Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Did You know the Seattle Times is Republican
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 19, 2012 at 12:57 am #605243
MAD MAXMemberSeattle Times is giving Rob McKenna $7,500.00 in free advertising? I cancelled my subscription. What are you going to do? This does not matter what party you are for, this is just plain wrong.
I am sure you will be hearing more about this.
October 19, 2012 at 1:54 am #774215
charlabobParticipant$75,000 — even Kirby Wilbur, state Rep chair, said, “I wouldn’t have done it.” The real news staff is up in arms. The “excuse” of the Times is that they want to prove the value of newspaper advertising — so, if McKenna wins, they’ll get their governor and prove an alleged business point.
Don’t subscribe and will continue not subscribing.
October 19, 2012 at 2:30 am #774216
clark5080ParticipantThey are also doing it for the Gay Marriage initiative. Hardly a rightie issue
October 19, 2012 at 2:51 am #774217
charlabobParticipant“In kind contributions” to the “Gay marriage initiative” is not the same as running ads sponsored by the Times. I do agree it is not a good thing to do, but it isn’t in the same league.
October 19, 2012 at 3:00 am #774218
clark5080Participantstill a political ad so would you be screaming about one for an Eyeman initiative? I understand what they are trying to do which is get back advertising they used to get form political ad’s
October 19, 2012 at 3:17 am #774219
MAD MAXMemberThe Seattle Times job is/was to give paying customers the news. Not support anything that involves anything political. End of story,
October 19, 2012 at 3:28 am #774220
charlabobParticipantClark, thanks for making me re-read…I meant to say I don’t think it’s a good idea to make in-kind contributions to the pro-gay marriage side or to run ads under the name of the news organization.
October 19, 2012 at 3:32 am #774221
clark5080ParticipantNot too long ado before the bottom fell out of advertising for news papers there were an enormous amount of political ad’s in the paper not nothing. That is a huge loss in revenue for the paper and like it or not it is the ad’s that pay the bills
October 19, 2012 at 3:32 am #774222
charlabobParticipantOctober 19, 2012 at 3:40 am #774223
JayDeeParticipantI knew the Times skewed Republican on the editorial side but to advertise the same in the paper strikes a 16 year subscriber as being beyond the bounds. Heck I may even vote for McKenna. But for the Times to run free advertising? Using my subscription dollars to pay for it? Wrong on all counts. Unless I see a retraction I’ll use the Intertube.
October 19, 2012 at 3:42 am #774224
clark5080ParticipantEditorials skew Republican? must not read the same ones I read
October 19, 2012 at 4:16 am #774225
JayDeeParticipantClark5080:
Have you been reading the same Seattle Times I have been subscribing to for over 16 years? The Times (editorially) is reliably just right of center in a decidedly left wing town. Of course this is the old right which is right-in-name-only. Nowadays this would be prime Demo territory.
October 19, 2012 at 4:33 am #774226
RagsParticipantI applaud the Seattle Times for challenging the status quo…..they stated clearly that it was the position of the Times Board and not the newspaper. Supporting a conservative candidate while supporting a liberal issue, in my mind, balances the criticisms of bias. I do understand the concerns of the Times journalists so it will definitely be interesting how this plays out.
October 19, 2012 at 1:30 pm #774227
JoBParticipantRags
from Charla’s link to the letter staff sent to the managment…
“We strive to remain independent from the institutions we cover. We shine a light on the process from the outside. We are not part of the process. This ad threatens to compromise that integrity,” the letter says, noting the Times had now become “part of the campaign’s machinery, creating a perception that we are not an independent watchdog.”
news media is supposed to tell you what happened
not how to think about it..
a free ad clearly crosses that line
October 19, 2012 at 5:15 pm #774228
rwParticipantThe family that owns the Times has never been shy about plugging their own interests, such as opposing estate taxes and large media companies that swallow local independent papers and tv stations. Whether you agree or disagree with any of these individual positions, I personally think the Blethen family is a weakness for the Times, not a strength.
October 19, 2012 at 5:20 pm #774229
365StairsParticipantNewspaper? I remember those…
October 19, 2012 at 6:13 pm #774230
JoBParticipantrw.. i agree
October 19, 2012 at 6:13 pm #774231
MAD MAXMemberI was watching channel 4 news last night and they said the Times paid for two full page ads for Rob Mc Kenna as a experiment. Well the only experiment I can see is that they wanted to see how many customers they can lose. I feel this experiment will show great results.
October 20, 2012 at 1:42 am #774232
JKBParticipantWouldn’t it have been simpler to sell ads to both sides, call it Equal Time, and cash both checks?
October 20, 2012 at 2:04 am #774233
MAD MAXMemberThe Times did not sell the ad. They gave the ad to Republican Rob Mc Kenna.
Aprox value $7,500.00
October 20, 2012 at 2:25 am #774234
JiggersMemberThe Seattle Times clearly has demonstrated that it lacks credibility and integrity. I saw their spin coming a year ago. A newspaper is supposed a reporting news agency first and not force its political views upon its customers. Get off the political and gay-marriage soap box and start being credible and write honest journalism. I saw that McKenna add and almost threw up and just last week alone there were three big articles on gay-marriage rights. I’m an Independent if you want to know. The online content is absolutely horrible. The physical paper itself not much better. There are articles that lack complete information or have meaningless drivel to it. I’m guessing the majority of these journalist’ working for ST are maybe in their early thirties with not much life experience’s. I’d rather read the West Seattle Blog or the Herald first before I throw away my seventy-five cents. In fact, I’d rather give my seventy-five cents to a homeless guy on the street knowing that it would be put to better use. Good luck!
October 20, 2012 at 3:19 am #774235
RagsParticipantPuh…leeze! I’m just a home-schooled, high-school drop-out; but my mama loved JFK and instilled in me his words that “Change is the law of life and those who look only to the past are certain to miss the future.” Our whole world of how we communicate–particularly with newspapers which are dying daily….needs to be viewed with an open mind.
October 20, 2012 at 6:22 am #774236
JoBParticipantRags..
For your viewing pleasure..
26 pages of quotations on the value of a free press…
http://nie.miamiherald.com/_pdf/Speaking_of_a_Free_Press.pdf
you will find JFKs quotes on pages 14 and 15 but you might want to randomly sample both those that preceded his.. and those that followed.
An informed public is essential to a well functioning democracy…
how much you can depend upon the reliability of the information you receive is largely dependent upon it’s objectivity.
Handing free advertising to a candidate in a state-wide election isn’t an indication of objectivity.
October 20, 2012 at 1:57 pm #774237
TanDLParticipantIf they want to be considered a “fair and balanced” rag sheet again, they now need to provide Inslee with a free full page ad. They can editorialize all they want on the editorial pages, but to hand free advertising to one political candidate and not the other compromises their integrity.
If they don’t care to be a “fair and balanced” rag sheet then they will lose customers via the free market capitalist system. Since they’ve become the largest viable print news outlet in town they might be thinking they can do anything they want. We’ll see what the free market says about that.
October 21, 2012 at 4:46 am #774238
RagsParticipantScuse me while I take another hit on my bong, but I don’t think giving Inslee “a free full page ad” equates to “fair and balanced!” For this to happen, you have to have two canidates who are “balanced”……which is, unfortunately, not the case here! PS. JoB…thanks for all your citations, but I really have no interest in pursuing facts…..I only quote those which I can remember!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.