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.