"I did a little digging and discovered that someone who works for the city contacted The Atlantic and told them..."

So you have no source who will say this on record? That's not too unusual these days, alas. But you do have confirmation from a second source at least, right? Or is the story too important for that, too?

What is the final word on the quality of our own Mr. Mudede's journamalism?

@1 good point, the correction at the end of the article doesnt exist, it's just a figment of charles' imagination.

It's a nice day outside, why not take a break from trolling?

Word on the street is your source is Erica Barnett. Weird you'd put her on blast like that.

@2 where does this say that somebody who works for the city contacted The Atlantic?

"After publication of this article, The Atlantic learned that its author did not attend the removal of the Ravenna Woods homeless encampment as a journalist, but instead as a protestor. The article has been updated to reflect this information."

What the fuck Charles.

Your own co-worker is doing honest bits of writing and receiving death threats, and you aint got shit to say? Look at yourself in the fucking mirror.

I don’t know...I think the writer and their possible biases are always relevant. Not to mention the way they characterize themselves during the course of their investigations. Your reasoning for why none of that matters in this case is pretty thin.

Sorry to be the piss-ant pedant here, but it had "the same effect," not "the same affect."

@3, you do realize that she and i are not getting along lately? i mean really lately. you are so fucking smart.

@5, you really think i have not got death threats? i got those badges long ago.

@7! i hate effect and affect. hate it. corrected.

@8 so are you denying it? Sucks to be in a position where you're telling somebody something didn't happen and they don't believe you, huh. Maybe this is why journalists generally report on facts instead of making insinuations they can't prove.

@, oh, i walked into that alley. im out.

Yeah, funny how the Atlantic had to issue a correction to this "article" acknowledging that the writer wasn't a journalist but a fucking protester at the events he's writing about.

i mean, the organizers for the seattle people's party aren't known to be honest... not sure why charles is giving them the benefit of the doubt. of course they're willing to lie, cheat, and steal to try to get their communist politicians elected. charles is an honest dude but is giving dishonest dudes the benefit of the doubt which is surely undeserved

(I personally think it's irrelevant because in this case—and considering the acuteness of the crisis—the story is much more important than the writer). ROTFL- I’ll try to remember that when I see ABC’s David Muir do the evening news dressed as a pink animal like Mr. Hawkins.
https://medium.com/@daedaejr

"Why was this correction made?"

Because it's accurate, and it improves the reader's perception of what is reported. (I lost you at the third word, didn't I?)

The original story at The Atlantic is quite the work of propaganda, BTW, and I hope everyone in Seattle reads it. It repeatedly sneers at the very idea that citizens should actually care enough about the state of their city to report problems. (The disdain of a self-appointed activist for actual citizens choosing to becoming active makes for some great moments of whiny complaining.) Rising prosperity is stated as the sole reason for increasing numbers of homeless persons, even though there is no evidence to support this. Complaints about crime and other problems caused by homeless persons are dismissed without examination, and every other advocate of spending more tax money on the homeless gets quoted as an unimpeachable source of gospel truth.

My favorite moment is the lengthy complaining about how the police checked for outstanding warrants as they swept an illegal encampment in Ravenna. After much fact-free insinuation about racial profiling, one inhabitant was reported to have an outstanding warrant, but we never learn how many other illegal campers also had outstanding warrants or criminal convictions. I'm therefore assuming that number was large.

Finally, if we're going all pedantic on Charles, it's "complements," not "compliments." (Also, keeping "affect" and "effect" straight is actually pretty simple: "affect" is a noun only in psychoanalysis.)

Was south lake Union really gentrified? It seemed like it was pretty much warehouse there before amazon came in...

Also can we stop with these stupid one sided peices? The right has their “all homeless people are criminals” articles and the left has their “homeless cause no problems in neighborhoods, rich people are bad” articles.

Can’t we be fucking grown ups and realized the blame is on city hall? They fucking do nothing other than shuffling homeless from neighbourhood to neighbourhood. What a way to run a city, no wonder everyone is pissed. What we need is an actual plan that includes funding. Give a 5 year plan with actually funding that has both short term and long term solutions.

@1 Charles admitted that he gives no shits on the ethics of journalism, otherwise he would’ve tired to understand why professional journalists said the author should have stated he was an activist.

@19: You're completely correct. The Wall Street Journal had an article in 2011 about it: "Brownfields Boom, Especially in Seattle; The city's South Lake Union district has seen abandoned industrial sites reclaimed for 4.6 million square feet of office, retail and residential space since 2004."

The article which Charles here praises is propaganda, not news.

Speaking of which -- does Charles supply any evidence at all to justify the headline? It appears the Mayor's Office advised The Atlantic about the identity of the writer, and The Atlantic responded with a truthful clarification on that point. Is there any evidence the "City of Seattle" asked for any change to the content of the article, especially about uses of the "Find It, Fix It" app? There also seems to be nothing to justify Charles' claim, "...the goal of the City of Seattle, which Jenny Durkan now runs, was to discredit the writer...", unless Charles believes that accurately identifying this writer is to discredit this writer. (Perhaps he's correct about that...)

1) The article in question is obviously ridiculously biased and contains a lot of false information. For starters, the "Find-It Fix-It App" isn't for reporting homeless encampments. "Homeless encampment" isn't even an option under the things you can report. And when you report homeless encampments on it, the city does nothing. Not even a copy-and-paste response. They just close your complaint. THIS is our human-rights-destroying illegal encampment removal app?

2) Clarifying that the author wasn't a journalist but rather an activist isn't "irrelevant", it's critical, and should really be at the start of the article, not at the bottom once the author's already had the chance to change people's minds with biased reporting. It's like if there was an article about illegal immigrants that painted them all as bloodthirsty criminals, it sure would be nice to know if it was written by a Trump propagandist, rather than an actual journalist, right?

3) I mean the author literally declares that he "doesn't believe in objectivity" and identifies as a political agitator on his Twitter page. Is this really the make-believe-journalist you're suiting up for, Charles? What if it was Harley Lever masquerading as a "journalist" and writing articles in the news section of the Atlantic? You'd be up in fucking arms.

4) Pretty much this entire piece is just that you heard from some mysterious source that "someone who works for the city" alerted The Atlantic, you just assumed it was Jenny Durkan, called Durkan's office, they were like "wtf are you talking about", and you didn't do any investigating beyond that. Seriously? You don't think it could have been any of the other thousands of people working for the city? You wrote an entire article just on hearsay that you couldn't be bothered to verify beyond one random phone call?

5) You also have another mysterious source that says the lady you called doesn't like anyone who's not the Seattle Times. Did you verify or follow-up on that at all? Or are you just reporting gossip now?

I'll give you some juicy gossip. I heard that Jenny Durkan dons a black mask at night and runs around punching heroin addicts and burning their tents. Since you're literally writing articles these days about any hearsay anyone tells you, will you write an article about BatJenny?

@18, im going to say something that may astound you. but as a writer, i really try to get the wording right. This is it above all. and i write a fucking damn lot. but thanks for the tip. i had meant complements. had forgotten how close it is to compliments. speed. you know what i mean?

@22 yeah the amazon boom has lead to a lot of gentrification, but slu was pretty abandoned, it wasn’t a vibrant neighborhood filled with people...i mean it couldve been a nice park but Seattle voted that down.

@24: I write a lot at work too, Charles, all highly technical, mostly on deadlines, and often for an audience which uses English as a second language. I have no opportunities to confuse great big long fancy words because (other than technical terms) I should not be using them in the first place. I find it amusing you've been a writer at the Stranger for a very long time, and yet you still seem surprised your audience will note such mistakes.

On the substance of your headline post itself, if you could please answer the points @23 and also my questions @22, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks!

@26 all of that is such nonsense to me. i do not believe in being "democratic" and "journalistic" about such issues as sweeping homeless people. i was not born that way. the american i-made-my-way way. i was raised to be basically human (cultured). you know, an ape with human feelings. excuse me for that. but i will thank you for pointing out the error of "compliment" and "complement." they are very close indeed. that we can talk about at length.

@27: By your own account, you had other journalists tell you the identity of the author was an important point which should have been included with the initial publication of the article. You've had multiple readers say the same thing in this comment thread. (To the extent that anyone employed by the City of Seattle got The Atlantic to make this important clarification, that is a good use of our tax dollars.) Yet you declare "nonsense" at this desire of your own readers to be fully informed, hand-wave our concern away with vague, feel-good platitudes, and declare you'd rather "talk ... at length" about linguistic trivialities.

I certainly hope you're not surprised at your continuing to be on the losing side of our ongoing civic debate over homelessness.

@27 - then own it. Don’t attack the city for trying to shut down a “journalist”...own that both you and the author of this piece has a clear view point and agenda. This article was bs because it wasn’t honest, it was you trying to present yourself as a journalist when you clearly don’t care about being a journalist on this matter.

@22 there used to be some large men’s shelters and low rent boarding houses in SLU, Denny triangle, and Cascade Park that have been displaced. Only a personal anectode, but I remember in the mid 90s dropping off laborers from Millionaires Club at heir housing in those neighborhoods after a days work.

I lived in a van in Seattle for a bit. I remember getting pulled out by about 10 cops in winter without a coat and detained (with cuffs) for about an hour while they searched my car and asked me questions. I didn't even know that it was illegal to sleep in a car. Now look at me, on a smart phone and shit, probably because I moved from Seattle. I can tell you downtown Olympia is a shithole right now and I would welcome a little gentrification.

@20: The City is implementing the recommendations in the Poppe Report. The city's own assessment of progress as of Sept. 2017 is here:

http://humaninterests.seattle.gov/2017/09/26/pathways-home-report-on-the-first-year/

McKinsey & Co. produced a rather infamous report this year, which shows progress is happening:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4483886-20181215-McKinsey-Homelessness-Final-Report.html

(Slide 18)

A person shouldn't be judged by her snorkeling. Nonetheless--

23: That picture of DaeDae suited up in a pink bunny suit to go smash some fascists on Halloween was really precious, was it not? (And that manchild is proud of it!)

DaeDae's Facebook and Twitter feeds are lined with more mirrors than the Hall at Versailles. He's lucky to be in love with such a wonderful guy.

You have to understand that Mudede is extremely insecure about his intelligence.

One would think this would make him extra careful not to make constant grammar, spelling, and word choice errors, as well as strive for accurate and reporting with basic levels of integrity. But instead it just makes him day drink, post pictures of piles of books to prove that he reads, and get mad when people point out his constant errors.

That Atlantic article is quite the "fair and balanced" piece of journalism. The author has a very clear agenda to paint this as a problem of racism rather than the economic issue that it is. As one example, the reader is expected to know that the Ballard community board must be bad because is is made up of "upper-class, white business owners and attorneys." That's certainly all I need to know to be sure that they are evil.

And then there is this lovely piece of logic: "The dearth of affordable housing is a major cause of homelessness here, where a tech boom led by Amazon has helped push home prices up by 19 percent a year. But homelessness also disproportionately impacts people of color. "

Those are not either-or situations. The "dearth of affordable housing" is exactly what is affecting people of color JUST LIKE THE OTHERS WHO ARE HOMELESS. The vast majority of Seattle's homeless (including almost 100% of the young, apparently able-bodied people I see nodding off on the streets when they are not panhandling) are white.

The race angle the author is spinning this through is only going to make people defensive and hinder a solution.

Do we have a lack of affordable housing? You bet. Do we need to do better in providing shelter beds? Absolutely. But the other side of that is that a lot of neighborhoods are justifiably pissed off about the piles of garbage that are being left around and the effect on their businesses. I know some extremely liberal people who don't even feel like they can let their kids play in their local parks now. That is not OK.

You want to fix this problem, talk about the zoning that makes it impossible to build more housing. We are already seeing rents starting to come down a bit due to the new apartments that are coming on line. Another 50k housing units would make a dent in this. How about we concentrate on that?

Lastly, I don't really care what the "journalist" told the City when he was researching the story. The public officials he spoke to ought to give everyone the same (hopefully truthful) answers. But the reader certainly has a right to know who the author is, so they can evaluate the story in the context of the author's viewpoint and biases.

@32 the problem is the city is doing what it can without raising funding...which basically ties its hands. Those reports are saying small incremental changes is happening. What we need is a visionary to lead us in larger change...but there’s no city leaders that want to do that.

The Atlantic is so intellectually weak. Here is a classic example in that article.

"But homelessness also disproportionately impacts people of color."

This tiresome canard of taking a condition and assuming it's plausible to use the active verb "impacts" in wrong in the first place. It tries to convey the notion that the condition is capable of manipulating events.

Homelessness does not manipulate events or people. It was not created to make people of color's lives harder. Homelessness is a result of economic and geographical factors. There's no inherent culpability here. Homelessness is not a defendant in the case, nor is it the prosecutor.

Only when this talking point fades will there every be any meaningful discussion of the problem.

@38 Thanks for injecting a bit of sanity in this tired debate between straw men. Some homeless people are victims, some aren't. Corporate Seattle didn't cause this problem, so corporate Seattle should't be the prime solution. We've created a special class of citizenry in this city. It comprises not only people who because of circumstances beyond their control became homeless, but also people who are mentally ill and don't want treatment, drug addicts who don't want to de-tox, and people who just don't want to put up with the bother of working for a living and living self-sufficiently. They cannot be arrested for vagrancy, loitering, jaywalking, riding the bus without paying, or a host of other things that you or I would be arrested for. It's time to get real about homelessness if we're going to help those who deserve help.

There are myriad reasons for homelessness. I'm just curious why, other than right-wing type people, the cumulative impact of personal choices isn't tendered as a primary cause. For example, trying heroin once doesn't make you homeless (I'm guessing). But choosing to continue to use heroin can put you in situations that may make you lose your home.

For some segment of the homeless population, they put themselves into the position they're in, and while it's sad, why should we (the broader we like the tax-paying citizens of the city of Seattle) foot the bill to help them? The hard-nosed asshole in me says get the fuck out of my city, you're ruining it for the rest of us and not contributing a red cent. The bleeding heart liberal in me says we're all humans and should help each other. I don't know which side of me is winning but lately it's getting to the point that I don't want to help someone who doesn't want to help themselves because that is an exhaustive, losing battle.

It is a slippery slope indeed when we collectively decide, through action or inaction, that some human life is worth less than others.

@37: The Poppe Report was unequivocal: we don’t need more money to solve our homelessness crisis. Proper application of the funds already dedicated will solve the problem. We should at least give it a try before we allocate more resources.

That’s one of the reasons citizens turned out in droves to sign the referendum petitions to repeal the head tax. Our City Council had a report in hand telling them no new tax was necessary, and they tried to tax our jobs anyway.

The Stranger and many of its writers supported the head tax, and are still reeling from the swift reversal. Uninterested in learning why they lost in such a spectacularly humiliating manner, they cast about for anyone else to blame. Hence Charles here, bitterly complaining about how readers were actually allowed to know the full identity of a writer whose work he had praised. We rejected the head tax because, he believes, we just were not fed sufficient propaganda about how great it was.

So the "journalist, who is really simply an activist who gives the cops a hard time whenever they clean up a filthy, dangerous and illegal encampment wrote about the recent sweep of the Ravenna Woods camp. I'm sure, since we're told no one "chooses" to be homeless, these poor "people experiencing homelessness" hate their situation and would do anything to get out of it, right? Well, let's see what one of the Ravenna Woods campers had to say about that, as quoted in the ST:

"Resident Tidus Nadella, 29,...called the camp a “tribalistic village” and said living there was his attempt to embrace a nomadic lifestyle."

But how can that be? According to "journalist" Dae Shik Kim Hawkins, the Find It Fix It app and the sweeps are racist in nature, and the campers are treated like slaves. Apparently there's no difference between people forcibly kidnapped from their home and brought across the sea to be enslaved and brutalized and vagrants voluntarily embracing a "nomadic lifestyle."

What next? The campers raise their chains in the air and sing a stirring ambition of "Go Down Moses?" Come on, sing it, Dae, "Let my people go!"