest in something. There are some people, regardless of gender, who actually enjoy digging deeper than the surface. Unfortunately, it appears those people do not write for The Stranger.

Emily Hahn, Seattle

EDITOR: I normally pick up my Stranger each week and am overcome by a general sense of happiness. This past week's issue, however, filled me with rage: An advertisement put out by the Consistency in Compassion Campaign [Jan 27, page 10] compared the killing and eating of animals to the slaughter of over six million Jews in the Holocaust. What right do these "activists" have to dishonor the death of my ancestors in order to gain some fanfare for their political campaign?

I demand a public apology to the entire Jewish population! And to Seattleites: Where's your outrage?

One Angry Jew, via e-mail

EDITORS: While I agree with the basic notion of Erin Franzman's diatribe, I find her pessimistic view of MP3s and the future of music [to be] incorrect ["MP3s Basically Suck," Feb 3]. True, there is a lot of crap in MP3 format -- but there is a lot of crap on radio and [on] CD and cassette shelves. I would say the crap-to-gold ratio among those three mediums is almost equal. Ms. Franzman's assertion that MP3s will flood the music world with meaninglessness art is moot. The record companies have already done that.

Mike Kress, Seattle

HEY ERIN! Sorry to hear you don't like MP3s, but consider this: When bootleg MP3 distribution has annihilated the traditional revenue streams of mainstream acts, only the ones doing it for love will be left. I don't know about you, but I get the giggles when I picture Whitney Houston as a squeegee girl, Britney Spears doing Mouseketeer reunion porn videos, 'N Sync working a hotel desk, or your boy Beck running a boardwalk shoeshine.

John Aegard, Capitol Hill

STRANGER: Your recent story on the city's housing programs ["City Fails to Meet Its Low-Income Housing Goals," Ingrid Polston, Jan 20] was based on an inaccurate estimate about city allocations provided by one of the developers using our programs. The developer's estimate was that only 32 percent of city-funded rental developments were affordable for very low incomes, or 30 percent of area median incomes. In fact, the Seattle Office of Housing allocated 49.5 percent of its funds last year for rental housing to apartments serving people under 30 percent of [the] area median, which is right on the goal set in the city's housing policy.

For 1999, we allocated about $12.5 million to 19 rental developments, with $6.2 million going to 30 percent of median or below. The Office of Housing has been consistent in its commitment to serving the lowest-income households. We are proud to have substantially increased our overall production from last year, including an increase from 38 to 110 units for homeless households. The biggest challenge we see going forward in terms of serving very low-income households is the reduced availability of federal funds for adding new units at this affordability level.

Bill Rumpf, Deputy Director, Seattle Office of Housing

NEWS EDITOR JOSH FEIT RESPONDS: Rumpf is not disputing anything in our article. We reported that only 32 percent of OH-funded units were affordable at the low-income level ($18,600 annually or lower for a family of four). We did not report what percentage of OH dollars the 32 percent of units represented (the 49.5 percent figure that Rumpf cites). Despite being asked directly for this percentage, Rumpf did not supply the information when he was interviewed for our article.