not that this will make the weekly weekly recap any more fun

By josh
May 24th, 2005 @ 2:01 PM Uncategorized

lucci_05242005.jpg
According to their press release leaked internal memo [Ed: you're posting this just because you're excited to have been included on a press release, right? --Sorry, I couldn't resist the pull of real press acknowledgment. minor gossip], the Seattle Weekly took home a few mantlesfull of awards from the Society for Professional Journalists [spj.org]. Heady on the adrenaline of winning like crazy, the paper used the victories as an occasion for snark:

Seattle Weekly dominated the competition among alternative weeklies in five states with 19 awards and among non-daily newspapers in Western Washington state with 34 awards . . . In all, the paper won 54 SPJ awards for articles published in 2004. Among alt-weeklies in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska, the next-biggest winner was [Ed: Pulitzer Prize Winning] Portland’s Willamette Week with 11. Seattle Weekly’s direct competitor, The Stranger, won an honorable mention, which was awarded to a former SW staffer and was that paper’s sole honor in either contest.

While the paper is to be congratulated for their success, it’s comments like these that sort of explain why the kid at the top of the class isn’t always the most popular.

update: In case the tone of this post didn’t convey my impression that the prizes just might be vanity awards for the purpose of ego-boosting, here’s Dan Savage’s rebuttal to the Seattle Weekly’s victory party and explanation of why the Stranger didn’t take home any awards (because they didn’t enter). [slog] (p.s. Dan wrote that he sent me an e-mail, but it hasn’t yet arrived.)

Print this post


4 Comments so far

  1. Amy (unregistered) on May 24th, 2005 @ 4:33 pm

    I think there’s something up with your email address – I tried sending you something earlier today, and got this: josh@scXXXXXXXXXXXXce.net>


  2. Chuck Taylor (unregistered) on May 24th, 2005 @ 4:57 pm

    For what this is worth, our press release didn’t even mention The Strangler. What you are quoting, apparently, is an internal e-mail.

    Otherwise, Dan’s reaction is about what I expected, only shorter.


  3. josh (unregistered) on May 24th, 2005 @ 5:04 pm

    thanks for the heads-up. I’m able to send myself e-mails, but that isn’t very useful. I’ll look into it.

    //

    for what it’s worth, the bargain-basement domain name service / webhost that I use says that the e-mail bounnce isn’t their fault. In case anyone else is having trouble e-mailing me, here’s their FAQ about the bouncing messages:

    The most common reasons our servers reject mail from people you know are:

    The mail server that sent us the message did not have valid reverse DNS, which is a spammer trick to get around some kinds of spam blocks.

    The mail server that sent us the message identified itself using a fake name, which is what spammers always do to conceal the origin of their message.

    The mail server that sent us the message used the deprecated [1.2.3.4] notation to identify itself which is now used almost exclusively by email viruses.


  4. josh (unregistered) on May 24th, 2005 @ 5:11 pm

    Chuck – I apologize for speculating that this was a press release. I read it on my Sidekick on the bus this morning and saw your name at the top of the message. In fact, the e-mail was from someone using the screenname “Ezra Meeker” (who was apparently a nineteenth century prospector/hops distributor who settled in Puyallup. [washington.edu])

    I will note the correction in the post.



Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.