Seattle Times Was Against Parks Funding Before It Was Against It

Hate to make HA all Seattle Times-bashing all the time,* but over at PubliCola, Josh deftly highlights how blatantly dishonest the editorial board’s Parks District “No” endorsement is, by dredging up the paper’s “No” endorsements against the previous two parks levies:

Isn’t it weird that … the Seattle Times editorialized this week that voters should reject this year’s permanent parks funding measure because they’d prefer Seattle’s traditional levy renewal funding approach, yet they came out against the last two levy proposals?

(No inconsistency, I guess, but to mangle an old phrase: They were against parks funding before they were against it.)

How can anybody take the Blethenites seriously?

* No I don’t.

Comments

  1. 3

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Before the Do Not Call law, ST was one of the worst predatory telemarketers. I had to complain to the state attorney general’s consumer protection office to get them to stop calling me 4 to 6 times a week. It had been going on for months. I guess the idea was to force you to buy a subscription by harassing you until you caved in.

    One of my neighbors had a ST subscription, and their delivery man would speed down our driveway, drive on our lawn. and do all sorts of shit. When I complained to him about it his reply was, “Oh, you’re the house that doesn’t have a subscription, aren’t you?”

    ST is no better than organized crime.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *