I generally find Seattle Times editorials to be stultifying, muddled and, well, boring — but in endorsing Mike McGavick, the editorial board has managed to make one thing absolutely perfectly clear: it is time to remove the word “Seattle” from the paper’s masthead.
Seattle is a liberal city, a big “D” Democratic city that has not sent a single Republican to the state legislature in years. It’s congressman, Rep. Jim McDermott, is amongst the most liberal members of the House, and he hails from one of the safest seats in the nation. Likewise, in statewide elections Seattle voters can be relied upon to vote for Democrats and against right-wing initiatives in overwhelming numbers.
But Seattle is not just a dark blue island in the midst of a sea of red, for over the past decade the nearby suburbs have grown solidly Democratic too. Republican elected officials are becoming a dying breed in former GOP strongholds like Mercer Island, Bellevue and other communities across the Eastside and to both the North and the South of the city. Map election trends out over the past 20 years and what you see is a blue tide inexorably spreading out from the city center as population densities increase throughout the metropolitan region, and the Republican Party abandons the values and concerns of both urban and suburban voters.
This is the region the Times serves. These are the readers who fork over their fifty cents a day, and who patronize the Times’ advertisers. This is the community whose interests the Times is supposed to represent.
Yet even in a year when the Times editorial board has acknowledged that the Bush White House and its rubber stamp Republican majority in Congress are leading our nation towards disaster, Republican candidates have somehow managed to make a clean sweep of the Times endorsements in every contested congressional race. Reichert, McMorris and McGavick — all Republicans who would vote for a leadership that would guarantee the Bush administration a free hand to stay the course in Iraq — all of them endorsed by the editorial board of a newspaper that claims to serve one of the most solidly Democratic markets in the nation.
In obsessively leading the fight to repeal the estate tax, in articulately opposing media consolidation, and in relentlessly pursuing his efforts to drive the competing Seattle P-I into oblivion by severing the two papers’ Joint Operating Agreement, Times publisher and owner Frank Blethen has passionately argued that the community is better served by a local, family-owned newspaper than one operated by a faceless, corporate, absentee owner.
To which I now ask Frank: exactly which community are you serving?
It certainly isn’t Seattle.
Oh, Frank can speak loftily about the unique role five generations of Blethens have played in safeguarding our democracy and fostering civic discourse, but with the McGavick endorsement it has become abundantly clear that the only community Frank Blethen is truly dedicated to serving is the one that consists of him and his heirs. If not for the mean-spirited tone and over-the-top one-sidedness of the Reichert endorsement one could have reasonably written off that and the McMorris endorsement to the usual, establishmentarian, unimaginative, pro-incumbent mindset that tends to take hold of most editorial boards. But with the ridiculously postured and embarrassingly argued logic of the McGavick editorial it is now impossible for the Times to deny that their criteria for endorsement consists of anything more than support for estate tax repeal.
It is tempting to deconstruct the absurdity of the McGavick endorsement line by line, but others have already done so, perhaps none as thoroughly as the Stranger’s Josh Feit. On issue after issue, on gay marriage, assault weapons, net neutrality, drilling in ANWR and teaching Intelligent Design in public schools, the Times has previously editorialized in support of the position opposite to that which McGavick holds. And on the biggest issue of the day, the steadily deteriorating war in Iraq, the Times has repeatedly argued against a course a Republican controlled Senate would surely vote to stay. But according to the Times:
Some see this election as a referendum on George W. Bush. If we did, we would be for a solid Democratic ticket. But like most Washington voters, we take our candidates one at a time.
I’d read on further but I scratched my corneas scraping the bullshit off my eyes.
This election is a referendum on President Bush and the Republican leadership, and unless you’re itching for a catastrophic ground war with Iran it is deeply irresponsible to approach it any other context. If Sen. Maria Cantwell had voted for estate tax repeal she’d have had the Times endorsement, and the fact that Frank would use his paper to prop up a failed Republican majority over this single, selfish issue is morally and ethically reprehensible.
The Times editorial board has become a joke. I have not spoken to a single professional journalist who has not rolled his eyes or derisively laughed at the Times‘ contorted logic and unmitigated gall. Even some of Frank’s own employees have expressed their disgust to me.
Not that any of this really has any impact on the actual election. David Postman writes:
Critics on both sides like to say that MSM newspaper endorsements don’t matter much in this age of New Media. But they must mean something given how much of the blogosphere was filled up with discussion about them the past week.
But David misses the point. Us bloggers and journalists and political activists do care about the role the op/ed pages should play in promoting public discourse — and passionately — and that is why it pains us so much to see Frank trivializing the opinion pages of the state’s largest newspaper. But why the fuck would the average Seattle voter give a Times endorsement an ounce of credence when the paper consistently supports candidates and issues contrary to the interests of their community? Us bloggers aren’t the average reader, and the truth is, the average reader no longer gives a shit about what that estate-tax-repealing, labor-busting, dog-shooting Frank Blethen thinks is best for them.
Local newspaper industry observers tell me that it was the bitter newspaper strike that radicalized Frank and flipped him over to staunchly supporting the GOP and its anti-Labor agenda. At the time, Frank threatened to move the newspaper’s editorial operations out to Bothell to join its new production facility, but stayed in Seattle fearing a public backlash.
Well as far as I’m concerned, good riddance. Go ahead and move your operations out to Bothell, Frank, and while you’re at it, you might as well change the name of your paper to “The Bothell Times.” At least that way your readers can rest assured that there will always be at least one honest piece of information printed in your newspaper daily: the masthead.
I’d cancel my subscription to the Times and switch to the P.I., but aren’t the respective shares of revenue frozen by the Joint Agreement to 1980 levels? So what difference does it make?
Actually, I don’t subscribe to either paper. We get the Times at my office, and I read the comics there for free, everything else I read online. If I have a choice between buying two papers from the vending machine, I’ll pick the P.I. every time, just to make a point.
By the time Blethen sinks the P.I., neither paper is going to be of much relevance any more. They will just be printing the ads and coupons that get delivered in my mailbox every week, third-class postage.
I give the Times editorial staff the same intellectual credence as I do Watchtower or the Lyndon LaRouche pamphlets. Obviously, The Blethens run that space, and the other “members” are just lackeys who want to keep their salary stream flowing.
Frank Blethen gave Maggie Gallagher and Mish-hell Malkin their starts. They give the Discovery institute space. They presently give Lucianne’s son, Jonah, space weekly. Or, if you prefer, weakly.
I hope Craigslist slowly burks the Times.
The Republican and by Extension Bush-Supporting Times.
On sale now for a quarter. Available for free at Mike! McGavick and Sheriff Hairspray’s campaign office as well as Steve Johnson.
Any media outlets endorsing Republicans after the truth about the Iraq lies, the 9-11 warning ignoring, and all the other damage the Republicans have caused should be locked up in a funny farm.
In order to endorse Republicans you have to ignore a mountain of evidence showing their dishonesty, corruption, and incompetence that would dwarf Mt. Raineer. Possibly Mr. Everest.
Go ahead endorse Repubican lying sleazebags Bothell Retard Times.
It only shows how stupid, treasonous, or partisan you are.
If a Republican cared about me, instead of the super rich, and large corporations I would give them a second look.
Of course this is not likely. I am not their base…..
Oh, Frank can speak loftily about the unique role five generations of Blethens have played in safeguarding our democracy and fostering civic discourse
This is, of course, complete bullshit. Colonel Blethen was a cranky and biased publisher, as reading any Seattle history would tell you. The Times happily indulged in yellow journalism back in the day.
As for their endorsements- pfeh.
Any truth to the story that Saddam Hussein will be sentenced on Nov. 5th (Sunday) or 6th (Monday), just before the Nov. 6th elections here? If so, is there anybody here who really believes this is a coincidence?
And has anybody bothered to inform Bush that with vote-by-mail, it is already too late for an “October Surprise”? My ballot was placed in the mail this morning.
McGavick = Blethen = Rummy = Condosleezza = Smirky McFlightsuit = Cheney = Rove = Slade Gorton. They are all a bunch of N.G. **********s.
Blethen has one aim in life: to get rid of the estate tax.
Also, yesterday MSNBC polls confirmed others that the Republican base in evangelical protestants has eroded sharply. Now 40% of them will vote Democratic. That is a significant decline.
I’ve noticed the trend in my own church. Even many of those that will continue to vote Republican are doing so with a bad taste in their mouth, referring to it as a choice between the lesser of two evils. The past few years have proven that the Republican part really is playing only lip service to the evangelicals and their ideals, when their real priorities were tax breaks for their wealthy contributors.
Blethen was KUOW this morning with Bill Gates, Sr. talking about the estate tax. What a pompous, disingenuous ASS!
Follow the money folks. Martin Selig, Frank Blethen and John Nordstrom are hardly “small businessmen”.
The JCH good riddance countdown calendar is running:
Only 15 days left until the Dems win control of CONGRESS!
Buh-bye, JCH
Isn’t it ironic that the Seattle Times, in the cradle of liberal Democrats, would endorse McGavick–while The Tri-City Herald, in the convservative bastion of Columbia Basin Republicans, would endorse Cantwell.
Pretty soon cats and dogs will be living together.
What hysterical hatred spews forth from the left when they don’t get the usual 100% of the editorial endorsements! All I hear from Democrat candidates is how much they hate a deeply-flawed George Bush. Well, duh – tell me something that the Democrats offer other than “We hate Bush.”
Anyone who thinks the Seattle Times is somehow responsible for the decline of the Seattle P-I is a Lunatic.
The Seattle P-I is the favored rag of the New Age Progressives and unwashed Hippies of Seattle who don’t spend much money. Bad base.
The Seattle P-I is so consistent in their editorials and endorsements that it is apparent to many THEY HAVE AN AGENDA! So you read what they say with a grain…..err, I mean a BLOCK of salt.
The Seattle Times, while leaning Liberal….shows some flashes of open-minded thinking. And so it goes…..
You Lefty’s need to buy more papers and advertise to save the P-I.
13 – As I said before, it doesn’t make a difference how many copies of the PI are sold. The revenue is divided based upon 1980 circulation levels, per the joint publishing agreement.
The PI was hurt for several years by not being able to go online. The Times argued that under the joint publishing agreement, only it could have an online presence. I’m not sure how that was resolved, but eventually they were able to go online, but by then the Times had established itself as the primary online news presence for the Seattle area. Now most other papers are online now (although some require you to be a subscriber to view the content, which I think is a stupid attempt to fight the tide with a teaspoon).
You might argue that being online doesn’t help the P.I. financially, and might actually hurt it, but I think otherwise. I think within five years we might see the last of printed/delivered hard copies of the papers, and their only presence will be online, with online advertising as their primary revenue source. It will be a different media world then. Publishers for years have had a virtual monopoly in their local areas due to the incredible start-up expense associated with daily newspaper publishing. Without that cost, the “alternative media” will give them quite a run for their money. Note also that the major news networks – ABC, NBC, and CBS – are facing continued declines in viewership. The “5 o’clock news” has become a bit of a dinosaur, as most already have updated news stories from the internet or car radio before they reach home. Watching a 60-second video prepared several hours previously doesn’t promise much in the way of “news”.
“Isn’t it ironic that the Seattle Times, in the cradle of liberal Democrats, would endorse McGavick–while The Tri-City Herald, in the convservative bastion of Columbia Basin Republicans, would endorse Cantwell.
Pretty soon cats and dogs will be living together.
Commentby Matty— 10/23/06@ 12:59 pm”
Absolutely Priceless!
6 Saddam WHO?????
tell me something that the Democrats
Sane, balanced governance in place of discredited ideology.
rhp–
Your comments are worthy of consideration.
When does the joint publishing agreement expire?
Hasn’t the P-I had numerous opportunities to opt out or try to change the agreement if it were so bad?
It’s hard to believe that the P-I is merely an innocent victim of their current plight.
It sounds to me like Blethens is simply a much better businessman than the P-I crowd.
I’ve mentioned it before, but since it’s impossible to beat JCH at redundancy…we switched from the Times to the PI a couple weeks ago. I’ve been pissed at Blethen ever since he switched Fairview Fanny to morning publication to try and administer the coup de gras on the PI after the financial hit both papers took from the strike a few years back.
The end result is that sooner or later, both rags are likely to go under, or fall into out-of-town control. To tell the truth, both of ’em are pretty damned good for daily newspapers in a town this size. We’ll all be the worse off when they’re gone.
I have yet to understand how McGavick impresses anybody. He is not charismatic, his voice is shrill, and he seems a bit shy on scruples. His lone claim to fame is that he, singlehandedly presumably, “turned around” Safeco. Perhaps some credit is due him for doing something positive with Safeco, but is that sufficient qualification to be a United States Senator? The guy does not have impressive academic credentials, and his employment history, aside from a few short years with Safeco, is that of a partisan hack for Slade Gorton and of a lobbyist for the insurance industry. Frankly, I don’t want the insurance industry to have yet another voice in the Senate. I find McGavick underwhelming from every perspective. Nethercutt was a better candidate.
I have yet to understand how McGavick impresses anybody. He is not charismatic, his voice is shrill, and he seems a bit shy on scruples
Dude, tell me how Senator Skeletor impressed anyone. But he won a lot of statewide elections as an AG and as a Senator (losing his share, too, to be fair).
‘A Washington state man faces prosecution for bestiality under a new animal cruelty law after his wife discovered him having sex with the family’s pit bull terrier, kirotv.com reports.
According to the Pierce County sheriff’s office report, Michael Patrick McPhail, 26, of Spanaway, Pierce County, was caught red-handed last Wednesday night “having intercourse with their four-year-old female pit bull terrier” on the couple’s back porch.’
Hey! Isn’t that Pam Roach’s district?
Being a P.I. reader myself, I would be greatly distressed if our city ended up only with the Seattle Times. One rumor that has floated around is that the P.I. would buy out Blethen and combine both papers. That would sure be better than the P.I. being forced to shut down and us being left only with the Times.
http://www.homesteadbook.com/blog
@22: Yes it is. She got likkered up and loaded up her colt, drove to the guy’s house and fired off a few rounds to teach him a lesson.
Then she passed out in his yard.
That’s why her campaign spokesliar is so hard to find today.
2
And that’s the warm-and-fuzzy “new” Frank Blethen. His predecessor was worse — little more than a Chamber of Commerce flak for developers and big business.
12
“What hysterical hatred spews forth from the left when they don’t get the usual 100% of the editorial endorsements!”
Commentby Rick— 10/23/06@ 1:12 pm
Of course liberal candidates should get 100% of te editorial endorsements. No honest, decent, rationale, person with Christian values would vote Republican except out of ignorance or by mistake.
I subscribe to the P-I and don’t read the Times unless I can’t avoid it, like on Sundays when that’s what shows up on my doorstep. I think our initial decision to take the P-I was made because we were used to getting a morning paper (back when the Times was an afternoon paper) and because the P-I carried Dilbert.
Ever since the acrimony of the JOA battle and Blethen’s comment that he wanted there to be only one paper in town — his — I have pretty much refused to have anything to do with the Times. I don’t even go to their website. If they want to try to drive the P-I out of business, they’re going to do it without me.
These endorsements just convince me that I made the right decision.
12
You know, I would be happy to see a newspaper endorse a Republican if they had a thoughtful, reasonable, non-self-serving explanation for doing so. I might not agree with their assessment, but if they showed some integrity behind the decision, it wouldn’t bother me at all. I might not agree with their endorsement (probably wouldn’t, in fact, unless the Republican was in the Sam Reed mold), but it wouldn’t bother me at all.
The Times’ endorsements fit none of these criteria.
If the following explanation of how things work over at the Seattle Times is even close to accurate, their editorial integrety is a thing of the distant past. This post can be put into context with the following link:
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsou.....y_id=12715
Re: The Seattle Times editorial board.
After the 2000 newspaper strike, the Times purged its editorial page staff, pushing out two former editorial board members (Casey Corr, Susan Nielsen) and hiring a non-member who crossed the picket line during the strike (Lynne Varner). At the same time, the paper removed its editorial writers from the official editorial board and created a new, five-member editorial board containing one journalist (Jim Vesely) and four reps of management (Publisher Frank Blethen, General Manager Carolyn Kelly and two extra guys named Blethen). So, since 2000, the editorial opinions of the Seattle Times have come straight from management and the Blethen family, both of which have clearly chosen elimination of the estate tax as their litmus test issue.
Recently, the Blethens relented and gave the editorial page writers back their official spots on the editorial board (while retaining the four management spots). If you figure that editorial page writer Ryan Blethen, heir to the throne, votes with the family, this gives management five spots of twelve. Throw in token conservative Bruce Ramsay and that’s six of twelve. This means that any candidate opposed to removing the state or federal estate tax starts off with six of twelve board members against them. And, perhaps the journalist members remember that they were thrown off the board when they dared oppose the Blethens–even for the principled stand of going on strike with their fellow workers.
Mr. Postman, while the Times editorial board now has several actual journalists as members, the fact is that your editorial page’s most important function is as a mouthpiece for the Blethen family and their fight against the estate tax. Do you disagree with this point?
Posted by J.R. at 01:40 PM, Oct 23, 2006
Leftout at 18:
I’m not sure whether there is an automatic expiration date of the JOA, but the Times is trying to cut it short by claiming that they have been losing money under it for the past several years. That doesn’t sound to me like a superior business operation by the Times.
I had just come to town in 1979 when the two newpapers were locked in head-to-head battle. The PI was the morning paper, and the Times was the afternoon paper. But across the nation, afternoon newspapers were declining in subscribers compared with their morning competitors. Also, increasing traffic volumes made it increasingly difficult to distribute newspapers in the afternoon.
So although the Times had larger circulation at the time, it saw the hand-writing on the wall, and realized that its subscription base would gradually decline. It decided to try to knock out the PI while it still could.
It did two things simultaniously. It out-bid the PI for the right to publish Doonesbury, which at the time was far and away the favorite cartoon which was followed avidly by readers. And at the same time, it switched to morning distribution, attacking the PI at its base. I think perhaps that they also gave away their newspapers for free for a while, but my memory could be a bit shaky on that issue, so I won’t swear by it. PI readership temporarily crashed – it is awfully hard to compete with a free newspaper which is the only one in town printing your favorite cartoon.
The combined effect of these moves pushed the PI into agreeing to the JOA. I’m not sure if this was the result Blethan had intended, or whether he wanted to push the PI out completely, but surrendered to public pressure to accept the JOA compromise. Nobody was really very happy with the compromise, but it did keep both newspapers in town for a while.
I should also mention that I have noticed quite a few “marketing” moves which favor the Times over the PI. Remember that the Times controls the printing and distribution of the newspapers. Yet the delivery trucks seem to have “Times” printed in much larger letters than “Post-Intelligencer”, which they probably explain by virtue of the “Times” name being shorter, but which in effect provides much better advertising for the Times than the PI. Also, most distribution boxes I have seen have the Times on the top, and the PI on the bottom, making the customer stoop down to hip-level to put their coins in the slot. Also, I cannot count the number of times I have seen the PI box empty, but plenty of papers in the Times box. It makes me wonder if the Times isn’t intentionally “under-delivering” its papers to support its court case to get out of the JOA.
But since all advertising and sales revenue go into the same pot, to be shared according to 1980 market share, any attempt to protest Times policies by boycotting advertising or subscriptions don’t have any impact upon the Times, or any benefit to the PI.
I delivered the Times when I was a kid in the 60’s. While in the military for 20 years I had the Times mailed to me. But after opening the opinion section Sunday morning, right after I spit out my coffee, I called and cancelled my subscription. Those cry babies only endorsed mike just because he will vote to repeal that one tax they don’t like.
Actually, when I watched the debate on KING, I was struck by how little difference there is between Cantwell and McGavick.
That being said, I’m still for Maria. If the Republicans manage to keep control of the Senate, the present craven leadership will waste no time “tenderizing” Mike until whatever trace of independence he might have once claimed will be eradicated–just as has happened with Sheriff Dave in the House. Then we’ll have sent someone to Washington to help assure more years of war, corruption and our once-proud nation’s slide into oblivion.
If McGavick wins but the GOP loses the Senate anyway, he’ll be a lame duck in the minority party, with zero seniority, who won’t be able to do anything but stand up occasionally in late-night sessions and whine.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if Blethen died and his estate were eaten up by the taxes?
I’m just sayin’
What does that tell you Goldy? Yakima Herald, Seattle Times, Bothell Times, Bellingham Herald, and even the fucking Stranger, and I’m sure a few others, all endorse Mike and not Maria Cantvotewell. Seems to be a pattern for the better. People want change, and Maria isn’t it. Take a hint already.
whoops, make that “Bothell Times”, which is rather funny I must say.
Mark1
A 48 year-old white, male, insurance company executive who is beholden to the Republican Party power brokers (they selected him to run, after all, and made sure he had no serious primary competition) represents change? The level of delusion that grips Republican partisans would be amusing if not so detrimental to our nation. The only thing those endorsements show is that the Republican mantra that the media is liberal is, and always has been, a lie.
36 Oh, yeah…I forgot about that. The McGavick was the Republican leadership’s fall-back after Jennifer Dunn said “No, thanks!”
Pity. The debates between Dunn and Cantwell might have been interesting.
38 Oops….”The McGavick”…I must have been thinking about single-malt Scotch.
Nancy “Nip/Tuck” Pelosi is a San Francisco communist!!
Hey! Don’t toss Blethen over in Bothell! The 1st state LD is fairly blue itself….
Maybe he should move to Cle Elum? ;-)
The only pervasive message the Times is sending politicians via its endorsements this year is: unless you support Frank Blethen’s views on the estate tax, don’t expect our support. Frank’s newspapers in Walla Walla and Yakima basically said the same thing in key races.
It doesn’t seem to matter if your positions on issues are consistent with the Times on a wide variety of other important issues. The politicians will read the endorsements one way: be with Blethen on the estate tax or don’t expect an endorsement.
The editorial page of the Times should be far more honest about this. It has made reference to the subject in its endorsements in a lame attempt to establish a shred of credibility on this subject. But the words don’t really mean much on the page given the overall track record.
KILL THE MESSENGER
My Goodness, you guys just don’t get it do you. If you don’t like it, you pooh pooh the whole thing……What if the Times did move, and the PI dies, then who ya gonna bitch about?
At least you could quit bitching about the “reason”, and give people a real reason to vote for Cantwell.
It’s obvious you can’t. Cantwell’s name is within these 42 posts 5 times. Count em 5.
As I said KILL THE MESSENGER and give excuses, but no REAL REASONS.
Surely there’s a for a day or a lifetime joke in there.
Dear HA. ORG Democrats, Thank you for your contribution to the DNC. . Each year, tens of thousands of people from across the country make the decision to support the Party and Democratic candidates. Today you stood up and added not only to the Party’s available resources, but to the larger sense of community and civic responsibility that we as Democrats stand for.
As part of that community, a Democratic donor agreed to match your contribution today. Their information appears below, and you have the opportunity to send a message to the person who is matching you. If you like, you can exchange information and build a longer-lasting relationship — or, you can move on without sending a message at all.
Again, thank you for your support.
Your contribution has been matched by:
Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan
A message to you from the person who matched your contribution:
With Democrats in charge of the Congress, America will run like dogs from Iraq. What a glorious day for jihad that will be! Defeat the infidels. Vote Democratic in ’06! [hehe, JCH]
I am on a temporary (4 year) assignment in Ohio, and my link to Western Washington info is through the internet. I used to read the print version of the Times every day, and I read the internet version for the past 3 years. No more–I’ll be a loyal P-I reader from now on.
BTW: who is Dr. JCH Kennedy, Esq? Is there anyone anywhere who gives a rip what he thinks? I seriously doubt he’s really an attorney–there isn’t a law school in the country that would permit someone with his level of reasoning to graduate, unless he got a match-book degree. I read a few of his posts and now skip anything he has to say (it’s as enlightening as reading my son’s 3rd grade papers, or the list of ingredients on a bottle of water).
Seattle is very liberal so the local publications should endorse democrats, liberals.. ? What convoluted, childish crap. You vote for someone because they are the better candidate. Voting strict party line because you think one party or the other has the market cornered on what’s right is idiotic. I have doubts as to whether or not people who are that clueless should be allowed to vote. Apparently the times believes the candidate they endorsed to be the better of the two. Why not disagree and leave it at that? Instead of making an ass of yourself by displaying your total lack of maturity and your obvious civic ignorance.