I gave myself the weekend to sleep on it, during which I didn’t load a Seattle Times web page once. I thought I might, with a little distance, eventually fisk the paper’s execrable editorial endorsement of Susan Hutchison, but I can’t really bring myself to read it again, let alone read it closely. And honestly… why bother?
For the core of my critique of the Times as both an opinion leader, and as a news organization doesn’t require line-by-line mockery to explicate: quite simply, they are a bunch of fucking hypocrites, a thesis that is perhaps best illustrated by contrasting their treatment of Susan Hutchison with that of Darcy Burner.
As we all know, the Times’ editors dismissed Darcy as an inexperienced lightweight, out of touch with the mainstream values of her district, who should have been advised to work her way up to a congressional challenge… a particularly galling critique considering the quality of her opponent. But perhaps the most misogynistic and mean-spirited attack was the accusation that she “lacked authenticity,” a theme picked up by their news department to devastating effect in an eleventh hour front page smear piece accusing Darcy of lying about her Harvard degree.
Compare that to the Times’ treatment of Suzie, a woman who has never held political office, never ran a business, and never even managed a staff, running for what amounts to the governorship of a small state. What political and administrative qualifications does Suzie bring to office? None. Yet in Suzie’s evolution-denying, abortion-opposing, union-busting hands, inexperience suddenly becomes a positive, enabling her to bring a “fresh” perspective to the problems facing King County government. Yay!
I mean… what the fuck?
And I haven’t even gotten to the issue of authenticity yet.
For let’s be honest, Susan Hutchison has run perhaps one of the least authentic political campaigns since George Wallace ran for governor of Alabama in 1982 on a civil rights platform. On more than one occasion I’ve had local journalists defend her, saying that she’s not as right-wing as I make her out to be, but that’s not the point: Hutchison is not nearly as moderate or as nonpartisan as she makes herself out to be, which makes her entire campaign a lie to which the Times has been complicit.
Furthermore, in recent weeks, Hutchison has repeatedly lied about incontrovertible facts. She claims she never gave money to the BIAW, when in fact she did. She claims her unreported campaign headquarters is merely the residence of her campaign manager, when it isn’t. And she claims the PDC has already dismissed 79 of the 82 allegations in the PDC complaint filed against her, which the PDC firmly denies.
And, of course, Hutchison laughably denies that she is a partisan Republican
Yet where is the front page article taking Suzie to task for her lies?
There is no editorial attacking Suzie’s lack of experience or her extremist values, nor front page article attacking her relentless lack of truthfulness, because unlike with Darcy, the Times wants Suzie to win. And, because as an institution, they are a bunch of fucking hypocrites.
Now I know there are those who will come back at me in the comment thread, accusing me of being just as ideological as the Times, and at least as hypocritical, but let me remind you that I’m just some foul-mouthed, partisan blogger who post photos of dog turds to his front page, and accuses a sitting state senator of fucking pigs, while they are our state’s paper of record. I’m not supposed to be better than the Times. They’re supposed to be better than me.
But they’re not.
And as can clearly be seen in their hypocritical treatment of Darcy vs. Suzie, the Times’ alleged credibility is just as fictitious as Hutchison’s alleged nonpartisanship.