Another fact-free opinion from the Port, delivered at a cost of the newspaper subscribers of the Seattle Times.
Port tells the Seattle Time what to say. They print it. They deliver it. You pay for it. They also get a state tax break, so, we all pay for it.
If only they used facts in the Port's "editorial".
Did Peter Steinbrueck write that for you, Frank Blethen?
The fact is that every mass transit system that serves King County also serve the Stadium District.
The arena will provide $200 to $300 thousand dollars in new taxes to Metro Transit, accourding the King County's Dwight Dively.
Any other location would require a parking lot or garage, mass transit infrastructure, and mass transit service that has already been funded to serve the Stadium District.
The Port Speaks! Sodo arena: wrong location, bad plan, no public funds
Maybe to Seattle Times Editorial Board should get off their asses and go talk to Jon Talton.
"If we pass this up, we're even stupider than we were on Seattle Commons and on the 1969 rail system that we could have had but instead went to Atlanta and was wasted. Let us shoot ourselves in the foot, reload, and shoot again. You will not get a better deal than this.." — Seattle Times economics columnist Jon Talton, June 27
Have a great day,
Mike Baker
Sent from my iPhone
Visit me here:
http://ManyWordsForRain.blogspot.com
Showing posts with label Seattle Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Seattle Times. Show all posts
Saturday, July 7, 2012
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Note to the Seattle Times on state budget cutting: We're in this together, some more than others
I have deleted rude comments from the Seattle Times editorial so you can is is easier to see the story and the argument.
The short of it is that Adams (18,376), Asotin (22,290), Ferry (8,117), Stevens (46,616), Lincoln (10,393), Garfield (2,410), Yakima (241,446) and Wahkiakum (4,172) counties have populations that take in far more state tax money to run than they produce (wa.ofm 2010 estimate).
There are plenty of smaller counties than Yakima, and Washington State counties are not formed by some defined process, not by land mass or population, and not by how many people need representation ((Crosscut/Mossback). Lack of population is a different issue where those counties might want to consider consolidating into other counties to save money on administrative costs. The measure Washington State Representative Glenn Anderson (R - Fall City) is sponsoring is to address the gross imbalance of taxes a county paid to taxes it received. Anderson is one of three sponsors of legislation (HJR 4214) that address heavily subsidized counties.
Attention Seattle Times: Some of us have noticed that the counties that persistently vote down tax increases locally and state-wide persistently take in more taxes than they actually generate.
The larger point is that these counties both complaining about taxation while essentially being welfare counties. See the "Ratio of Expenditures to Revenue" column here, and notice at the top the 6 counties get back less than they put in, and at the bottom are counties that in some cases get more than two times as much tax money in return.
The Seattle Times Editorial Board fails to offer a meaningful argument against the legislation, just that it would be "bad". The reality the Seattle Times is refusing to face is that the voters did vote down tax increases and so we are seeing a natural reaction of self preservation. In this state those that "have" also happen to have the population to ensure the counties that "have not" get exactly what they claim they want, less government.
Government in this little exercise is expressed in dollars.
Expect government to be transferred to the local level where possible, that is, taxes collected and kept at a local level. This local government will naturally invite people to question why tax money in some cases is held at the local level while in other cases it is redistributed in grossly uneven quantities to other counties.
Expect it, because that is where we are.
Last Tuesday, Goldy at The Stranger wrote a pretty good story on this, Since Red Counties Enjoy a Disproportionate Share of the State Budget, They Should Expect a Disproportionate Share of the Cuts
(see his groovy map below)
The short of it is that Adams (18,376), Asotin (22,290), Ferry (8,117), Stevens (46,616), Lincoln (10,393), Garfield (2,410), Yakima (241,446) and Wahkiakum (4,172) counties have populations that take in far more state tax money to run than they produce (wa.ofm 2010 estimate).
There are plenty of smaller counties than Yakima, and Washington State counties are not formed by some defined process, not by land mass or population, and not by how many people need representation ((Crosscut/Mossback). Lack of population is a different issue where those counties might want to consider consolidating into other counties to save money on administrative costs. The measure Washington State Representative Glenn Anderson (R - Fall City) is sponsoring is to address the gross imbalance of taxes a county paid to taxes it received. Anderson is one of three sponsors of legislation (HJR 4214) that address heavily subsidized counties.
WHEREAS, Taxpayers in certain counties of the state persistently contribute more in state taxes than the state expends in those counties; and
WHEREAS, Other counties of the state persistently absorb more state moneys than taxpayers in those counties contribute in state taxes; and
WHEREAS, Taxpayers in counties that contribute more in state taxes than the state expends in their counties reap a disproportionately small benefit from their tax contribution, and therefore bear an unjust and unreasonable tax burden; and
WHEREAS, The fiscal well-being of the state demands that each Washington county contribute to the economic welfare of the state; and
WHEREAS, Principles of fundamental tax-burden fairness call for dissolution and reorganization of counties that persistently absorb more state funds than their taxpayers contribute to state tax revenues;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, IN LEGISLATIVE SESSION ASSEMBLED:
THAT, At the next general election to be held in this state the secretary of state shall submit to the qualified voters of the state for their approval and ratification, or rejection, an amendment to Article XI, section 3 of the Constitution of the state of Washington to read as follows:
(read the rest of the bill, and follow HJR 4214 here)
Attention Seattle Times: Some of us have noticed that the counties that persistently vote down tax increases locally and state-wide persistently take in more taxes than they actually generate.
The larger point is that these counties both complaining about taxation while essentially being welfare counties. See the "Ratio of Expenditures to Revenue" column here, and notice at the top the 6 counties get back less than they put in, and at the bottom are counties that in some cases get more than two times as much tax money in return.
State Rep. Glenn Anderson proposes a constitutional amendment to allow the state to dissolve and reorganize counties that receive twice as much in state services as they generate in tax revenues. Oooh. Bad idea.
SOMETHING strange is happening in Olympia, where two state lawmakers from King County are overly excited that urbanized and suburbanized counties contribute more tax dollars to state coffers than rural areas.
This fact is neither new nor news, but that has not stopped state Rep. Glenn Anderson, R-Fall City, from introducing a constitutional amendment to allow the state "to dissolve and reorganize" counties that receive twice as much in state services as they generate in tax revenues. He refers to Adams, Asotin, Ferry, Stevens, Lincoln, Garfield, Yakima and Wahkiakum counties. Oh, please.
It is obvious that urban-suburban areas will pay more on a percentage basis than rural areas. So what?
. . .
Anderson's point is that rural counties bristle at King and other wealthier counties for dominating the state budget and agenda. But these wealthier counties net export dollars to places where lawmakers complain.
Beyond that, Anderson says rural counties need a long-term plan to sustain themselves either by merging with another county or finding new ways to create jobs and become more self-sufficient.
The best way for Washington to dig out of its current budget crisis is to do it together as one state solving problems collectively.
. . .
. . . six counties contribute 75 percent of the state's total tax revenue and many others receive more in services than they pay.
If this is all about having a conversation about the imbalance, discuss at will. But the constitutional idea is going nowhere. That involves the state sloughing problem areas off to counties, which are in no better shape than the state.
Lawmakers must engage in solid budget cutting endeavors that do the least harm to all of Washington.
Editorials | Note to state budget cutters: We're in this together | Seattle Times Newspaper
The Seattle Times Editorial Board fails to offer a meaningful argument against the legislation, just that it would be "bad". The reality the Seattle Times is refusing to face is that the voters did vote down tax increases and so we are seeing a natural reaction of self preservation. In this state those that "have" also happen to have the population to ensure the counties that "have not" get exactly what they claim they want, less government.
Government in this little exercise is expressed in dollars.
Expect government to be transferred to the local level where possible, that is, taxes collected and kept at a local level. This local government will naturally invite people to question why tax money in some cases is held at the local level while in other cases it is redistributed in grossly uneven quantities to other counties.
Expect it, because that is where we are.
Last Tuesday, Goldy at The Stranger wrote a pretty good story on this, Since Red Counties Enjoy a Disproportionate Share of the State Budget, They Should Expect a Disproportionate Share of the Cuts
(see his groovy map below)
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Seattle Times, Ryan Blethen's Opinion | The trolls and bullies must not stifle community engagement
The Seattle Times' Ryan Blethen has taken the tragedy of the shooting in Arizona and the resulting public discussion on the nature of public discourse to publish a self-serving opinion piece on how people say mean things on Seattle Times' comment boards.
No, I'm not kidding.
Dear Ryan Bkethen,
Maybe the Seattle Times could use their journalistic skills and separate how people are communicating with what people are communicating. They might realize that there is a consistent and repeating message by people that see the world all around come apart, not just the "nice to have" things but real people with real problems of homelessness and a lack of food. These people, apparently, have not benefitted from the billions of dollars of tax loopholes, and the business community that always championing the cause of somebody else giving something to make things better.
It appears that many people see big business, including the Seattle Times owners, as hypocrites. With one hand you champion your "new normal", with the other your hand is out for my tax money (that is what a tax break is, Ryan, my tax money).
Maybe the Seattle Times, and all of the businesses that champion for less government should actually participate in less government by willingly taking your hand out of my wallet. Let's go ahead an let the freedom of the marketplace determine winners and losers, and not have the state government pick winners and losers by giving you, the Seattle Times, a tax break.
Lead by example, Seattle Times.
This appears to be a starting point from which the "fifth generation Seattle Times owner", Ryan , launches into a critique of modern public discourse on the Seattle Times comment section. People are mean on the internet. That is true. It is also true that the anonymity that frees people to be mean also frees them to be nicer to complete strangers they have never met in the flesh. Ryan, it cuts both ways, your business just happens to be in the industry that profits from delivering bad news, tending to make people (wait for it) unhappy. When you compound that "delivering bad news for a profit" business model with editorials that routinely demand media freedom and less government, while taking corporate welfare, you are bound to be speaking from a logical disadvantage.
It's the hyprocracy, stupid.
No, I'm not kidding.
If we as a nation learned anything from the shootings in Tucson it is that stirring, meaningful speech is still possible. Yet it can be hard to hear above the roaring sewer that often passes for public dialogue
. . .
I questioned whether I should write this column. Are the commentors who hide behind fake names worth my time addressing? The answer is: occasionally.
Like it or not, what they say is part of the dialogue of The Seattle Times Opinion section.
My favorites are the regulars who comment on every column I write. Charlievictor has become so predictable after 531 comments, I don't even have to read what he writes. Without fail he always begins:
"Once again, the ethically challenged, self-dealing helium filled gas bag otherwise known as corporate welfare king Ryan Blethen ... ." Blah, blah, blah ... . On editorials he uses the same language and substitutes my name with "The Seattle Times editorial board."
The Charlievictors are harmless and not effective. The most they do is call me an idiot and claim the only reason I have a job is because my family owns the newspaper. Never heard that one before.
Some days I feel like we provide a service. A place to vent and hopefully prepare angry commentors to face the world a bit deflated.
Opinion | The trolls and bullies must not stifle community engagement | Seattle Times Newspaper
Dear Ryan Bkethen,
Maybe the Seattle Times could use their journalistic skills and separate how people are communicating with what people are communicating. They might realize that there is a consistent and repeating message by people that see the world all around come apart, not just the "nice to have" things but real people with real problems of homelessness and a lack of food. These people, apparently, have not benefitted from the billions of dollars of tax loopholes, and the business community that always championing the cause of somebody else giving something to make things better.
It appears that many people see big business, including the Seattle Times owners, as hypocrites. With one hand you champion your "new normal", with the other your hand is out for my tax money (that is what a tax break is, Ryan, my tax money).
Maybe the Seattle Times, and all of the businesses that champion for less government should actually participate in less government by willingly taking your hand out of my wallet. Let's go ahead an let the freedom of the marketplace determine winners and losers, and not have the state government pick winners and losers by giving you, the Seattle Times, a tax break.
Lead by example, Seattle Times.
This appears to be a starting point from which the "fifth generation Seattle Times owner", Ryan , launches into a critique of modern public discourse on the Seattle Times comment section. People are mean on the internet. That is true. It is also true that the anonymity that frees people to be mean also frees them to be nicer to complete strangers they have never met in the flesh. Ryan, it cuts both ways, your business just happens to be in the industry that profits from delivering bad news, tending to make people (wait for it) unhappy. When you compound that "delivering bad news for a profit" business model with editorials that routinely demand media freedom and less government, while taking corporate welfare, you are bound to be speaking from a logical disadvantage.
It's the hyprocracy, stupid.
Monday, August 17, 2009
A question about endorsement deliberation method at the Times
Mr. Blethen,
Inquiring minds want to know, and I am bothering to ask, what was the deliberation method used in determining the Times Editorial endorsement in this year's mayoral race?
I speculated: Was it a process intended to produce a duell endorsement, or did they (you all) have a pretend democracy and invited John Gastil in to count votes and give them heck when they strayed from Robert's Rules of Order?
http://publicola.net/?p=11977 I speculate.
Was I close?
Thanks, and have a great day,
Mike Baker
Sent from my iPhone
Visit me here: http://ManyWordsForRain.blogspot.com
I BCC'd this email to my blog.
You are welcome, America!
Inquiring minds want to know, and I am bothering to ask, what was the deliberation method used in determining the Times Editorial endorsement in this year's mayoral race?
I speculated: Was it a process intended to produce a duell endorsement, or did they (you all) have a pretend democracy and invited John Gastil in to count votes and give them heck when they strayed from Robert's Rules of Order?
http://publicola.net/?p=11977 I speculate.
Was I close?
Thanks, and have a great day,
Mike Baker
Sent from my iPhone
Visit me here: http://ManyWordsForRain.blogspot.com
I BCC'd this email to my blog.
You are welcome, America!
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Seattle Times, and all local media publish KIRO newsroom dirt, calling it news: Susan Hutchison
News?
Maybe, I see two points where this could be news: Behind the scenes look at media that seldom reports on itself; what kind of person Susan Hutchison might be.
Media gawking.
Media gawking.
Ok, but sealing, unsealing records is not news. What is news is that Hutchison has avoided being in open public forums early in her campaign, and has refused to submit questionaires, at least that is the charge from the person hoping to challenge Hutchison in the general election, Dow Constantine.
Dow Constantine is using this subject as a means to present himself as the presumptive opposition, and win the second spot in the August 18th King County Primary Election.
The "demands of serving in public life" are that you are no longer a limited-private person that can only be reported on in the media in reference to your job reporting the news. You chose to be a public servant, and a politician lives a life that is pretty much an open book. That is the one of the major "demands of serving in public life", and you, of any candidate, must know that as a fact.
We, the people, demand to know what kind of person is representing us (at least your news profession has made that argument). This may be the actual news part of this melodrama, that, and that she is now a Public Person.
Susan Hutchison's court case being opened may be intrusive to her, or embarrassing, or whatever. After many years of reporting the news she, of any first time candidate, must know the limits and demands of private information that has been submitted in court.
She chose to run for PUBLIC office.
Why do you think so many people are not willing to put up with their lives being an open book? It has been news people prying open people's lives, like Hutchison did for twenty years at KIRO TV, that has Hutchison in this position.
The fact that she still refuses to recognize the legal and political situation for what it is, out in the open and being controlled by her opponents.
Not every political novice fails to see the open life they have willingly chosen, in this case Hutchison is attempting to deny information her profession has made a living exposing.
This should not be news, and not controlled by her opponents, and that says more about Susan Hutchison than anything printed in the Seattle Times. She worked for KIRO TV for twenty years and does not know how the manage information others may use against her. Pathetic. How will she advocate for King County in unpopular media environments? Will she depend on the kindness of the media, or county executives of other counties competing for state dollars? Good luck with that, Hutchison.
We need a leader that can manage people as well as sensitive information, personal or public. We do not need a show pony, but a work horse.
Too harsh?
I read in a story about Ross Hunter that he was checked out by his doctor and does not have CANCER.
That is revealing, and that is owning information in the public sphere. Not only did I not have to see a document, but the context that the personal facts were reported were directly from the source.
Own your public life, or somebody else will.
And that is the news.
Have a great day,
Mike Baker
Maybe, I see two points where this could be news: Behind the scenes look at media that seldom reports on itself; what kind of person Susan Hutchison might be.
Susan Hutchison, now a candidate for King County executive, was so stressed about having been replaced as a news anchor at KIRO-TV that she took medical leave in September 2002 and never went back to work at the station before she was terminated in December of that year.
Media gawking.
The records show that during a tumultuous time at KIRO — amid low ratings and staff changes — Hutchison's supervisors lost faith in her ability to stabilize the station's viewership. And after being demoted from the anchor's chair, her supervisors said Hutchison's behavior caused her to lose credibility with them.
Media gawking.
King County Superior Court Judge Timothy Bradshaw agreed. "The openness of our courts is constitutionally mandated and is a vital part of state history," Bradshaw said in his ruling.
Ok, but sealing, unsealing records is not news. What is news is that Hutchison has avoided being in open public forums early in her campaign, and has refused to submit questionaires, at least that is the charge from the person hoping to challenge Hutchison in the general election, Dow Constantine.
Dow Constantine is using this subject as a means to present himself as the presumptive opposition, and win the second spot in the August 18th King County Primary Election.
Hutchison had been fighting release of the records.
In a written and videotaped statement after the judge's ruling, Hutchison said her lawsuit against KIRO prepared her for public office:
"There is no doubt that the hard road I chose in fighting against discrimination so many years ago also prepared me for the rigors of this campaign, and the demands of serving in public life."
The "demands of serving in public life" are that you are no longer a limited-private person that can only be reported on in the media in reference to your job reporting the news. You chose to be a public servant, and a politician lives a life that is pretty much an open book. That is the one of the major "demands of serving in public life", and you, of any candidate, must know that as a fact.
We, the people, demand to know what kind of person is representing us (at least your news profession has made that argument). This may be the actual news part of this melodrama, that, and that she is now a Public Person.
Susan Hutchison's court case being opened may be intrusive to her, or embarrassing, or whatever. After many years of reporting the news she, of any first time candidate, must know the limits and demands of private information that has been submitted in court.
She chose to run for PUBLIC office.
Why do you think so many people are not willing to put up with their lives being an open book? It has been news people prying open people's lives, like Hutchison did for twenty years at KIRO TV, that has Hutchison in this position.
Hutchison's statement Friday claimed she is still muzzled by a 2005 confidentiality agreement with KIRO and unable to discuss the case and KIRO's allegations about her.
"My lips are sealed even as these documents are unsealed," Hutchison said in her statement.
But Bradshaw, the judge, said, "As to the muzzling argument, it is sufficiently clear that's not the case."
KIRO's lawyer Bruce Johnson maintained, in a letter to the court, that Hutchison was free to talk about the case; she just can't discuss details of the settlement she reached with KIRO.
After Bradshaw's ruling, Jon Rosen, Hutchison's lawyer, said he expected Hutchison would rebut some of KIRO's claims.
Hutchison's campaign manager insisted that Hutchison was still unable to talk about the lawsuit because of the confidentiality agreement.
"As far as we're concerned she's still bound by it. We don't believe he (Bradshaw) has jurisdiction to release her from the confidentiality agreement," said Jordan McCarren.
Seattle Times: Hutchison had stormy relationship with bosses
The fact that she still refuses to recognize the legal and political situation for what it is, out in the open and being controlled by her opponents.
Not every political novice fails to see the open life they have willingly chosen, in this case Hutchison is attempting to deny information her profession has made a living exposing.
This should not be news, and not controlled by her opponents, and that says more about Susan Hutchison than anything printed in the Seattle Times. She worked for KIRO TV for twenty years and does not know how the manage information others may use against her. Pathetic. How will she advocate for King County in unpopular media environments? Will she depend on the kindness of the media, or county executives of other counties competing for state dollars? Good luck with that, Hutchison.
We need a leader that can manage people as well as sensitive information, personal or public. We do not need a show pony, but a work horse.
Too harsh?
I read in a story about Ross Hunter that he was checked out by his doctor and does not have CANCER.
That is revealing, and that is owning information in the public sphere. Not only did I not have to see a document, but the context that the personal facts were reported were directly from the source.
Own your public life, or somebody else will.
And that is the news.
Have a great day,
Mike Baker
Sent from my iPhone
Visit me here:
http://ManyWordsForRain.blogspot.com
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Seatthe Times: Opinion - Endorsements are a vibrant contribution to community deliberation at election time
For-profit newspaper industry wants the feedom of the press, including advocating for candidates in there editorial pages, while also benefitting from the tax status of a not-for-profit organization.
So, what's the problem?
An advocate newspaper in that instance might become 501(c)(4) - lobbyist publication. And what stops a 501(c)(4) from claiming to be a 501(c)(3) non-profit?
How about churches that cross the line to advocate directly for candidates with endorsements.
Newspapers have worked very hard to put themselves in this box, independant of other organizations, to be free in the free market. The market has shrunk, so now you want it both ways, to be picked by the government as worthy of 501(c)(3) status, without that intrusive regulation that would prevent a newspaper from becoming a schill.
Being a schill is not only distasteful (Armstrong Williams), but actually against the LAW.
How could a not-for profit both take money in direct payment from a person or business and express an honest and independant newsroom and editorial board?
Blind trust and blind faith?
Not likely.
There is a helluva lot of regulation, law, and plain old common sense that has made things the way your industry has wanted it for almost 100 years.
I have a great idea, how about just starting with the current legislation. This arrangement has not hurt NPR, has it?
Then, maybe, the non-profit newspaper would at least pretend to strike a balance in reporting.
Have a great day,
Mike Baker
Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., came up with a bill that would change the tax code to allow newspapers to become 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. I commend Cardin for trying to use legislation to perpetuate a vital part of American democracy. So what's the problem? If the bill passes as is, any newspaper that opts to become a nonprofit will not be allowed to endorse candidates in political elections.
Seattle Times' Ryan Blethen.
So, what's the problem?
An advocate newspaper in that instance might become 501(c)(4) - lobbyist publication. And what stops a 501(c)(4) from claiming to be a 501(c)(3) non-profit?
How about churches that cross the line to advocate directly for candidates with endorsements.
Newspapers have worked very hard to put themselves in this box, independant of other organizations, to be free in the free market. The market has shrunk, so now you want it both ways, to be picked by the government as worthy of 501(c)(3) status, without that intrusive regulation that would prevent a newspaper from becoming a schill.
Being a schill is not only distasteful (Armstrong Williams), but actually against the LAW.
How could a not-for profit both take money in direct payment from a person or business and express an honest and independant newsroom and editorial board?
Blind trust and blind faith?
Not likely.
There is a helluva lot of regulation, law, and plain old common sense that has made things the way your industry has wanted it for almost 100 years.
I have a great idea, how about just starting with the current legislation. This arrangement has not hurt NPR, has it?
Then, maybe, the non-profit newspaper would at least pretend to strike a balance in reporting.
Have a great day,
Mike Baker
Sent from my iPhone
Visit me here:
http://ManyWordsForRain.blogspot.com
Friday, July 31, 2009
The Seattle Times recommends: Nickels, Mallahan top so-so field in Seattle mayor's race
The McGinn supporters are going to be as upset as they had anticipated they would be by the Seattle Times endorsement.
Seattle Times endorsement
Friends of Seattle endorsed Mike McGinn.
I then dropped out of the FoS Facebook group, not because of the endorsement, I endorsed McGinn and Mallahan. FoS has an AstroTurf feel to it. If they are, or not, is not the point.
Seattle Times endorsement
Friends of Seattle endorsed Mike McGinn.
I then dropped out of the FoS Facebook group, not because of the endorsement, I endorsed McGinn and Mallahan. FoS has an AstroTurf feel to it. If they are, or not, is not the point.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Seattle Times "editorial board here to help with voter education before Aug. 18 primary"
SEATTLE - Welcome to the one newspaper town, Seattle. This will be the first election cycle in more than a century to be reported on, editorialized, and opined, through the pages of one daily metro newspaper.
How will anybody know, for sure, that the bias of the Seattle Times is more of the same it has, or a final payoff for more of the same bias?
This same newspaper lobbied, and incumbant politicians they "cover" lobbied, for a special partial exemption from Washington State's B & O tax [quid].
The technology that enables the Seattle Times to transmit video of its editorial board interviews of candidates will also allow web sites, bloggers, and the fringe publications to have thier voices heard, too.
The new medium gives anybody a tiny bit more power than maybe they should. We are were we are, in an environment where the daily metro has gotten into bed with the people they are supposed to be reporting on.
We have to fend for ourselves, to some extent.
I have an iPhone, and I am not afraid to use it.
Have a great day,
Mike Baker
How will anybody know, for sure, that the bias of the Seattle Times is more of the same it has, or a final payoff for more of the same bias?
This same newspaper lobbied, and incumbant politicians they "cover" lobbied, for a special partial exemption from Washington State's B & O tax [quid].
To this end our schedule at The Times is packed with endorsement interviews this month. We will be vetting races from the Eastside to Seattle that involve more than two candidates, triggering a primary vote. In most cases, the editorial board will pick two candidates to suggest for the general election [pro quo?]. The advancing candidates will likely be asked to come in for another endorsement meeting in the fall.
Technology makes it possible to give voters more insight into the endorsement process. Seattletimes.com will webcast our endorsement meetings for King County executive on July 15 and Seattle mayor on July 21.
Look for our endorsements the last week of this month and the first week of August. The endorsements will begin running about a week before the mail ballots go out and for nearly a week after voters receive them. This ensures voters have our suggestions before and while they sit down at the kitchen table to vote. We will also do a recap of our suggestions closer to Aug. 18.
We are not going it alone for this primary. The editorial page has partnered with CityClub to put on debates for the two highest profile races. The county executive debate will be July 16 at the Meydenbauer Center in Bellevue. The following week, on July 23, we will be at it again with the Seattle mayoral debate at CityClub's home in Rainier Square.
Ryan Blethen
Times editorial page Editor
The technology that enables the Seattle Times to transmit video of its editorial board interviews of candidates will also allow web sites, bloggers, and the fringe publications to have thier voices heard, too.
The new medium gives anybody a tiny bit more power than maybe they should. We are were we are, in an environment where the daily metro has gotten into bed with the people they are supposed to be reporting on.
We have to fend for ourselves, to some extent.
I have an iPhone, and I am not afraid to use it.
Have a great day,
Mike Baker
Sent from my iPhone
Visit me here:
http://ManyWordsForRain.blogspot.com
Monday, May 25, 2009
HorsesAss.Org: Distributed Journalism: the Future of News?
SEATTLE - I'll parse this story, inserting my opinion throughout. I am as much of an expert in what the future looks like as anybody else (nobody knows).
Yes, it will not be very different for a reader like you.. What I think you see coming is the boutique shopping for news and views replacing the megalomart that has been served for so long.
Had you read Joni Balter at the Seattle Times blog entry in ED cetera, Extreme politicking at the King County Council, you would have seen another version of that boutique. The Seattle Times columnist outsourcing to a trusted person blogging original content (welcome to the future).
Newspapers used to ride the rails for free, get stories distributed to other newspapers along the railway line.
Syndicated columnists that get paid for those distributed stories is a concept ripe for remediation in boutique news reporting.
If you localize this idea and then ask yourself, why does the Seattle Times pay columnists that write general stories (absent original reporting) when they could just select a story from one of the many boutiques?
TV is a bad example, The cash cow goes moo when they air the 5 o'clock news on the individual stations, all at the same time. But, the single courtroom camera is not new to television. In some ways you can already see local tv news do boutique news when they use a newspaper as a source of a report.
A lot of what can be reported is streamed live n the internet, SeattleChannel.org, TVW.org, and whatever they call King County television. (the real question there is why they need three different channels to broadcast on).
This is just where it is going. Politoco.com is replacing some national columnists & talking heads. So, how about Publicola being the local version of that source? And why stop with them as sources?
What I think the portal idea would really looks like is the Seattle Post Globe, but idividualized by the end user and dynamic. Your HorsesAss.org RSS window has a little byline advertisement that is split between you and the feed, like google ads but without google sucking the micro-value out of everything you do.
I wonder what the portrait photographers thought of the Kodak Brownie camera.
Scarcity would provide the idea of value, but the endless sea of blogs and twitters make that unlikely.
The question becomes how do we use the sea, and what technology yet re-invented can the individual utilize to prefect a new social identity and personal communication. Maybe something like facebook only a news journal for the individual.
A sub-list of stories you read today on you page for others to see.
We all become jounalists of our own lives, with public identities we use to socialize with.
Have a great day,
Mike Baker
Sent from my iPhone
Visit me here:
http://ManyWordsForRain.blogspot.com
Distributed Journalism: the Future of News? by Goldy, 05/24/2009, 10:53 AM
As newspapers and other large media corporations struggle to develop new business models for the twenty-first century, I wonder if we aren’t already seeing the future of journalism gradually evolving before our eyes… a future that, from the consumer’s perspective doesn’t really look all that remarkably different from the past?
Yes, it will not be very different for a reader like you.. What I think you see coming is the boutique shopping for news and views replacing the megalomart that has been served for so long.
I was reading the New York Times this morning (online of course), and clicked through on a headline in the Technology section, “Why It’s the Megabits, Not the MIPs, That Matter.” It’s an interesting bit of analysis, at least to a techno-geek like me, but what I found truly fascinating was the fact that the Times had picked up the piece from the GigaOM technology news network.
Had you read Joni Balter at the Seattle Times blog entry in ED cetera, Extreme politicking at the King County Council, you would have seen another version of that boutique. The Seattle Times columnist outsourcing to a trusted person blogging original content (welcome to the future).
Of course, this kind of arrangement is nothing new. Newswires like Reuters and the Associated Press have played an integral role in our media since shortly after the invention of the telegraph, and syndicated columnists have long been a mainstay of opinion pages nationwide. Hell, there are often days when less than half the stories on the Seattle Times front page are written by Seattle Times reporters.
Newspapers used to ride the rails for free, get stories distributed to other newspapers along the railway line.
Syndicated columnists that get paid for those distributed stories is a concept ripe for remediation in boutique news reporting.
What’s different today is the explosion in number and quality of web sites and networks like GigaOM, and their ability to expertly specialize in subject matter far beyond that of traditional news wires like the AP. As the Internet and other related technologies continue to tear down the barriers of entry to the media market, there will be many more, not fewer, opportunities to enter the field of journalism. These opportunities may not always pay well (or, at all), but they are there none the less.
If you localize this idea and then ask yourself, why does the Seattle Times pay columnists that write general stories (absent original reporting) when they could just select a story from one of the many boutiques?
The result may be that journalism is gradually transformed from a profession dominated by generalists to one of specialists, each focused on their own particular field of expertise. And as traditional media outlets grow increasingly comfortable with the notion of outsourcing their content to a growing number of third party sources, we may see an end to the kind of duplicate efforts that have long characterized certain types of coverage. (For example, do we really need four TV cameras at the same press conference, when the same sound bite inevitably ends up on all four evening newscasts?)
TV is a bad example, The cash cow goes moo when they air the 5 o'clock news on the individual stations, all at the same time. But, the single courtroom camera is not new to television. In some ways you can already see local tv news do boutique news when they use a newspaper as a source of a report.
Under such a model one could imagine an entrepreneurial journalist setting out to provide in-depth coverage of Seattle city government, a notebook computer and compact high-def camera in hand, serving as a one-person, city hall news pool for any and all media outlets wishing to subscribe. The fact that the same footage might appear simultaneously on KING-5 and KOMO-4 has little downside considering that few viewers watch both broadcasts at once, and if properly done, the only thing keeping the Seattle Times from supplementing their city hall coverage with this wire-like reporting might be a misplaced sense of pride.
A lot of what can be reported is streamed live n the internet, SeattleChannel.org, TVW.org, and whatever they call King County television. (the real question there is why they need three different channels to broadcast on).
Neighborhood sites like West Seattle Blog could fill a similar role, distributing hyperlocal coverage to regional, state and national outlets. On the flip side, a political site like Publicola could serve as a sorta Capitol news bureau for West Seattle Blog and other neighborhood sites.
Yes, such a model would surely lead traditional news outlets to hire fewer full time reporters, and produce less and less original content, but that’s already happening as it is. And as the Internet continues to tear down barriers to market, those newspapers and broadcasters who transition to a more portal-like product while failing to provide a richer and more varied experience to their audience will inevitably face serious competition from upstarts who will.
This is just where it is going. Politoco.com is replacing some national columnists & talking heads. So, how about Publicola being the local version of that source? And why stop with them as sources?
What I think the portal idea would really looks like is the Seattle Post Globe, but idividualized by the end user and dynamic. Your HorsesAss.org RSS window has a little byline advertisement that is split between you and the feed, like google ads but without google sucking the micro-value out of everything you do.
All that’s lacking now is a standardized distribution and payment network… a kinda AP representing bloggers and other journalists that allows media outlets of all sizes to reproduce content in print, on air and online, without having to negotiate a hundred different contracts. Ideally, this would take the form of a cooperative owned by the content creators themselves, but I suppose the market will have a say in the final details.
Or maybe not. This model of distributed journalism is clearly playing a larger and larger role in the news industry. The only question remaining is whether the journalists themselves will reap a fair share of the profits.
I wonder what the portrait photographers thought of the Kodak Brownie camera.
Scarcity would provide the idea of value, but the endless sea of blogs and twitters make that unlikely.
The question becomes how do we use the sea, and what technology yet re-invented can the individual utilize to prefect a new social identity and personal communication. Maybe something like facebook only a news journal for the individual.
A sub-list of stories you read today on you page for others to see.
We all become jounalists of our own lives, with public identities we use to socialize with.
Have a great day,
Mike Baker
Sent from my iPhone
Visit me here:
http://ManyWordsForRain.blogspot.com
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Crosscut.com: Should Seattle politics devolve?
SEATTLE - Crosscut.com's publisher, David Brewster, asks if it is the right time to "devolve" the city council. I am having a hard time coming up with a good reason why it shouldn't.
The downtown-centric city government is just not as accountable to the people that live here as they are to people that live in places like Medina.
Read Crosscut here!
On the same day the Seattle Time came out against this, and for keeping the government just the way it is they were given a big tax break by the state (you whores).
The downtown-centric city government is just not as accountable to the people that live here as they are to people that live in places like Medina.
Read Crosscut here!
On the same day the Seattle Time came out against this, and for keeping the government just the way it is they were given a big tax break by the state (you whores).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)