Welcome to Uptight Seattle
That's pretty much the response I get when I express my disbelief to people (who don't want to string me up, that is) at the rancor of the negative responses to my story about Real Change vendors. Anyway, would you believe me if I said I was taken aback by all the hubbub? Because I am. In fact, it's very difficult not to take some of the personal attacks, well, personally. (Don't worry, I know there's no crying in journalism. Even my own mother says I'm too naive.) But it's becoming increasingly difficult to parse the comments based on the story's journalism from those based on a reader's (incomprehensible, to me) anger.
What I find most confounding about the ad hominem attacks against me and the story (and, I guess, the paper by extension, though I'm new enough to not really have any dog in the New Times v. Independent Papers fight) is their line of argument. I wonder, do these furious people realize that what they're saying—Real Change is infallible, you’re not allowed to question Real Change, and any questioning of Real Change brands the questioner as evil and an enemy of charity, altruism, and welfare—is the same tactic the White House employs when it comes to promoting a political agenda that these same people, I think it’s safe to assume, vehemently oppose? And in so doing, obfuscates the larger questions explored by the story, such as Real Change's role in addressing homelessness, what to do—if anything—with vendors who have more or less maxed out, how Real Change's policies play out on the street? (The unquestioned fact that Real Change doesn't hide that not all of its vendors are homeless doesn't necessarily mean everyone knows about it.) What happened to civility, reason, logic, and the consideration of unpopular views? At the expense of exposing my personal politics, I now feel really weird about privately celebrating these very people back on a Tuesday night in November.
As for how I feel about Tim Harris' reactions, I guess this means we won't be clinking tumblers of Glenlivet anytime soon. I'll admit that I find them personally hurtful (no crying in newspapering, though) and professionally dubious (I just can't get around the fact that a professional journalist—and please don't read this as snark, like I'm saying it in quotes or something, because I assume everyone who makes a living through running a newspaper is a professional journalist, which I assure you is not snark either...oh, what's the point?—would dismiss a story that had yet to be even written and slag a reporter for asking tough questions, which is, like, one of the pillars of journalism), though as a PR strategy, I can sort of understand his intentions.
I also can't help but wonder what people would have thought of the story independent of Tim Harris' reactions, both before and after the story ran (or, if I want to play victim, too, if the story ran in a non-New Times publication). But that's an empirical question we'll never be able to answer.
68 comment(s)
Mark Fefer says:
Aw, don\'t take it personally Huan. Today Harris is over on Crosscut calling some other person who dared to raise a question about Real Change a \"more-radical-than-thou idiot.\" (And apparently that\'s the only \"type\" he hates even more than your type--whatever that is.) Hats off to him for the good he does in the world. Unfortunately he himself seems to be in need of therapy.
Posted On: Thursday, Apr. 12 2007 @ 3:21PM
don johnson says:
I think your article is barely a story. I don\'t know what it was trying to prove. Some people who sell the paper can pay rent? I am sure they make up a very small percent of the vendors...But so what, good for them. The vast majority of people I see selling the paper look like they really need that extra cash. Seriously, what is wrong with your paper?
Posted On: Thursday, Apr. 12 2007 @ 4:34PM
Disgrruntled says:
For those of you who don\'t know the commenter above Mark Fefer is a co-worker of Huan Hsu at The Weekly.
Posted On: Thursday, Apr. 12 2007 @ 4:37PM
Disgrruntled says:
You have your co-worker Mark Fefer\'s sympathy. That shoud be enough. You see Huan Hsu, your story has touched a nerve because it represents the sorry state The Weekly is in. Welcome to Seattle.
Posted On: Thursday, Apr. 12 2007 @ 4:40PM
Mark Fefer says:
I am NOT Huan Hsu\'s co-worker. I\'m his BOSS. Another reason why he has my sympathy.
Posted On: Thursday, Apr. 12 2007 @ 5:30PM
Tim Harris says:
There is a meta-issue behind all of this that has to do with the difference between charity and work and the assumptions that go behind that. In my opinion, that\'s the most interesting part of all this. I just wrote a piece over at apesmaslament.blogspot.com in answer to Huan\'s question.
Posted On: Thursday, Apr. 12 2007 @ 5:52PM
disgrruntled says:
And the reason that he NOW has my sympathy. A good editor would never have cleared that story for publication.
Posted On: Thursday, Apr. 12 2007 @ 5:54PM
carrie says:
I guess the thing people object to is your assumption, made clear here, that a homeless person who gets some housing has \"maxed out\" and doesn\'t deserve to sell Real Change anymore. You have decided- on your own- who you think is deserving and who is not. OK, I don\'t agree with you but you can have that opinion. But, imagine how that would look practically- People like Ed Mclain would have to stop selling in order to avoid making enough money to get off the street. Or hide from Real Change that they have obtained housing, and how much of Real Changes resources should be spent to ensure that no one makes a better life for themselves? That kind of checking up on people is very labor intensive. And what if they did say-\"Now that you pay rent you don\'t deserve to sell the paper anymore?\" Are you really saying that the paper should pull the rug out from under them that way? That they should make them stop selling until they do become homeless again (most are not really employable in a regular job) ... I\'m sorry you feel badly-really, but you chose to pick on some very vulnerable people and people react to that.
Posted On: Thursday, Apr. 12 2007 @ 7:06PM
Huan says:
Carrie, thanks for your response. However, I\'d like to point out that the story doesn\'t ever, ever state that certain Real Change vendors don\'t deserve to sell it anymore. Instead, the story asks vendors and publishers, including Tim Harris, for their opinions about the subject. I\'m not saying vendors should move on. The vendors are. I\'m not saying vendors should be able to sell Real Change as long as they please. The vendors are. No one is saying the paper should pull the rug out from under its vendors. Tim says he ISN\'T going to do that. And if people are going to absurdly accuse me of filtering my private prejudices (or, even more absurdly, the paper\'s) through disgruntled vendors, what about all the extensively quoted, uh, gruntled(?), people? That line of reasoning is about as thoughtful and productive as \"the Weekly sucks, and this is another example of it.\" (Boy, have I heard a lot of that lately.)
Anyway, I, neither as a writer or a person, presume that a homeless person who gets housing shouldn\'t get to keep selling Real Change. Ed McClain sells 2,000 papers a month putting in 12 hour days, 7 days a week. I can\'t imagine he could sell any more papers (and thus make any more money) than he already is. That\'s what I mean by maxed out--he\'s not cheating the system, but has achieved just about all he can within the system. Perhaps he\'d like to move on to the next level of employment. Perhaps not. Regardless, I don\'t share your presumption that most vendors \"are not really employable in a regular job.\"
Indeed, the story asks whether or not street newspapers should try to transition their most successful vendors to next-step employment, and how they should do it. This idea is not mine, it\'s Real Change\'s. It\'s part of their strategic plan. And in order to explore this question, you have to first state the fact that not all vendors are homeless. Which, again, I don\'t believe is (or was) common knowledge.
I suppose the perception that this story \"picks on\" certain people could be a matter of phrasing: \"Should Real Change vendors move on once they\'ve achieved a certain threshold of financial success?\" versus \"Why should Real Change vendors move on just because they\'re not homeless anymore?\" or \"How should Real Change transition its best vendors to next-step employment?\" Either way, it\'s exploring the same topic, and the operative term is \"transition,\" not \"abandon.\" It\'s right there at the end of the first section. And the story\'s subhead, \"Does it really matter?,\" makes clear that neither I nor the Weekly is endorsing one view or the other. In fact, it indicates that the answers are not as linear as one might expect.
Also eating at me (which has nothing to do with your response, Carrie): the assumption that a fluff piece and an expose are the only two possible forms of journalism, to say nothing of *good* journalism. Over the past couple days, I\'ve come to hate the word \"expose,\" as the story was never intended to be one. That\'s someone else\'s word, not mine.
Posted On: Thursday, Apr. 12 2007 @ 8:40PM
Dr. Wes Browning says:
I\'m hoping this flap goes another round or two so I\'ll have a column for April 25. I wouldn\'t ever dare poke this kind of dead flesh two weeks in a row, what with my stupid pride and all, but if you folks would all just keep it out in the air long enough, I might barely get away with whipping it around my head one more time, for dramatic effect. Less work for me!
Posted On: Thursday, Apr. 12 2007 @ 8:41PM
Ben says:
That was what you guys call investigative journalism? That was weak. And now the writer (and editor!) are crying about it? Boo hoo!
Frat boys with glass jaws.
Posted On: Thursday, Apr. 12 2007 @ 8:54PM
JD says:
fefer sure seems to know a lot about peoples\' mental problems. makes you wonder.
Posted On: Thursday, Apr. 12 2007 @ 10:25PM
Tim Harris says:
Hey Fefer, do they teach you that character assassination shit at Harvard, or does New Times offer some sort of on the job training program?
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 12:46AM
disgrruntled says:
About McLain you write. \"Perhaps he\'d like to move on to the next level of employment.\' You stupid fucking twit. The man is 64 years old. What do you think selling Real Chnage is an internship at New Times? You went after an organization that does a lot of good for a lot of vulnerable people. You work for a soulless corporate machine that doesn\'t give a shit about anything, including good journalism, beyond profits. People are pissed off on two levels: One: the attack on Real Change. Two, the crappy newspaper the Weekly has become.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 3:50AM
Sean says:
Huan, you have my sympathy, as does anyone who gets burned at the stake by the angry mob.
However, until you stop crying for mercy and your body stops twitching, the mob will just keep stoking the fire, and maybe even look for a few more witches over there to throw onto the pile. Your story is what it is, let it stand or fall on its own merit.
Seattle is arguably becoming the most liberal city in the country after SF (NYC has way too many suits to make that claim). We\'ve got \'em all, from quasi-homeless anarchist punks to Prius-driving PhDs. Perhaps the best thing you could do for yourself at this point is publish a completely unrelated article, maybe even one that panders just a bit to that leftist sensibility. (And don\'t listen to Mike - his lament about the lack of sports bars here is a perfect example of what not to write about.) Perhaps there\'s a local fraternity you could go after?
As for getting through this, we\'ve got some pretty good therapists here as well, much better than the useless psychoanalysts back east.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 8:49AM
MaryW says:
What is WRONG with you people??? Who ARE you?
Huan\'s article was insightful, well written, and well researched. It presented unbiased information and balanced points of view. I support both the Weekly AND Real Change, and see nothing disparaging in the article whatsoever.
If anything has lowered my respect for Real Change, a publication that I\'ve long supported AND read, it is your comments, Tim Harris. Shame on you. I would have expected more.
Disclaimer: I am neither related to, nor work for, either publication.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 9:02AM
Steph says:
\"Unfortunately he himself seems to be in need of therapy.\"--Fefer
Way to look professional. In a blog dissing setting that basically appears to be a pissing match; I think that won\'t look to good on a future resume\'.
This is a free weekly paper that is hoping to attain some credibility?
I find this quite entertaining and that\'s about it. New reporter in town clearly appears to be new in town. Whining and admitting to having feelings hurt? must mean the insecurity is eating at your gut.
Being able to take a pot shot and shut up shows real balls, guys. At this point I don\'t care what the story is about--youve taken it to another level right on your own blog.
Taking the high road works, but oh well. I thought only girls got bitchy.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 9:06AM
Sean says:
P.S. From your name I gather than you are Asian? If so, here\'s a suggestion. Seattle has a disproportionately large Asian population, as well as a thriving International District, but you wouldn\'t know it by reading the local press. The only thing I\'ve ever read on the experience of Asian\'s in Seattle was written by Jonathan Raban almost 20 years ago (Hunting Mr. Heartbreak, great book), and he\'s white. (Come to think of it, you may be the only Asian journalist in Seattle, at least that I\'m aware of, which is strange.) Surely there are more interesting stories about the Asian community here, and taking up this topic would put you on the more favorable side of liberal righteousness.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 9:13AM
Paul says:
I thought the story was fine.
Quite frankly the people that Huan is taking heat from are:
1. Tim Harris, A man making a living off of HOMELESS labor. Huan, I would have loved to have seen you look deeper into THAT sittuation. How much does Tim make off of Real Change? Where does he live? For all we know, this guy could be making 6 figures, living in a beautiful house with a view of Puget Sound and making it sound like he\'s doing this out of the goodness of his own heart.
2. Erica C. Barnett @ the staff The Stranger and her gaggle of readers. basically, a disgrunteld ex-SW employee with an obvious chip on her shoulder, a screw loose and an axe to grind. Then again, you know what they say about a woman scorned? What do teh say about an activist Femi-nazi scorned?
My God, they actually plugged this story on the slog.
Huan, GREAT job on this story. You are obviously a welcome addition to the NEW staff and from the feedback you\'ve had on this artcile, keep up the good work!
When was the last time any of the Daily Weekly entries had this kind of response? You are causing a stir at SW and it\'s really good to hear your take on these subjects.
BTW, take a look at Cleanscapes next, another business maiking a profit off the honmeless.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 9:19AM
Paul says:
Sorry about te typos...
I thought the story was fine.
Quite frankly the people that Huan is taking heat from are:
1. Tim Harris, men making a living off of HOMELESS labor. Huan, I would have loved to see you look deeper into THAT situation. How much does Tim make off of Real Change? Where does he live? For all we know, this guy could be making 6 figures, living in a beautiful house with a view of Puget Sound and making it sound like he\'s doing this out of the goodness of his own heart.
2. Erica C. Barnett @ the staff The Stranger and her gaggle of hipster wannabe readers. Basically, a disgruntled ex-SW employee with an obvious chip on her shoulder, a screw loose and an axe to grind. Then again, you know what they say about a woman scorned? What do the say about an activist Femi-nazi scorned?
My God, they actually plugged this story on the slog.
Huan, GREAT job on this story. You are obviously a welcome addition to the NEW staff and from the feedback you\'ve had on this article, keep up the good work!
When was the last time any of the Daily Weekly entries had this kind of response? You are causing a stir at SW and it\'s really good to hear your take on these subjects.
BTW, take a look at Cleanscapes next, another business making a profit off the homeless.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 9:26AM
MaryW says:
Hahaha...Oh, the Stranger--and its readers, too...well, that explains it. We really can\'t really expect much more from them, now can we? They always have been a little, well...desparate. And with good reason.
(I\'ve always wondered--can they say, \"shallow\" or does it have too many syllables?)
Great article, Huan. Thanks.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 10:29AM
disgrruntled says:
So Paul, you\'ll find the answers to all your questions about Real Change at
http://realchange.wikispaces.com/
although I doubt if it will tell you waht the view from his home is like.
Try this with The Weekly.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 11:11AM
RobertR says:
Wow - looks like we have ourselves a real pissing match here. Real Change v. The Seattle Weekly. Frankly, dispite the loopy antics of its editor, we\'re fortunate to have a paper in this community like Real Change. It is a refreshing antidote to the crap that most our local papers insist on spewing. Real Change provides coverage of the issues that very rarely get covered in any sort of meaningful way by either the mainstream or alternative media.
Frankly I don\'t care if the vendors for Real Change are homeless or \"just\" poor. I will continue to buy the paper regularly. However, I do wonder whether or not Real Change provides any support to the vendors to help them transition out of homeless.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 11:13AM
Paul says:
Disgruntled,
Thanks for the link.
i took a quick look and saw blanket poilicy statements.
I\'m more curious, specifically, what Tim bings home, is his wife involved in the publication? If so what does the family bring home?
let\'s face it, if they are bringing home an average wage, what is that, $41,700 per individual, by Seattle standards, I commend them on a noble profession and would look to get more involved in helping to support real change.
However, if they are bring home six figures and have Homeless and or near homeless people working at near slave wages, then yes, I think this is truly a story that is important.
I think it\'s a very valid question.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 11:35AM
Paul says:
Robert R,
I agree with your question about a transition.
Does Real Change help individual off the street or just enable them to survive?
Whie I am no expert on homelessness, I have had some experience in developing homless outreach programs business plans.
One of the things we ried to accomplish (and let me stress try as it\'s a very difficult position), was to have any individiual working for our programs: addressing the reason they were homeless, be that legal issues, debts, back child support, etc....
If emeotional and or mental health issues were involevd we typically tried to steer people towards state agencies.
Ideally, in the prgrams we ran (construction cleanup) we stressed the importance of sobriety, building a savings account, paying debts and creating a path out of homelessness. But that was just our philosophy.
What I am truly aware of is the generosity and healthy revenue streams available to these businesses. Especially for a newspapaer where advertising dollars are available . let\'s face it, the distributors are not employees, so you don\'t have to pay taxes, give benefits, etc...
There is a big potential for someone to make a very healthy living off of something like this, if they were so inclined.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 11:49AM
disgrunttled says:
You know who worries the most about being stolen from? Thieves! You have no evidence that Harris or his family or friends are benefiting exorbitantly from Real Change. It\'s the old \"poverty pimp\" argument the right likes to use. Stay tuned. I\'ll go to see if I can find the payroll figures for you.I know that Real Change publishes the expenditure breakdown at least once a year. I can tell you this. Harris started Ral Change from scratch with barely a pot to piss in. If a guy with his talent and ability had put his time into a different project he\'d be far wealthier now.
So what if Real Change doesn\'t provide transition? Isn\'t providing an income source for people who have no well else to turn better than nothing. This reminds me of the argument used against the \"tent cities.\" That they don\'t provide a permanent solution to homelessness. Well go sleep in an alley or doorway for a couple nights and the critics may find a temporary solultion better than nothing. I think that the
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 12:23PM
Paul says:
Disgrunteld, simmer down and stop acting like a child.
It\'s a very vailid question, and I don\'t really care if the guy started this or not.
When you have a product that is being presented as helping the homeless, there is a responsibility behind that.
Once the question is answered on what level of compensation, we\'\' have a better understanding.
Like I said, if the guy is doing this out of the goodness of his own heart, I will definitely make a donation to Real Change.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 12:37PM
disgrruntled says:
in 2006 the annual expenditure for payroll and related expenses was $384,428 which is an average monthly payroll and related expenses of $32,035.67. Assuming there are a dozen or so employees, insurance, social security, state unemployment, etc-well you do the math. If Harris is a poverty pimp, he\'s not a very good one.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 12:38PM
paul says:
That does not answer the question at all.
Their site shows 9 employees, two of which are which are writers, the writers may (and probably are) be paid by the word. If so, that money comes from a different budget.
Also, how many part time employees out of the remaining 7?
They have a want ad up for a full time employee and that pays $12.50 per hour, so that $26,000 a year for the full time employees.
let\'s face it, their circulation is around 50,000 for a monthly publication. More than likely there are only a small number of full time employees.
Also, it shows that the paper has an anticipated profit this year of $94k, what is the bonus structure for operating in the black?
Regarding the issue of Transition. isn\'t the idea behinf Real Change (hence the name) to try and end homelessness?
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 1:03PM
Centro says:
Come back to D.C., Huan! I don\'t hate you as much as this Harris nutjob!
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 1:10PM
Paul says:
Another thing that does not add up...
If you actually add up the expenses column ion the 2007 Budget, \"staff & Benefits\" is up above 400k.
I wonder if SW takes a closer look at this how many other things won\'t add up?
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 1:13PM
treacle says:
Mr. Hsu- yes your article was well-researched and well-told. My curiousity is directed at the thought process leading to the investigation of Real Change: was it truly worth anyone\'s time. There are plenty shady deals and screwed-up money politics around here, and the Weekly digs into one of the most vulnerable communities. And yet there\'s no smoking gun, no huge crime, and no dirty politics at the end. Sure, Tim Harris is prone to emotional reaction, but whatever. Why was this story deemed newsworthy exactly?
\"[T]he story asks whether or not street newspapers should try to transition their most successful vendors to next-step employment, and how they should do it.\"
This, to me, seems rather irrelevant in the scope of things. Shouldn\'t we, in general, be attempting to illuminate situations that afflict the most people? That correct the greatest harm? That expose corrupt attitudes and practices of those With, as used against those Without? How about asking why the City chooses to force Tent City to constantly move around? Or how Nickels helped Allen oust residents of S. Lake Union in order to build a biotech paradise, complete with it\'s own --unconnected to transit-- street car.
Asking if Real Change should transition top sellers to other jobs seems to be wasting ink on a tiny technicality in an organization that runs above boards and is overall socially progressive.
It\'s not clear why this merits 1600 words.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 1:26PM
treacle says:
Also, why do comments not show up immediately? Is the Weekly scared and moderating all comments first? wow.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 1:28PM
Anitra says:
Well, at least you\'re keeping Wes entertained. That\'s a good thing.
Huan Hsu, complaining about other people complaining about you is logically inconsistent. You cannot claim your right to talk about other people without granting them the right to talk about you.
Most of your problem, it seems to me, stems from *not* having a clear idea of what you were saying. You said, \"Well, maybe this, and maybe that,\" and \"Why be offended at what I said, I didn\'t *say* anything.\"
If you had a clear idea of where you stood, maybe you would have the moral courage to listen to critics, and defend your stand, without whining.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 1:38PM
Carrie says:
Huan, I apologize- I totally misunderstood your \"maxed out\' statement. I think what happend was that you stepped, maybe inadvertently, in to the whole deserving vs. undeserving poor thing. (this is a centuries old thing: some poor people are seen as deserving of assistance, others are not. A lot of hate is aimed at those who are not. There is tons of interesting academic writing on the subject) People, including me, suspected you were like those people who yell \"get a job\" at homeless people or real change vendor as they speed by in their SUV or that you were pandering to those people. I\'m sorry since it seems like I got that wrong. I guess if your article ran with a headline like \" Real Change to help homeless and housed vendors move on \" it would have been boring, but it sounds like, from what you write here, it would have been accurate and we wouldn\'t have thought you were homeless/poor bashing. Thanks for engaging in some dialog
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 1:41PM
Dr. Wes Browning says:
What we have here is a problem with a wiki we only just started using a couple of months ago. The document you all need is there but it\'s a PDF and we are just finding out that the site search engine doesn\'t search PDFs. But it IS there. The URL is:
http://realchange.wikispaces.com/space/showimage/RCHEP990publicdisclosure.PDF
It shows on page 20 (FD STATEMENT(S) 4) that in 2005 Tim Harris was paid almost exactly $50,000. The next Form 990, when ready, will show cost of living increases from there in accordance with board policy. By the way, I\'ve been to Tim\'s house. It\'s an ordinary working class hovel in a working class neighborhood. It\'s in Shoreline, because Seattle got too expensive for him. The view is nice though, if you like to watch grass grow. If he has a compass, he should know which way to turn to face Puget Sound.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 1:44PM
Paul says:
Wes,
Thanks for clarifying.
And Tim harris, thanks for being teh real deal and helping homeless in Seattle
I\'ll send a check to real change this Afternnon.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 1:50PM
Disgrruntled says:
Wow! Just like that Paul, you are going to send in a check to Real Change. Do you know who Wes Browning is? He says he\'s been to Harris\' house. He may be lying! It may be a mansion! And $50,000 a year. that sounds like a lot of money to me. Doesn\'t it sound like a lot to you/ And, again they may be lying. They may be stealing from the poor and homeless by paying them \"slave wages.\" No Paul, before you send in that check, you better do some more investigating. I suggest that you research the profit and expense reports that the Weekly publishes on their business and compare them to Real Change to see if Real Change is playing \"funny math\" as your president would say. Lies and theft are all around you Paul! Especially in the poverty pimp business. Beware!!!!! And why do the posts take so long to appear?
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 2:04PM
Paul says:
Disgruntled.
First off, are you really that ignorant that you don\'t thnk that \"Poverty Pimps\" abound?
Is it so wrong to ask these questions?
And what exactly are you disgrunteld about?
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 2:10PM
Carolyn says:
Paul. I am Tims wife. I do not nor have I ever worked for the real change unless you count when I supported him with my small shelter manager salary in 1994 when he was starting Real Change. I work full time at a very demanding job (working with volunteers who representing abused and neglect kids) We struggle to pay for our kids daycare. We are not getting rich I assure you!
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 2:21PM
Anitra says:
Treacle, screening comments makes sense to me; I\'d hate to see this space fill up with spam and cussing, and drown out all this incisive intellectual critique.
The main annoyance to me in all this is how little research anyone does before posting opinions. Forming a hypothesis before evidence can be a good thing; it points you in a direction to go look for information that will disprove it. Broadcasting your speculations and then telling other people to go disprove it isn\'t just intellectually weak; it\'s morally weak.
For future questions that any of you have about nonprofits, try googling \"form 990.\" The top hit is http://guidestar.org/ -- after free registration, you can download any nonprofit\'s Form 990. If you don\'t want to register, you can request a copy of the form from the organization in question, or from the IRS.
I am, btw, Anitra \"Wes\'s Sweetie\" Freeman, and I\'ve been teaching writing and computer skills (including research skills) down at Real Change to any vendor who asks, for 12 years. There are computers that vendors can use for job search, for writing resumes; staff and volunteers who will help; resource information kept on hand to answer any question from \"Where can I get a haircut?\" to \"Where can I get housing?\" And yes, that includes help in finding addiction treatment or mental health servces.
We do not tell people what they need. We do not tell them that they have to do this program or that, or they cannot sell papers. We do not tell them what hours they must put in or how much money they must make. They tell us what they want to do, and we try to help them do it. If someone said, \"I want to sell papers for one year and then get a 9 to 5 office job,\" there are people here who would help him do that. If someone said, \"I want to sell papers for the rest of my life,\" people here will help her do that.
Why does treating people like adults offend some of you so much?
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 2:23PM
disgrruntled says:
People like you make me disgrruntled Paul.
So apparently you have accepted this Wes Browning at his word. You don\'t think you may have been set up by this Anitra, who ever she is? She\'s probably some hot high maintenance babe this Wes Browning had send in that message to soften your cynical heart. Ok Paul, apparently you have passed over from incredulity to credulity.
You owe Real Change real money. Send \'em a big check. A check so large it hurts!
I forgive you for your don\'t be a child comment. After all assholes act like assholes. It\'s God\'s way. Gee Paul, I\'ll be when you were a child, you couldn\'t even spell a s s h o l e.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 2:28PM
Huan says:
No, Treacle, no one is moderating comments (you think I like seeing Ben\'s jab about \"glass jawed frat boys?\"). Basically, our servers refresh every 10 minutes. According to our tech guys, it\'s a problem that we\'re just going to have to deal with until we move to our new blog software.
Your question about the newsworthiness of the story is a valid one, but it\'s a bit of a slippery slope. I mean, if you attach a story\'s value to the number of people that it affects, then we should all be writing about global warming and not Iraq, Darfur, or even Tent City. My editors may be able to answer it better than me, as every publication has its own bar for stories (can\'t wait to see the jokes about this one), but I certainly think the issues explored in the story are worth the time. It helps if you read the story through an explorational lens as opposed to an investigative one.
As a writer, I was intrigued initially by the fact that there are some really successful Real Change vendors. The sheer volume of newspapers that the top vendors move is impressive. Then I learned that anyone could sell Real Change, which I believed wasn\'t common knowledge (whether or not it matters is a separate discussion), and that not all vendors are homeless. Yes, the image of someone selling Real Change out of a BMW or in order to stay in minks flashed across my mind. (I mean, that would make a great story, wouldn\'t it?) Of course, I quickly found out that no such person existed in Seattle (or anywhere, probably). Then, trying to put myself in a new vendor\'s shoes, I wondered how other vendors felt about the very successful ones. If I were on the streets and struggling to sell Real Change, would I resent the top sellers or strive for their achievements? Do the vendors look at Real Change as an end point, or a stepping stone?
This brings up the question of capacity. If established Real Change vendors see their job as the end-all, does this crowd the market and mean less opportunity for new vendors? Does this hamper Real Change\'s ability to touch more homeless people, so to speak? There\'s no doubt that Real Change is well-intentioned, but that doesn\'t mean there isn\'t conflict or competition amongst vendors. There\'s a reason the turf system was established, after all. I thought Paul\'s quote in the story was illuminating: Real Change is founded on the principle of sharing--giving to others who have less than you. But this isn\'t always the case amongst vendors. One way to address this conflict could be to keep the stream of vendors moving. But how would you do that?
So I think the idea of transitioning vendors is a very relevant one, and I think Real Change would agree with me. Again, transitioning vendors is part of Real Change\'s strategic plan. As Tim states, selling Real Change is not a retirement plan. While he would never force a vendor to stop selling, he certainly wouldn\'t be upset if one tried to take that next step of employment.
The evolution of a story isn\'t always linear, as new information is constantly, well, informing its direction. But that\'s a peek at how this story developed. As you can see, while Real Change is at the center of the story, it is, and was never, a target.
Anitraweb, one of my guiding principles while researching and writing the story was not to take a side. I once read somewhere that good journalism raises questions just as often as it answers them. You might disagree with that statement, but that\'s where I was coming from with this particular story.
I welcome comments and criticism, but I think I have the right to speak up when I believe people are putting words in my mouth and in my story. And surely it's a reasonable expectation for the criticism to be expressed in a civil manner, isn't it?
(And while I reject Wes\' implication that the story wasn\'t researched, at least he\'s funny.)
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 2:42PM
Paul says:
Disgruntled...
People like me?
People who want to make sure a charity is actually a charity?
Heaven forbid someone ...gasp.... Ask questions.
I did not accept Wes at his word, Unless of course he quickly filled out some tax documents, created a pdf, hacked into the wiki site and posted that for my benefit.
Quite frankly, the document in question was the one that asne=swered all the questions, not the vague assumptions you came back with.
So, yes, disgruntled, you are acting like a child.
So people like would me would be defined as adults.
Tims wife, my apologies if I offended. I was merely asking questions.
I\'ve cut a check for real change and dropped it in the mail. Thanks for doing a great job in our community and for obviously struggling when you could have made more.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 3:38PM
Steph says:
Regarding Tent City 4 being moved once again; this time to Issaquah in summer 2007--I took the time [am not associated with any organization]to talk with local homeless people that reside in the hills there. I asked them their thoughts on Tc4, and if they would use it. I asked them if they were doing alright.
How many homeless people will you [generally speaking] have helped? supported, or smiled at today?
Let\'s see some compassion for others. It is off topic to want to trash Harris or anyone else, as if finding out he cuts a paycheck is a crime. There are plenty of not for profits out there who have paid employees.
I plan on getting a one year subscription to Real Change. Maybe that will defray some costs.
Real Change
2129 Second Avenue
Seattle, Wa. 98121
$35.00
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 3:47PM
Paul says:
Steph,
I want to clarify something.
My question about compensation was not that Tim received a paycheck I was curious as to how much.
Honestly, the guy is right at a medium househaold range, which is exactly where he should be.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 3:52PM
Anitra says:
Thank you, Huan. That\'s probably why Wes gets paid to sell papers at the front desk and I get left in the back room with the computers. He\'s funny, and I\'m not. I\'m used to it. Hey, at least I\'m material.
The issue of \"taking a side\" in journalism is a long-standing one. My personal side in that is that since it is biologically impossible for any human being to be totally unbiased, the closest we can come to unbiased reporting is to be open about what our personal opinions are. If you know what your own opinion is, you can be clear to others about what you think, why you think it, and what the counter-arguments are.
Gathering a set of quotes with differing opinions is not the same as presenting both sides of an argument. Few people even know all the evidence for their own opinions, because few people base their opinions on evidence.
From the comments here,most everybody finds that your aticle justifies *our* way of seeing Real Change. I think that anybody who likes the way Real Change does its vendor program will still like it after reading the article; and everybody who doesn\'t like it, still won\'t like it. What kind of \"questioning\" did you really raise in anybody\'s mind, then? You can\'t change anybody\'s opinion by just echoing it back to them.
\"Investigative reporting\" means collecting facts, not collecting opinions. It means testing facts, not just swallowing what you\'re told and then regurgitating it because analyzing it would be \"injecting your own ideas.\" Investigative reporting should include demonstrating which opinions are based on evidence, and which are not.
I agree that good journalism should raise questions as well as answer them. It is not just good journalism that raises a whole bunch of questions, though. If I asked, \"Does Mark Seely really wear a five-year-old-boy\'s underwear?\" would it be good journalism?
Where was your follow-through on all that \"wondering\"? Years ago, a reporter from the Belltown Herald registered as a vendor and spent a day on the street selling papers. Doing that might have provided you with some ideas about why nobody here worries about frat-boys selling papers out of their BMWs for coke money. The Belltown Herald guy didn\'t seem to think it was an easy way to make some extra cash. He didn\'t stick with it.
The vendors who stick with it refer to this as their job. They approach it like a job. Did you try comparing what a Real Change vendor makes compared with any other job open to the same people? What are the pluses and minuses to working at MacDonalds or day labor, compared to working as a Real Change vendor? What are the obstacles to \"transitioning\" from a successful Real Change vendor to something else? What are the values to being a Real Change vendor, aside from making the big bucks?
How many vendors would have to sell 2000 papers a month before Seattle was saturated? Did you ask that question?
In my opinion, we cannot \"transition\" a whole lot of people from low-paying jobs to living-wage jobs without structural changes in society and the economy. Real Change is working on those long-range changes, as well as immediate survival needs of people in poverty right now. How well are we doing both those things, together? Personally, I would *welcome* your thoughts on that -- your own thoughts, not your collection of other people\'s opinions.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 4:02PM
Anitra says:
I apologize for getting Mike Seely\'s name wrong.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 4:06PM
observations says:
My understanding, but one that\'s never directly addressed in this article, is that anyone can become a vendor AT ANY TIME. There is no wait list. Which, in my mind at least, undercuts the turf issue. Especially when the new vendor just arrived in town, walked right into Real Change\'s offices and started selling. I mean, it\'s not like a homeless shelter that is full of condo owners forcing real homeless people onto the street for the night. Also, clearly some people who do not have the good spots are under the impression that it is the spots that generate the income, not the people themselves. That really doeesn\'t soudns like the case. If you sell more, shouldn\'t you be rewarded? Surely if you expect people to transition to real jobs, they need to be able to do well in a competitive environment.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 4:07PM
treacle says:
Interesting. An \'exploratory\' instead of \'investigative\' lens, fair enough. And you know, I just read it again. But what is the goal of this exploration? You don\'t just explore for funsies, do you?, and print about it. Why are we exploring an organization that has set out to empower people in our lowest (economic) classes; is actually effective at doing so; treats people with basic human respect; and has no black hole of corruption at the center?
You are wanting to tinker with their arrangement, perhaps, in public?
Expose minor inconsistencies?
Or inform Seattlites that, yes, there are still some working class poor that are marginally better off than other working class/homeless poor? Even among the poor you probably see most closely?
And hey, if Ijiomah doesn\'t read Real Change great, but.. did you? Does it have good info? Are their action alert notices actually effective or pointed at the right things?
And yes, please do more articles on global climate change, Iraq, Darfur, taxes, and even death. Those would be far more interesting. Or stay local, whatever. I mean, you are in journalism to stir things up, facilitate informed discussion, and propel humanity towards bettering itself, right?
Again, Real Change = no smoking gun + does good work. wtf?
Non-linear? Great, only if it comes to something fruitful.
Otherwise it\'s nice to have a point. I mean, this was in the News section.
Glad to hear there\'s no blog-moderating going on. Good luck on the new software.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 4:08PM
treacle says:
Anitra, you rock.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 4:16PM
Andrew C. says:
I appreciated the article on the rules or lack there of for vendors of Real Change. It did not change my opinion of those who sell the paper, I make significantly less then Edward and feel poor at the moment. The article and the firestorm afterwards shows how much of an amazing asshole Tim Harris is. I had a friend who volunteered as an intern at Real Change. He said the job was hell on earth. I did not believe it. Now I do. I will not buy a Real Change paper because of the amazingly awful Tim Harris. I hope you let Huan know that his articles, including the bus article are great. Huan is reporting about stuff that long-term residents ignore or are used-to. Huan, please keep it up, you are an great asset to the Seattle Weekly.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 4:24PM
Ron says:
Treacle, you\'re one tough shaolin dude!
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 4:31PM
Seely says:
If I asked, \"Does Mark Seely really wear a five-year-old-boy\'s underwear?\" would it be good journalism?
Yes. And yes, I do.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 4:41PM
john says:
I only learned that Tim is blogging when I read about it in your article, so his pre-emption didn\'t shape my reaction.
I don\'t know why you wrote the article. I don\'t know why the Weekly ran it. What\'s the story? An organization that says it helps poor people helps poor people. Some of them lift themselves into solvency. The agency doesn\'t \"require them to transition into next level employment\" at that point. You check around, find out that every parallel organization in the country has the same policy.
What\'s the story? Well, you say, maybe Real Change should \"require vendors to transition into next-level employment\" after they achieve solvency.
In other words, they should be a different organization altogether.
But, since we\'re asking the \"tough questions,\" we can imagine this.
It\'s policy, time, people!
What\'s the cut-off? What\'s the max income someone should make from Real Change?
Is it a cumulative cut-off -- say, 20,000 papers lifetime -- or a monthly cut-off, or some combination?
How many \"employment transition\" staff should Real Change hire to help people?
What kinds of jobs are available to \"transition into\"?
Should the cumulative cut-off float with the unemployment rate?
Who decides all of this? Where\'s the funding?
And -- what\'s the point? More rules? More bureaucracy?
Really, it was a poorly thought-out article. I\'m sorry.
And it\'s OK to cry.
p.s. The Ms. just reminded me that Real Change had a tough time finding enough vendors when unemployment bottomed out in \'98 - \'99. People were finding better jobs.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 13 2007 @ 10:16PM
gary sutherland says:
Having read the story,and your own take on it, why was this promoted as a news item? Clearly the intent was editorial, \"The unquestioned fact that Real Change doesn\'t hide that not all of its vendors are homeless doesn\'t necessarily mean everyone knows about it.\" Maybe the piece should\'ve been an editorial with the biases more clearly spelled out?
In addition, the defense seems strange and conspiratorial ... what does Real Change have to do with how you voted in November 2006?
In the end, though, is this even a story? Two media outlets in a turf war, neither of which can give a truly unbiased take on the situation.It\'s like CNN covering MSNBC\'s firing of Don Imus ... there\'s a clear benefit to CNN taking the piss out of MSNBC (ie, a rival attacking a rival), no matter the journalistic integrity of the individuals involved.
On top of that, much like the recent \'Rosie Vs. Trump\' nonsense from a few months ago, this is as much about personality clashes as any semblence of an issue.
On top of THAT, now that The Stranger has mentioned it, this is now a minor Seattle media circus. And like any media circus, all players involved benefit since it gets people to pay attention to their product. All media requires attention to survive, and this is more about the latter than any semblance of an issue at this point.
Posted On: Saturday, Apr. 14 2007 @ 8:46AM
Steph says:
http://www.realchangenews.org/media/inthemedia.html
It might be interesting to read other media coverage about Real Change, to add another perspective for those reading, who want to know more.
Interestingly, there\'s even another SW article there.
Posted On: Saturday, Apr. 14 2007 @ 10:21AM
bob2007 says:
Huan: you\'ve just learned an important lesson about liberal politics in Seattle. I didn\'t find your article particularly revealing and I don\'t have issues with R.C., but the reaction from the established liberals in town was done in a more open forum, which was educational. In the future, expect to be given the Seattle Ice. This means: you won\'t get invited to parties with the hip political people, people whom you thought were friends will politely shun you, and whenever you speak in any room of more then 10 people at a public event you\'ll feel the temperature drop a few degrees. But no one will ever explain to you what their personal problem is, because it isn\'t personal; it\'s about The Party. Shop at a coop for the next ten years, and do some puff pieces about other liberal organizations, and even then, chances are your penance won\'t be enough. For some reason, the culture here is quite cult like, and when you question the conventional wisdom of the way things are being done, you get to be the pariah; no religion can exist without a devil. But the good news is that there is so much more to this town, that there is no need to kiss anyone\'s ass. The entrenched liberals need to be shaken up, and be forced to justify their longstanding role of moral judge of what constitute good debate and reporting. There needs to be a new generation of liberal opinion makers, as the old one is getting tired and redundant, because for the most part, they simply cover for their friends in the NGOs and in city politics.
Posted On: Saturday, Apr. 14 2007 @ 10:33AM
Shag Rugg says:
Huan, one of the things you need to know about Seattle: That \"Uptight Seattleite\" guy running in the Weekly? He\'s not just a joke; he\'s for real.
I found your article to be well-written and balanced. It had to be said. What anyone who read it wants to do with that information is up to them. Your approach was on the right track; put those facts out there, ask questions from both sides and get the story right.
Tim Harris bristled because you pointed out something he didn\'t to have known. But his comments are clouded by his outright hatred for the Weekly.
I\'ve been in your shoes. Stay true to yourself. Fuck \'em.
Posted On: Saturday, Apr. 14 2007 @ 2:09PM
Cornelius\'s boss says:
People overreacted to this story because this city is filled with hypocrites. The same people that moan, \"oh, we must help the homeless\" would gripe about having a Sign Guy panhandling at the end of their street. Seattle LIKES to think it\'s liberal, literate and PC but these phonies keep their pointy white hoods in the closet.
Another reason for the reaction? The high-school hijinks of the Stranger staff flaming and posting their high-pitched gleeful comments on their own \"Slog\" because Harris went all rabid chimp on his blog. Erica Barnett is textbook hypocrite: Google around for her post where she complains about being late for work because handicapped people ride HER express bus. How interesting.
Posted On: Saturday, Apr. 14 2007 @ 3:08PM
Reverand Money says:
Well Huan, looks like you\'ve about run out of employees to put up Real Change/Tim Harris/liberal bashing posts. Hopefully you won\'t be socially isolated here in uber-liberal Seattle. Bob2007, AKA your boss Fefer will still probably invite you to his parties. But then he ain\'t a liberal is he? Just remember, you are not his co-worker! He is your BOSS!
Posted On: Saturday, Apr. 14 2007 @ 4:30PM
cornelius\'s boss says:
Blow me, rev. I don\'t work for the Weekly
Posted On: Saturday, Apr. 14 2007 @ 4:40PM
disgrruntled says:
Am I missing something in this thread. The Rev.refers to Huan and Bob2007 in her post. Not to you. If you want a blowjob boss-go hang around a city park bathroom. But hell, you already know that, don\'t ya?
Posted On: Saturday, Apr. 14 2007 @ 6:00PM
Rich Jensen says:
So the dude sells 2,000 papers and makes $1,350 and we\'re supposed to think he\'s getting away with something? What I want to know is how much you and your editors are paid to impersonate journalists. This is probably the most small-minded premise for a citybeat story I have ever heard of. It\'s like an out-take from Bob Roberts, that satire about the Regean-esque folk singer. At least the rational for your piece is so ludicrous it\'s comical. One hopes the hard-working people in your piece will just laugh it off. You should probably reread your employment agreement: the gig was alternative journalism, not an alternative to journalism. True, the difference is too subtle for most of your readers. And that\'s exactly why they are your readers.
Posted On: Sunday, Apr. 15 2007 @ 10:50PM
disgrruntled says:
All good points Mr. Jensen. May I point out that The Weekly is an alternative newspaper-traditionally a news source for liberals. Apparently,now owned by a huge profit sucking corporation and existing in a liberal city, The Weekly has decide alternative means to be conservative. Look back through this thread and you will find that the few supporters of Huan Hsu\'s piece all sound conservative. I grieve for thee Seattle Weekly, you were once a real alternative newspaper. You gave us the stories (well some of them) that local corporate media wouldn\'t cover. Now -well I\'ve already made that point.
PS Cornelius Boss-did you have any luck at the park restrooms?
Posted On: Monday, Apr. 16 2007 @ 1:50PM
Cornelius\'s boss says:
Yeah, Disgrruntled: your dad says \"Hi\" (what, were you born yesterday??
Posted On: Tuesday, Apr. 17 2007 @ 8:23PM
Parkinson says:
Why do people dislike the story? Because it features this quote:
Paul, who also asked that his last name not be used, points to the deal that Real Change gives its best vendors: The top three sellers each month can buy their papers for 30 cents instead of the regular 35 cents. \"How different is that from giving tax breaks to the rich?\" wonders Paul.
printed without comment. Give us a break!
Posted On: Wednesday, Apr. 18 2007 @ 6:50PM
disgrruntled says:
Glad to hear you had a good time Cornelius/boss. Dad says you give great head. He think it\'s your missing front teeth that provide that extra special sensation.
Posted On: Wednesday, Apr. 18 2007 @ 8:45PM