Shorter Ryan Blethen: Do not take welfare away from newspapers

Good-bye welfare for newspapers.

One of the more disturbing bills comes from Rep. Ross Hunter, D-Medina. House Bill 1818 would create a state-run website where all county notices. Current law stipulates that government notices must run in a newspaper, a longtime practice that has served the public well.

Newspapers are watchdogs of government. This is done in a number of ways, the most obvious being through reporting. As important are the paid legal notices.
. . .
The other consequence is financial. The Times, like other newspapers, stands to lose revenue. For a larger paper like The Times the hit would not be too bad. But for a weekly it will mean jobs, and may even force some weeklies to close. I have to believe that legislators do not want to be responsible for shuttering community newspapers.

Opinion | Bills threaten people's ability to remain informed of government actions | Seattle Times Newspaper

Legal notices are not going away, they are going the way of the internet, the internet that can be accessed for free at your local library.

This editorial is from the same newspaper that gave Don Brunell page space as a guest columnist, "State should change how it does business, not simply cut programs".

Among other things, this is what your guy Don wrote (emphasis mine):

An obvious example is the state printing office. Lawmakers have long bandied about the idea of privatizing this function. According to The Spokesman-Review, the state printing office, founded in 1854, employs 100 state workers. But most printing jobs can be done on agency printers and bigger jobs should be outsourced to private print shops.

While the budget for the print shop is relatively small, it illustrates an important principle: Just because we've always done something doesn't mean we should continue. This budget crisis provides lawmakers — and taxpayers — with an opportunity to take a hard look at the very structure of state government.

As long as it is an opportunity to take a hard look at something that impacts somebody else, then that is something the Seattle Times is willing to support. Blethen, we are all in this together, it is a "crisis". You have to do your part, too.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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].

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