A hat tip to Jimmy at McCranium for catching the Seattle Times in perhaps its most bizarre editorial conceit ever. The emphasis is mine (well, Jimmy’s actually), but… WTF?
After vowing to block the tunnel, McGinn flipped last week following the City Council’s unanimous vote in favor of it, and said, “OK, I still dislike the tunnel but I won’t block it.” Or words to that effect.
“Or words to that effect”…? Really?
Now, what is it they call that pair of double squiggly things? Quotation marks, right? And forgive my lack of a J-school education, but in a newspaper, aren’t the words between them generally understood to represent an actual quote? You know, like words the subject, um, said… not kinda-sorta said, or almost said, or gee, wouldn’t it be funny if they said it like that?
Well, according to our state’s paper of record, apparently not. Apparently, and I guess I must’ve missed this section of the AP Style Guide, it is totally journalistically kosher to attribute whatever you want to a subject — even to put those definitive quotation marks around the words and everything — as long as you follow the fabricated quote with the caveat: “Or words to that effect.”
You know, like…
When asked how his ill advised foray into the Maine newspaper market contributed to the Seattle Times’ own financial woes, publisher Frank Blethen philosophically offered, “I eat poo.” Or words to that effect.
Or perhaps…
In a rare moment of candor, King County executive candidate Susan Hutchison surprised the audience by admitting that her transportation priorities would include “killing light rail, building more roads, and judiciously licking Kemper Freeman’s anus.” Or words to that effect.
Or maybe even this…
Seattle Times editorial page editor Ryan Blethen defended his qualifications for the post, attributing his meteoric rise to “that extra chromosome I inherited from my father.” Or words to that effect.
I mean, it’s not like Mike McGinn didn’t speak at length about his very pragmatic decision not to unilaterally block a 9-0 vote of the City Council, so the Times had every opportunity to relate his words exactly. But they didn’t. McGinn’s thoughtful explanation didn’t quite fit the Times’ chosen meme of him as an unprincipled flip-flopper. So instead, they just made stuff up.
See how easy it is? Professional journalists and lowly bloggers alike can now simply put words into other people’s mouths, however defamatory, quotation marks and all, and at no risk of giving up a costly libel award, all thanks to the Seattle Times’ clever new Or Words To That Effect defense… a journalistic ethos reflected in the paper’s new motto: “Making shit up since 1896.”
Or words to that effect.
Your expectations from the Seattle Times are set entirely too high.
[deleted – off topic]
@1 Where the Seattle Shitfeed is concerned, any expectations whatever are too high.
[deleted – off topic]
As an explanation for his actions, Master Ble4then offered words to the effect: “My pussy hurts.”
Thanks for reading the Seattle Times so the rest of us don’t need to. I know it’s a dirty job, but someone has to do it.
Reluctantly, I offer this helpful explanation for the offending words:
The lameness of both the Times and McGinn’s “pragmatic sudden realization” (or feelings to that effect) are not mutually exclusive.
[Deleted — see HA Comment Policy]
Goldy,
Visual speed bump next time please, how many people did you scar with the image of Hutchison enjoying Kemper Freemon’s anus?
@1, Perfect Voter spews:
“Anybody’s expectations from the Seattle Times are always set entirely too high.”
Or words to that effect.
“very pragmatic decision” = desparation from a political whore.
He has spent the past week walking that back to not proceeding knowing that there could be cost overruns.
The Times was completely wrong to quote a summary of position, no matter how absolutly true it is.
But your “very pregmatic” description is very Will from Seattle in its bias.
Newspapers always reflect the biases of their owners, and newspaper owners are always rich guys, and most rich guys are conservatives who hate unions, decent wages, and taxes.
biases are not an excuse for quoting words into the mouths of people, no matter how accurate the summary, as it is in this case.
The Silly Season is in full bloom in the editorial pages (formerly known as the “news pages”) of the Blethen Daily Republican:
“Colorado voters passed a constitutional amendment in 1992 with a provision requiring state and local governments to limit revenue increases to population and inflation, and send any excess money back to taxpayers. But that’s about the only thing the two measures have in common.”
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Hmm, well, but that’s the guts of it, isn’t it?
“In fact, the Colorado law, known as TABOR, and I-1033 have more differences than similarities.”
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Perhaps, but isn’t it the big picture that counts?
“And there is no apparent consensus on whether TABOR has been a success or a failure in Colorado. A poll done in September by a Republican firm, and paid for by a conservative-policy group, shows two-thirds of voters support a provision in TABOR requiring voter approval of all tax increases.”
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Ahh, but the kicker is in the very next sentence of the very same article in the very same newspaper: “However, a majority of the people polled also supported repealing the entire law.”
It’s not clear where the reporter is going with his article. The final thought he throws out is, “I-1033, if approved, would become a state law that can be changed by a two-thirds vote in the state Legislature within the first two years. After that, it would take only a simple majority vote of lawmakers.”
To which I say, if it’s going to need fixing because it doesn’t work and creates the sort of problems they’ve had in Colorado — why pass it in the first place?
Oops, forgot to post the link: http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....ve25m.html
Has anyone else noticed this pattern? The fishwrapper opposes I-1033 on its editorial page, but runs a front-page “news” story defending I-1033. In a couple of cases, it has endorses candidates in editorials, then run “news” stories trashing them on the front page. You can’t trust the Seattle Times because even they adopt a reasonable position they proceed to undermine it.
Pragmatism = Too lazy to do the right thing
So McGinn is claiming Mallahan’s position puts each household at risk for $15,000.
One commenter cried foul because that’s the extended cost over thirty years.
I guess his point was the tunnel only puts each household at risk for $8,000 if we use the right discounted rates for future money, etc.
But then you have to figure many of us will die before thirty years are up, too, so some of us will bear NO cost, if we die say, next year, but others who are only 19 years old right now will bear lots of extra cost, as I imagine after thirty years they will have to rebuild the ventilation system or something.
So “the whole thing’s a boondoogle like the Big Dig” or words to that effect
What is truly hysterical is there are NO “news” organizations in the United States. There are a lot of propaganda organs for the plutocrats and the oligarchy but “news” nah.
I just love it when bloggers start comparing Fox to the rest of the propagandists. Fox is about 1 millimeter in front of the NY Times and the Washington Post for being just pure and simple unadulterated bullshit supporting the merchants of death.
The amount of response that each communities’ village idiot gets is amazing. Everyone knows that the idiot shouldn’t be in public, but quotes, jeez louise. I can’t understand how people can actually read or watch or listen to anything that Limbaugh, Beck or Cheney’s semi incoherent daughter says. Not to mention insane McCain’s running mate or the halfwit in overdrive Michele Bachman.
The economy is tubing straight to third world.
The congress and senate are shaking down the insurance companies and the banks to a degree the mafia must admire.
I read stuff that people write about people that should really be in a fucking zoo not part of the national news.
One column of short quotes under what the halfwits said today is enough. Put it next to the want ads.
There is ONE print news organization. Or never mind the qualification “print”. The New York Times. When it dies, it’s all over. We’ll just have to watch BBC or Canadian TV.
@15- Actually, the Times article on 1033 and TABOR is even worse than that.
The article relies on the so-called “Independent Institute” as their Colrado source of expertise and independence in assessing the affect of Tabor. This Institute is run by the bat-shit crazy former Congressman, Tom Tancredo, and specializes in intellectual dishonsety on behalf of their donors, especially anti tax arguments and bat shit crazy climate change denials that ex-employees have revealed as being bought by the Oil companies. Its like calling Focus on the Family for objective info on R-71, or the Freeman Enterprises for objective info on the qualifications of Suzie Q Hutchinson.
Missing from the 1033 fact check is any reliance on actual facts.
It sucks being a one (crappy) daily newspaper town. But at this rate, it might be better to be bereft on any daily paper. Maybe then a void will be filled by something of journalistic quality.
The money in printing daily sucks. The Sunday, and the mid-week that delivers the ads are still worth printing the rest if you are already.
A moderate-left digest of reports and columns delivered during the week, and then another weekender, made up of different local blogs and a metro editor might do ok as a print aggragator/digest of online content. Not now, but after everybody gets completely sick of the one newspaper town, and the 3-5 online groups chasing the same stories.
Seeing the same shit on SeattlePI.com, SeattleWeekly, Stranger, and Publicola is not more news, it is a waist of resources.
Crosscut going non-profit might help raise the level and frequency of discource, assuming they actually stick with their new focus, in the public good.
@23 Newspapers never got their readership because people were willing to pay for content. At least, not in recent memory.
Many small newspapers started as printing businesses. The owner made his money by printing advertising fliers for local businesses. Pretty soon he began adding news content to get more people to look at the fliers and — voila! — he became a newspaper publisher.
Many small newspapers that started this way long ago grew into big newspapers as towns became cities.
During the heyday of newspaper publishing, subscribers often made money by taking the paper because the grocery coupons were worth more than the subscription cost.
If I could save $25 a week on groceries by buying $6 of newspapers a week, you wouldn’t have any trouble selling me the newspaper!!
But nowadays, supermarkets mail you their coupons, or you can get them free at the supermarket. Plus, newspapers face new competition for advertising dollars by newfangled media.
Even though the traditional newspaper industry is in deep financial trouble, and may be on the way out, people will always want news, and someone will figure out a business model for delivering it. News will not go away.
So, for many people, their principal reason for subscribing went away. And so did newspaper circulation.
This nonsense the Times pulls is why we refuse any of their ‘free gifts’, have told them to take our number off their telemarketing lists and never bother to go to their website.
It’s just a big waste of time.