Yesterday, Seattle Times executive editor, Mike Fancher, announced that David Postman would be joining the blogosphere. In his initial post, Postman promised, indirectly, to be "objective":
Before I could get started here, Eli Sanders at The Stranger's Slog posed the big question about the new blog on the block: Can an "objective" political blog make it in the world of Horsesass and Soundpolitics?
Or maybe he was promising to be "objective". I admit to some puzzlement, since he seems to be saying that he will be somewhere between Horsesa** and Sound Politics, that is, somewhere between obscenity and sanity, and I am not quite sure just where that is.
But let's put that aside and welcome him, anyway. And as part of our welcome, let me explain something about the blogosphere to him: It is far more interactive than newspapers. Individual bloggers challenge other bloggers on their facts and reasoning, constantly. Bloggers often criticize other bloggers (and journalists like Postman) for what they leave out. And so, I am going to renew a challenge for Postman.
When Rodney Tom announced that he was switching parties, every news story that I saw just regurgitated the press release put out by Tom and the Democratic party. But the story from Tom and the Democratic party was implausible. As Stefan Sharkansky showed, Tom had been voting like a Republican. And, as I argued, if anything, the Republican party had been becoming more moderate in recent years. Nonetheless, local journalists saw nothing implausible in Tom's explanation, that the Republican party had become too extreme — or at least nothing that they wanted to publish.
But Postman is in the blogosphere now, and so I think it is fair to ask him to go back and look at the stories on Tom's switch a little more closely. Does Postman really find those stories plausible? Is he not even a little curious about what happened in the meetings between Tom and the Democratic officials before the switch? And, would he ask Rodney Tom this question some time: Does he believe that Republican chairman Diane Tebelius is more "extreme" than Democratic chairman Dwight Pelz?
Others may have different challenges for Postman. (And, if you do, feel free to add them in the comments.) But I think that one is a good start. Welcome to the blogosphere, Mr. Postman.
(By the way, as Postman may not know, it was blogger Bill Quick who thought up the word, "blogosphere". And that's "Sound Politics", not "Soundpolitics".)
Posted by Jim Miller at May 22, 2006 10:38 AM | Email ThisAnd, it's finally nice of you to point out that the guys over at ******ass are the sane ones.
Either way, I look forward to having Postman aboard. At least he'll actually check the FACTS of an issue before posting...unlike some bloggers I've read here at SP.
Posted by: rossi too on May 22, 2006 11:40 AMBut what was Bryan Suits really saying? It couldn't be as simple as the quote "off the record" that Postman posted.
Posted by: swatter on May 22, 2006 11:59 AMWill it be the same with your Blog????????
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on May 22, 2006 12:17 PMThough you seem a leftie (i think i got that from watching various shows you are on), you strike me as a lefty who didn't leave his brain at the door.
Posted by: righton on May 22, 2006 01:58 PMSuits said exactly what Postman noted. He explained that he thought that Wilbur and Carlson had operated in a way he chose (and chooses) not to. He explained his position, but it wasn't meant to hostile to Wilbur and Carlson.
It was as simple as it appears.
Posted by: Alex Hays on May 22, 2006 02:05 PMI also am concerned about your ability to present a balanced view of certain things, largely because you are an employee of one of the JOA partners. Take sound transit (please). The 2005 subarea equity report showed direct payments from ST to the Seattle Times of over one million dollars (that does not include flow-through payments from ST's media consultants, which funnelled even more ST money to the JOA partners). ST buys lots of good (or at least non-critical) ink around here.
Do you think that if there is an issue where the interests of taxpayers or private property owners are contrary to those of ST you would be able to at least fairly describe the nature of that conflict?
Thank you in advance!
Posted by: interested on May 22, 2006 02:18 PMOne question, though, on the Brian Suits quote. If what Carlson and Wilbur did was "leadership," then what was the Seattle P-I doing with their daily unsigned editorial and should the same restrictions apply considering such daily publication amounts to a billboard, not pure advocacy?
At the end of the day, I really believe we are far better off with "leadership" on issues is no different than "advocacy" on such issues because drawing such a vague line ultimately provides no additional enlightenment but certainly provides plenty of additional opportunities to restrict free speech. I'm just wondering where you stand on all this and whether you're allowed to comment on the position of the P-I on this issue since it was so different from the Times' take.
Posted by: Marc on May 22, 2006 04:42 PMI'm a bit surprised that you are welcoming Postman to the blogosphere. For years I've heard his "news articles" decried by many conservatives as opinion columns. Politics is one of the more challenging fields to report -- and while I think Postman has always attempted to be even-handed, that's not the same as objective.
Take for instance that his columns appear on the "News" page of the Times. In reality, he's doing "News Analysis". Two different categories, with the latter more suited for an editorial page. Overall, I think it'll be interesting to see how Postman uses his new blog -- will it be a sounding board like the PI's popular "Soundoffs" or will it be a place for him to say what he really thinks about politics and where we're heading in Washington state?
Posted by: Patrick on May 22, 2006 05:19 PMIs Mayor PhatAss saying all the items on his list are the LOWEST PRIORITY for City Government???
If not, why doesn't he put forth some of the other DISCRETIONARY NONSENSE for the Public vote, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
What a dishonest SOB Nickels is!!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on May 22, 2006 05:55 PMWell, at least I can be disappointed on day one....
Posted by: Marc on May 22, 2006 07:25 PMPerhaps David Postman can comment on this new development.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on May 23, 2006 05:44 AM