Last week, I posted about how I was mystified that newspapers ever oppose transit. Transit is the best time to read newspapers. Compare that to the attempts to replace the King Dome and to keep the Sonics. They kept pushing to make a deal no matter how horrible it is to Seattle and King County; I had always figured their editorial board were at least partially doing it to keep the newspaper afloat (not necessarily consciously, but at least in the back of their minds).
I mean, I care about what’s in the news and editorial sections, but I also care about the sports. And a lot more people care about sports than they do about another piece on how we need charter schools, or even good reporting. When Goldy asks, “what’s changed between now and then?” in relation to The Seattle Times’ editorializing against the new stadium, he means in terms of policy. After all, whatever problems this stadium proposal has, it’s better than ones they shilled for. But I wonder if maybe there’s a business model factor.
20 years ago, the two papers were the only game in town in terms of covering sports. Now though, if you think bloggers and other independent agents have done a number on the news, well that’s nothing compared to sports. The Seattle Times won’t be the only place to get the scores on the new Sonics or the new Seattle Metropolitan Hockey Club.
Another thing is that The Seattle Times pissed away a lot of its credibility pushing for the stadiums that turned out to be a bad deal. I go to Mariners games regularly and absolutely love it. But I wish that public money hadn’t been used to build it. When the people who shilled for the stadium see it 2/3 empty, well, it makes it tough to demand another one.
Finally, it’s a different editorial board than it was 20 years ago. It’s not the same thing for it to have different positions as an individual changing positions willy nilly.