The Zealot Controversy

This Fox News interview with Reza Aslan, the author of Zealot, the controversial new biography about Jesus Christ (or, more correctly in this case, “Jesus of Nazareth”) has started to make the social media rounds with acerbic comments coming from the left (or, more specifically, people who aren’t fans of Fox News and/or Christianity).

They mock Lauren Green with comments about her intelligence, her “homophobia” and Fox News’ bias, the last of which is especially fascinating considering their inherent bias against “Faux Noise” as they often refer to it. Their main argument seems to be that Green should not be allowed to raise the question of Aslan’s faith and how, as many scholars have pointed out, it biases him against a depiction of Jesus as the Living Son of God.

So my question for these folks is–and Aslan actually raises it early in the interview–if a Christian scholar wrote a book about Muhammed would he receive the same sort of questioning about his inherent biases? The answer is rhetorical, of course. (Not only would he receive this line of questioning from moderate Muslims as well as most other folks, the zealots of that religion would be calling for his head.)  So what makes this guy so special that he’s apparently the only scholar in the world without biases? (Or so it would seem by his refusal to acknowledge them; although, perhaps if Green had worded her question thusly he may have been forced to admit to them.)

I’d say the fact that he refuses to admit his biases (something we all have) might be a good indication that his are stronger than most.

And, for the record, yes, I’m sure some of her questioning came from her background as a devout Christian; her bias. But wouldn’t you ask similar questions if someone of a different faith (political ideology or, perhaps, even the strategies you employ in your day to day work), scholar or not, was telling you that the major tenet of the faith (et cetera) in which you believed was wrong? No one likes to be told she’s wrong about something, especially when that criticism comes from someone outside the circle of the subject’s influence. A cook doesn’t want to be told by a scientist that he doesn’t know how to properly boil potatoes even though the scientist might be right. A pitcher doesn’t want to be told by a tailor he’s throwing a fastball incorrectly. And a Christian certainly doesn’t want to be told by a Muslim that the God she and her fore-bearers have been worshipping for 2000 years really isn’t God at all. (Well, no kidding? If Aslan did believe that Jesus was the Living Son of God, then he wouldn’t be Muslim, now would he?)
I’m sure this is an interesting and well researched book and not only does Aslan have the right to write it, it probably contributes a worthwhile thing or two to the study of Christ. The problem lies in his apparent hubris, at least in this interview. He’d be better received if he’d just admit his inherent biases (again, biases we all have) instead of answering every question with his lofty resume.

Staying True to Your Values Is Good PR

I am currently pursuing a certificate in Public Relations from the University of Washington. Last week we had our first two classes of Winter quarter and we started one of them off by discussing the biggest PR Disasters of 2012 as reported by Entrepreneur.com. Most of them are pretty common-sense: political gaffes and social media blunders. At least one of them, the whole Chick-fil-A episode, was clearly a biased attack on conservative values. (Another was a biased attack on large corporations but I won’t get into that.)

Of course, just because bad PR might be the result of a biased media or a left-wing army of “tolerance” doesn’t mean it isn’t PR or isn’t “fair”. Fairness doesn’t and shouldn’t have anything to do with good PR. In fact, it’s often just the opposite. The job of a good PR expert is to combat often times unfair or one-sided coverage with the truth. If Chick-fil-A really did handle the whole gay marriage thing poorly then its PR department should be taken to task for it.

But I don’t think they did. And more importantly, I don’t think good PR should have to blow in the wind of public opinion, especially when it’s public opinion about something so controversial as gay marriage. Just the opposite, good PR should be willing to stand by its company’s core values, regardless of what they are. This is perfectly demonstrated by another PR disaster of 2012, Susan G Komen’s flip-flop on support for Planned Parenthood. The debate there isn’t whether Komen should or shouldn’t support Planned Parenthood but that, once it makes a decision, it needs to stick by it. By flip-flopping on Planned Parenthood they angered not only a subset of supporters of Planned Parenthood (angry liberals that are looking to be offended and probably didn’t donate a lot, in aggregate, to Komen in the first place), but, more importantly, a group of people who either supported Komen’s original stance or are now rightfully wary of a company basing its philanthropic decisions on a media debacle that likely would have gone away just as quickly, if not more so, had it just kept quiet on the matter.

So good for Chick-fil-A. Its owners hold certain views (views which are held by half the population and probably and even larger percentage of Chick-fil-A customers) and they were willing to stand by those views. And because of that integrity, not only did Chick-fil-A do its single biggest day of business on a day that the left was launching a boycott, its quarterly earnings for that quarter were up 2.2% and its market share was up 0.6%

Furthermore, the “kiss-in” that was supposed to materialize later largely fell flat. And talk about a bad PR move! If you’re trying to get folks to stay away from a business to hurt their bottom line, it’s probably not the best idea to, then, encourage them to go to that business. Not only did many of these folks succumb to the tasty goodness that is a Chick-fil-A chicken sandwich, many of them probably realized that Chick-fil-A, despite what they may like to think, doesn’t want to burn homosexuals at the stake and treats all its employees and customers with dignity and respect.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, as a Christian (and I don’t think one has to necessarily be a Christian to adhere to this philosophy), integrity, staying true to one’s core values, is paramount. Look at all the PR disasters in the Bible. Moses comes down Mount Sinai with the very Word of God in his hands and the Israelites, still fresh from deliverance from Egypt, start worshiping a cow (and you thought politicians today had it bad!). God came down from Heaven and ended up put to death. For hundreds of years later His followers met much the same fate. Even today, Christians are persecuted around the world. But, as we know, that’s not where any of those stories ended. The Israelites reached the Promised Land. Jesus rose from the dead. Christianity is the largest religion in the world. And whether one believes in the eternal salvation of Christ or not, anyone with integrity knows that sticking to one’s beliefs in the face of adversity is what is true. As Lincoln said, “I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live up to what light I have.”

Love Actually Is All Around

One of our Christmas traditions is watching the movie Love Actually. We watched it on Saturday, the day after the horrible massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. The opening lines of the film struck me more than usual with the news fresh in my mind.

“Whenever I get gloomy with the state of the world, I think about the arrivals gate at Heathrow Airport. General opinion’s starting to make out that we live in a world of hatred and greed, but I don’t see that. It seems to me that love is everywhere. Often, it’s not particularly dignified or newsworthy, but it’s always there – fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, husbands and wives, boyfriends, girlfriends, old friends. When the planes hit the Twin Towers, as far as I know, none of the phone calls from the people on board were messages of hate or revenge – they were all messages of love. If you look for it, I’ve got a sneaking suspicion… love actually is all around.”

As horrible as the massacre at Sandy Hook was – and make no mistake, nothing is more tragic than the brutal murder of so many young children – tragedy befalls this nation everyday. When a mother loses her infant to SIDS does she grieve any less? When a husband loses his wife to a drunk driver crossing the center line is his world not turned upside down? No, yet these moments are rarely covered in the media and certainly not on a national level. And this isn’t to say that the media shouldn’t have covered Sandy Hook or that they should cover the more “everyday” occurrences of tragedy. News is news because it is novel; something out of the ordinary. But as we watch these tragedies unfold we should be mindful that the novelty which brought their coverage is a reminder that “love actually is all around.” If the world really was filled with hatred and greed instead of love and charity these tragedies would be more commonplace, we’d be desensitized to them, and the media would be covering something else.

So grieve the children of Sandy Hook. But at the same time, and perhaps to a greater extent, celebrate the heroism of people like teacher Victoria Soto and therapist Rachel Davino, who were so full of love for their first grade students that they gave their lives protecting them. Celebrate six-year old Jack Pinto who was, in the words of his family, an “inspiration to all those who knew him.” His family also added that they would not dwell “on the loss but instead on the gift that we were given and will forever cherish in our hearts forever.”

Life is short no matter how long we live and every day should be cherished as a gift. Those days or moments that are extraordinarily good we should celebrate even more. And these moments don’t have to be newsworthy, although perhaps they should be. They can be the smile that lifts someone’s spirits on a dreary day. They can be the latte purchased by the person in front of you at the drive-thru. Many times they even rise to the level of newsworthiness, as did this story about a cop giving a motorist much more than a citation.

We may never truly know all the motives behind the tragedies that befall society but one hypothesis is fame. Even though these monsters often turn the gun on themselves in the end, perhaps realizing the magnitude of their act, it seems some do it for the attention they will receive. A Facebook post originally attributed to Morgan Freeman, despite being a hoax in some sense, nonetheless speaks the truth. The post ends by encouraging readers to “help by forgetting you ever read this man’s name, and remembering the name of at least one victim… You can help by turning off the news.”

I’ll go one further. We should encourage and spread good news, if we choose to make famous not the cowards hiding behind an arsenal of guns but the heroes that step in front of them perhaps our young people will grow up aspiring to this kind of fame instead. And I’ll say it, we could certainly benefit from some more solid morality in society. As a friend quipped, “some people ask how God could allow something so tragic to happen in a grade school; perhaps it is because God is no longer allowed in schools.”

Bias

I recently had a conversation with someone about media bias. I mentioned that I felt that the media had somewhat of a left-wing slant, citing a 2004 survey by Pew stating that five times as many journalists self-identify as liberals than as conservatives; and an email from Seattle Times editor Dave Boardman conceding that the majority of journalist are left-leaning. She disagreed quite vehemently with this claim and also told me I shouldn’t make assumptions about “people, their politics, their intent, or anything.”

The problem I have with this view isn’t that the media is biased. I think the idea of media objectivity is a farce. The media is made up of people who have their own inherent biases. Most, if not all people, aren’t even aware of all of their biases. And despite a 24/7 news cycle and hundreds of media outlets available, there is still only so much time. Some things are just going to get cut. Furthermore, there seems to be a converse relationship between available media and attention span, so gone are the days of the hours-long Lincoln-Douglas debates that might actually get more to the heart of a matter. All that remains are buzz phrases like “Teabagger” and “Drill, Baby, Drill”, or offers of $5 million donations for the release of college transcripts. What does trouble me is when people won’t even acknowledge their inherent biases, even becoming upset when the possibility is raised and responding with the “race card” (or the “Europe card”, or the “woman as victim card” or the “change card”).

I don’t even have much of a problem with the advice to not make assumptions. It’s good advice but, like bias, impossible to follow. If we assumed nothing of a person we’d be spending most of the day asking a lot of needless questions. A few cases in point: we assume that people we do business with here in America can speak English (although that’s certainly not always the case). We assume that a PB&J won’t offend anyone. Politically, we assume if someone is pro-life and advocates for strong national defense that they are a Republican (not necessarily the case as is evidenced by pro-life Harry Reid and pro-strong defense Joe Lieberman). We assume someone who wants to expand the federal government’s role in health care and education is a Democrat (but Bush’s advocacy for Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind dispel that assumption.) Everyone makes assumptions like these every day and, in general, they are correct, saving everyone a lot of time. People should be somewhat mindful of their assumptions and there are definitely some that are more dangerous than others, but overall, assumptions are a valuable part of daily discourse.

And, in this particular case, it was also quite ironic to be told not to make assumptions when even a cursory examination of her professional work includes such things as comparisons of the Catholic Church to the Wicked Witch of the West and references to the sex abuse scandal within the church as a reason for it not to engage in abstinence-only education. She’s also called for tougher gun laws, assuming that this will solve the problem of accidental shootings. (Simply assuming that it wouldn’t without careful study would be equally as reckless, of course.) And, of course, there are the oft repeated buzz phrases from people on the left like “War on Women” and other anti-conservative references which are sometimes quite pejorative.

If people want to be hyper-partisan and chooses to use incendiary images like Paul Ryan pushing Granny off a cliff, or say that Republicans “are gonna put y’all back in chains” that’s their right (although more people might listen to what they have to say with an open mind if they didn’t use such phrases). They just shouldn’t pretend that they’re the moderate ones.

Equally ironic is that some people use emotionally charged phrases like these but when someone simply questions whether massive deficit spending might not be the best path toward prosperity or that, just maybe, the attack on our consulate in Benghazi wasn’t a spontaneous response to a months-old video; they are branded a racist and chastised for even mentioning it.

And one final thing of note, another person involved in this conversation actually believed that “even smart readers” can’t tell the difference between the different sections of a newspaper (the news, the editorials and the advertisements).

Statements like that are very telling of someone’s opinion of their own intelligence in comparison to others although they are rarely so outrageous. As Reagan once quipped, “the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.” I think the overwhelming majority of liberals truly want the same things, ultimately, as conservatives: freedom, prosperity and safety. Where they differ, though, is the approach. And it’s one based on opinion of oneself. Small government types believe that they don’t know any more than the person next door and, if they do, their neighbor’s business is none of theirs unless he asks (in which case they’re generally more than happy to oblige). Big government types believe that they know how to solve all of societies pressing problems better than everyone else. The fact that so many members of the “ivory tower” fall into this category is no coincidence for they equate a degree from Harvard as validation of this view. It is also what often leads to so much of the bias in the media, education and government.

Hurricane Obama

I’m sitting in my hotel room in Clearwater Beach looking out at the Gulf of Mexico. A week ago it seemed everyone in the media was chomping at the bit to declare that the worst storm since Katrina would make landfall right here and cancel everything. As late as 11 this morning I received an email alert from the National Journal, which serves as a sort of Convention newspaper, stating that the Convention, which has already been truncated by a day, could be truncated to mere hours; just time enough for a roll call vote and a brief acceptance speech from Romney in which he’d declare the emergency of Class 25 Hurricane Isaac too important and summarily call the convention to a close, suspend the campaign and tell everyone to vote for Obama or something.

The height of irony is that less than 20 minutes later I got another alert from National Journal saying that the Tropical Storm warning (wait, I thought this was supposed to be a hurricane) has been cancelled for everyone on Florida’s Gulf Coast and that it will make landfall in Louisiana barely strong enough to register as a Class 1 hurricane. From talking with several locals down here I’ve learned that a Class 1 hurricane is pretty much a non-event.

(As a frame of reference, Hurricane Katrina was a Class 5 that was downgraded to a Class 4 by the time it hit New Orleans. And New Orleans only got ravaged to such a horrible extent because the city founders thought it would be a good idea to build a city (“You didn’t build that!”) below sea level (forgive them; they were French) and the contemporary city government, led by Mayor Ray “Chocolate City” Nagin, thought it would be a good idea to spend federal emergency management funds on Mardi Gras instead of repairing the levees. (But it’s all Bush’s fault and he actually sent Dick “Darth Vader” Cheney down on a secret mission to blow up the levees right after Halliburton actually seeded Hurricane Katrina. True story.)

Yes, the media loves to create a story where there is none. It it bleeds it leads. And what could be better than a cancelled GOP Convention? So disappointing that it didn’t come to pass and now the adults have a chance to do some work.

And so it is on the political scale at large. The media enjoys whipping up a non-story on behalf of then Candidate, now President Obama. “Hope and Change!” “We’re gonna spread happiness. We’re gonna spread freedom. Obama’s gonna change it. Obama’s gonna lead.” (Sung to the tune of Mao, Mao, Our Dear Leader) “The oceans will begin to recede.” The world will love us and there’ll be a vegetable medley from the White House garden in every pot and dozens of Chevy Volts in every parking lot. And if we don’t elect him things will just get worse. We need to pass the bill to find out what’s in it. We need to re-elect Obama to find out what he’ll do in the second term.

Well, sorry to disappoint, but the Great Hope of 2008 didn’t seem to pan out. Instead we got Hurricane Obama, far more destructive than a score of Katrinas and, to anyone who’s studied even a bit of history, economics or the Chicago Way, far more predictable. In an effort to create a great story the media failed to properly vet their candidate. Four years ago it wasn’t “if it bleeds, it leads”. Instead, it quickly became “He leads and the nation’s bank account bleeds.”

This time, I hope enough people will realize that too many in the media care more about a good story than they do about what is likely to happen. Today’s scheduled events have been cancelled but the rest of the Convention will proceed. The past four years have been cancelled and, if enough of us choose who will lead us during the next four years based on facts and reason instead of hype and hope, this nation can proceed as well.

Is it time for state funding of media to go?

The Washington News Council ruled on a disagreement between the Vitae Foundation and KUOW regarding a story that KUOW ran last April. It should be well noted that this is only the fifth time in its 14 year history that the WNC has had to make a ruling, the vast majority of the disagreements brought before it being mediated.

In five out of six complaints brought before the council it ruled in favor of Vitae, deciding that KUOW did have the responsibility to get a response from Vitae before running the story and that, having made some factual errors in the original story, KUOW should have corrected those errors on-air, not just online. The only complaint that went in KUOW’s favor was that of wanting them to run a full, on-air story on Vitae. In regards to this, Joel Kaplan of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting puts it best “A credible and responsible news organization promptly corrects its mistakes,” Mr. Kaplan said. “It does not trade its most valuable commodity — its airtime — as a way to apologize by promoting a story on an organization that does not pass the newsworthy test.” () And I think Vitae’s request for a full story had more to do with the fact that KUOW chose not to get a response or make timely and appropriate corrections to the original story, not that they wanted a full on story just because.

One thing that is absent in all of this though (and not without reason, since WNC should remain apolitical and like any good judiciary, rule only on the cases before it, not the greater themes those cases depict), is the fact that both KUOW and Planned Parenthood receive government funding. Does this make them more likely to air biased stories portraying other organizations that receive government funding in a kinder light? There are certainly critiques of private news sources airing preferential stories about organizations from which they may benefit and regardless of the legitimacy of those critiques, these organizations always quick to point out a potential conflict of interest (i.e. in a story about GE, NBC will point out that they are owned by them). Should KUOW at least point these facts out as well? Maybe not. The connection, after all, isn’t quite as close; Planned Parenthood doesn’t own KUOW. But the whole arrangement of government funded media is just a bit too Pravda-esque. And why continue with it anyway?

Norm Arkans, the Associate VP of Media Relations and Communications for the University of Washington told me his office is the one that lobbies for funding from the University for KUOW and said that the only funding KUOW receives from the University goes to cover most of the station manager’s salary. All the other operating expenses of the station come from listener support and underwriting. Of course, not included in the station manager’s salary or in the operating budget as a whole are all the benefits an employee of KUOW receives: pension, health care, etc.

News Director Guy Nelson says differently, stating that “KUOW gets no state funding (not even from the UW, though we are considered UW staff) and only a small amount of CPB funding.”

According to their website, KUOW receives 89% of its funding from individuals and business support. The important question is, how much of the remaining 11% comes from the tooth fairy?

In regards to government funding in general he adds, “while decreasing federal funding wouldn’t change much for KUOW, it could really hurt small stations around the country who are much more dependent, leaving their listeners with no alternative to commercially owned radio and news. So for that reason, independent public radio is very important and government funding is a necessary part of that.”

For what it’s worth, Arkans said KUOW is “a good news organization” with “a strong commitment to fairness.” Okay. Is that “strong commitment” sort of like the “serious consideration” that KUOW said during mediation it would give to running an on-air story about Vitae? Words are nice but they ring hollow when confronted with actions such as these.

Nelson states that “every news organization makes occasional errors. Neither the WNC or CPB said or implied that KUOW is biased in its coverage or lacking in professionalism. Anyone who alleges a conflict needs to come up with evidence to support their claims.” Hmm, does not owning up to your mistakes immediately following their happening and having to go before the Washington News Council where you’re ruled against not constitute evidence? Well, certainly not the level of evidence required to convict beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law but not reaching that level of evidence has never seemed to stop the media (and I refer to all media, not just KUOW or NPR). Maybe NPR’s firing of Juan Williams because he dared to answer a question truthfully instead of politically-correct constitutes evidence.

For the record, Planned Parenthood and the reporter of the original story, Meghan Walker, declined to comment on this story.

And while we’re exploring government funding of the media let’s take a gander at Voice of America. Since the passage of the Smith-Mundt Act in 1948 VOA has been prohibited from broadcasting within the US (although, thanks to the interwebs you can listen to streaming audio online). Why? Evil, scary propaganda, like, you know, a recent story about Algae as Fuel. Wait. What? You mean like this story on NPR: “Could Algae Be Milked Like A Cow?” Maybe not like a cow but certainly like a grant from the CPB! So if VOA is not allowed to broadcast stories about algae because they receive government funding how is it that NPR, who also receives government funding can?

Kirby on Kirby

I just got off the phone with Kirby. First the good news.

Our phone calls to advertisers appear to be helping. Kirby told me that Laura Kiel of Kiel Mortgage has pulled her advertising from KVI and is unwilling to reconsider as long as Kirby is off the air. I’m sure other advertisers will follow. Kirby also mentioned that KVI has received more than 700 phone calls from listeners upset over the decision.

As for Jim Clayton’s stated reasons behind Kirby’s contract not being renewed — money and ratings — Kirby wants to tell his side of the story.

On November 6, Kirby and the rest of the station had their monthly meeting to discuss October’s ratings. In that meeting Kirby was told that he was the highest rated show on KVI; that his show was outperforming the station as a whole; that his ratings had increased against and he was beating Glenn Beck by half a point in the 35-64 demographic; and ratings in the 25-54 demographic, while not better than Beck’s, were holding steady. Kirby also mentioned that not once in the past six months had management come to him or any of his staff to express concern over his ratings.

Kirby also doesn’t believe his contract wasn’t renewed because of money. He stated that three years ago the station gave him a 50% raise because they wanted to make sure he remained at KVI. He added that, six months ago, he approached management and offered to take a pay cut to help the station out financially and agreed to forgo his scheduled raise this year.

Why was he let go? He’s not sure although he had a sense it was coming since management hasn’t been communicating with him or answering concerns for the past few months.

Overall, his spirits are high. He enjoyed sleeping in for the first time in 16 years and said that last Thursday was not that last you’ll hear from him. He wouldn’t provide details for obvious reasons but he did say that he’s already received phone calls from a few other radio stations interested in him.

He added that he will miss his time with KVI and all the great work he was able to accomplish over the past sixteen years.

“Ranting about the governor is nice but the thing I loved most was helping local people; raising money for Operation Support Our Troops and Toys for Tots, getting people out to Tea Parties and rallying listeners to local causes like raising money to pay for the Medal of Honor Memorial at the UW.”

He thanks all of you who have sent him messages over the past few days. He’s received so many he’s not sure he’ll be able to respond to each one individually but will try. He said he even received a call from former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

“I love you all and I’m humbled by the response I’ve received on Facebook and via email.”

We love you too, Kirby, and look forward to hearing your voice on the radio again soon.

Say It Ain’t So! Kirby Wilbur Off The Air!

I was shocked to learn yesterday evening that Kirby Wilbur broadcast his final show yesterday morning. I’m sure I speak for conservatives around the Puget Sound area when I say how deeply saddened I am that this beacon of clear thought in the area has now gone dark.

I spoke with station manager Jim Clayton who told me that, despite any rumors going around, the sole reason for letting Kirby go was that his rating were down. Jim told me that they were searching for someone local to fill the time slot and that the addition of The John Gibson Show to the lineup was temporary. (I have a call into Kirby to get his take on this claim and will post an update when I hear from him.)

If that is indeed the case then I understand. Fischer Broadcasting has a business to run and that business is based on ratings. What I don’t understand is the way in which they carried out their decision, with no compassion. Kirby has been an institution in the Puget Sound area for 16 years and they let him go with no warning; no chance to say goodbye to his listeners.

I encourage you all to give KVI a call (206-404-3010) and ask them to reconsider their move.

I’d also encourage you all to call every local business that advertises on KVI. After all, they’re the ones with the power of the purse.

Kirby, we wish you well. You’re a sharp wit and a caring heart. Whatever plans the Lord has in store for you I know they’re grand. (Kirby for Congress…?)

The Spin Cycle: It’s a Wonder the Washing Machine Isn’t Walking Out the Door!

Many news sources have gotten it right. Politico writes that “Dems and Incumbents get a wake up call”. The AP writes: “For now, Obama must worry about the impact of the 2009 contests on health care reform, his signature legislative priority.” And the LA Times writes: “GOP Victories Send Message To Democrats”.

But you can always count on CNN: “Analysis: Elections not a referendum on Obama”. Of course they’re only talking about the NJ and VA Governors’ races. Lefty’s across the nation are all dancing in glee and announcing the death knell of conservatism because Hoffman lost in NY-23. Never mind that Hoffman was late to enter the race, didn’t have the support of either major party and still managed to get within spitting distance of being elected. And never mind that Owens didn’t get a majority of the vote. But, hey, CNN and the rest of you goons in your dream world: whatever helps you sleep at night. This is just a taste of things to come in 2010. Yesterday was the day we began to take our country back!

Closer to home, further proof that liberalism is indeed a mental disorder as voters handily elected Chairman Dow “the Mao” Constantine (I wonder if we can convince Mikhail Gorbachev to move here and run. He’d be an improvement, after all.); welcomed bicycle-riding enviro-nut Mike McGinn and said no to 1033.
Let’s just be done with it. Let’s pass a non-binding resolution in Seattle (we seem to be good at those) proclaiming Seattle a Soviet Republic, outlaw religion and free elections, and make vodka the national drink and “The Internationale” the national anthem (the Maxx Klaxon 2005 techno version). We don’t even need a statue of Lenin!

Media Bias at the Seattle Times

I find it curious that the Seattle Times decided to jump on the PDC complaint filed by the King County Democrats against Susan Hutchison yesterday even though an investigation of that complaint hasn’t been opened yet, but similar coverage of the complaint filed against the Constantine campaign wasn’t given coverage by major news media until after the PDC decided to open an investigation weeks after the first complaint was initially filed and smaller news outlets, including SoundPolitics, covered the story.

I called Bob Young, the reporter who wrote the story in the Seattle Times and he said it wasn’t his decision. He referred me to his editor, Richard Wagoner, but unfortunately he is out of the office until next week and couldn’t be reached.

This is media bias in its worst form. It’s no wonder fish wrap like the Seattle Times continues to lose readers as alternative media outlets like blogs and alternative weeklies grow.