Seattle Times Silent on Illegal 911-Robocall That Claims Their Support

“Join us, the League of Women Voters, and the Seattle Times,” the almost certainly illegal anti-Parks 911-robocall closes. So you’d think the Seattle Times would want to protect its reputation by disassociating itself from such irresponsible tactics. But so far, crickets from our paper of record.

KOMO News, however, they ran with the story. Because it’s news:

No doubt the Seattle Times will finally cover this story once charges have been filed. You know, after it’s too late to impact the election.

Comments

  1. 1

    seatackled spews:

    Maybe the Times is just to busy covering the local music and high end restaurant scenes.

  2. 3

    MikePhoto spews:

    Well, the Fishwrap may be silent on the matter, but their commenters are not.

    They have now posted an editorial against the proposition, so I posted a comment to the article explaining the illegal robocalling tactics, and why that should set off warning bells for anybody that hadn’t decided which way to vote.

    http://seattletimes.com/html/e.....03xml.html

  3. 4

    seatackled spews:

    @3
    Good job, though I wonder if your comment will get expunged. Someone against the proposition has already dismissed your comment there.

  4. 5

    Craig spews:

    their hatred of parks makes them accept illegal practices. This sets a bad precedent. Forward Seattle and not No on Prop 1. It is sad how little these campaign managers respect the voters

  5. 6

    Sloppy Travis Bickle spews:

    It’s pretty clear that something was done wrong, and intentionally so.

    Once an effort is made to get past the hyperbole

    http://horsesass.org/no-on-par.....nt-1266714

    and look at the likely penalty for something like this, what is that penalty probably going to be?

    Would it be anything more than a fine?

    Is this a greater violation than, say, not living in a district one purports to represent?

    Or is this just a combination of slow news day and a predicted close vote?

    And if the commenter gets his wish and there’s a perp-walk, assuming it’s not Scooter Libby, who gets Deathfrogg-marched in front of the cameras?

  6. 7

    tensor spews:

    “Is this a greater violation than, say, not living in a district one purports to represent?”

    Our federal Constitution requires a Member of Congress to reside in the state he or she represents, not the district. E.g., Jim McDermott could reside in Sequim and still get elected in Seattle.

    Refusing to provide an accurate call-back number is just another example of this campaign’s contempt for the voters it seeks to sway.