SeaTimes: Cheap Shot!
The Seattle Times so dislikes our story on what critics refer to as Times hypocrisy in the JOA battle that one of its executives has sent a letter of complaint - not to me, but to Jim Romenesko's popular media blog at Poynter.org - which picked up our story earlier. Times Veep Jill Mackie calls the story a cheap shot - which it wasn't, but, like Jon Stewart, I appreciate the flattery.
It's a little surprising to see the vice president of a newspaper blaming the messenger - me - and to inscrutably note that the Weekly story was written "by a former Seattle Times employee." That's apparently managementspeak for a reliable old canard - disgruntled ex-employee (I wrote a column there 16 years ago). Well, I'm also an ex-employee of the P-I (wrote a column there) and the SF Chron (sportswriter) and a handful of other papers (paid to learn to write). I have only fond memories of all those stops, Times included. I admire the Times' work and its editors and writers have heard me say so. For the record, I departed the Times and all the other stops voluntarily and happily, though usually in need of a good drink and another horizon to explore.
More importantly, Mackie never raised the "cheap shot" complaint during our talk - and I asked her point blank about the paper's hypocrisy, gave her hours to formulate an answer, and she wouldn't comment. There's no getting around the fact the Seattle Times Co. isn't practicing what it editorially preaches. It earlier disclosed filings in the JOA battle, but now, at crunch time, the paper is withholding crucial legal documents. Kathy George, attorney for the citizens group attempting to intervene, says the public should be allowed access rather than have the future of local journalism decided by suits behind closed doors. It's the kind of sentiment the Times usually shares when the target is someone else.
Update: Ex-P-I writer Jane Hadley has responded on Romenesko to the Times letter. She says in part:
The Joint Operating Agreement between The Seattle Times and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer states that "it is the firm belief of the parties that the continued publication of at least two newspapers of general circulation, editorially and reportorially separate and independent under a joint newspaper operating arrangement, is of paramount importance to the citizens of Seattle and its environs."
Yet this same document provides for one publisher to pay the other publisher to close down one of the newspapers, even if there is no financial necessity. And these two publishers are now in a secret, private arbitration fighting over the closure of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The public is not allowed to see any of the documents nor to attend any of the proceedings.
Though it is of "paramount importance" to the citizens, it will be secret!
Update II: The Times suggets in its letter that it freely handed over earlier JOA docs to the Weekly. No so. Here's this from Dick Clever's story in 2003:
Ordinarily, two private corporations wouldnt expect to have to air their soiled linen in public, but once this dispute landed in court, file drawers full of internal memos, e-mails, and other records became subject to discovery by the opposing parties. Seattle Weekly requested copies of depositions from the parties in the suit and received them after initial resistance from the Times.
The Weekly had to threaten legal action to help the Times see the light back then.
6 comment(s)
Mark Fefer says:
and I especially love this phrase from Mackie:
\"...a cheap shot of the sort that in recent years in our industry has joined baseball, birds and cherry blossoms as signs of spring and contest season.\"
Yeah, right. We didn\'t publish the story because it was an obvious and compelling hypocrisy on the part of the Times, and time-pegged to the arbitration hearing. No, no. We published it as part of a cheap-shot campaign to UNDERMINE THE TIMES\'S CHANCES FOR A PULITZER!! (A prize that her letter pretty much reads like a piece of campaign literature for.) I\'ve experienced this in the past when I\'ve questioned the worth of a Times piece that they had earmarked for that year\'s Pulitzer. Hell hath no fury...
Posted On: Friday, Mar. 23 2007 @ 10:28AM
Black Rose says:
Nobody ever said the Times had a sense of humor - especially anyone who has read it.
Posted On: Friday, Mar. 23 2007 @ 10:37AM
Chuck Taylor says:
Actually, Seattle Weekly did take legal action. The Times released those documents as we filed a lawsuit in King County Superior Court, which we then withdrew.
Posted On: Saturday, Mar. 24 2007 @ 1:23PM
Newshound says:
What\'s even more hypocritical may be that high-up muckety mucks in the Seattle Times organization have, in the past, had their own private legal affairs sealed from the public\'s view in court documents. Maybe your reporters should dig deeper to reveal this, and show how their current Pulitzer campaign seems to be the height of hypocrisy.
Posted On: Monday, Mar. 26 2007 @ 4:08PM
Clarity says:
It isn\'t just the editorial pages that are omitting salient facts: Go back and read the news stories - they\'re tellingly silent about CTNT\'s charge (part of the open court record) that the Times and P-I have long campaigned for sunshine legal rulings yet hypocritically hide in the dark themselves. You had to read about that in the Weekly.
Posted On: Tuesday, Mar. 27 2007 @ 7:17AM
Harry Callahan says:
bring back bill richards!
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 28 2007 @ 4:43PM