in other blogs: realchangeweeklygate!

In case you’ve missed the thrilling RealChangegate, an approximate timeline:

  • Real Change executive director Tim Harris posts a furious pre-responde (“Seattle Weekly: What the Fuck?”) to a yet unwritten Seattle Weekly story about the workings of the street newspaper and the fact some vendors aren’t homeless. [apesmaslament]
  • Former Seattle Weekly columnist Geov Parrish pre-responds to the story, taking it as a sign of the further marginalization of the paper under New Times ownership. [horsesass]
  • The story still not published, the Seattle Weekly addresses a letter from an angry Ballard grandmother. [dailyweekly]
  • Tim Harris, again. He hates the new Weekly, btw.
  • Huan Hsu’s article (“Not All the Peddlers of Seattle’s Homeless Paper Are Homeless: Should that really matter?”) appears in the paper. [seattleweekly]
  • Tim Harris responds to the actual piece, grudgingly acknowledging that it’s “fair” and “balanced” but that he still hates the Weekly [apesmaslament]
  • Erica C. Barnett (who wrote for the Weekly from 2001-2003) chides the Weekly’s new management for not championing the defenseless, linking to Harris’s weblog, but not to Hsu’s story. [slog]
  • Former Seattle Weekly managing editor Chuck Taylor steps in to says that the Weekly didn’t go far enough. He runs the numbers and says that Hsu should have pointed out that, after a vacation-free year with generous customers a hard-working Real Change vendors wouldn’t even be poor. [crosscut]

a few updates from this week:

  • Huan Hsu blogs (“Don’t worry, I know there’s no crying in journalism.”) about all of the reactions to his article [dailyweekly]
  • Tim Harris tells Hsu why everyone is so angry. (“That [buying Real Change is] not a pity purchase.”) [apesmaslament]

4 Comments so far

  1. Zee (unregistered) on April 11th, 2007 @ 11:26 pm

    To be fair, Tim Harris is far from the only person who hates the Weekly.

  2. Jake of (unregistered) on April 12th, 2007 @ 9:10 am

    I like spelling it “Seattle Weakly”.

    Come on and do a “search and replace”. You know you want to.

  3. dw (unregistered) on April 12th, 2007 @ 12:22 pm

    Quick show of hands of anyone who LIKES the Weekly in its current configuration and is not a current employee of New Times, er, VVM.

    Let’s see. One. Two. Three, no, looks like you’re just scratching your head.

  4. josh (unregistered) on April 12th, 2007 @ 4:14 pm

    I realize that it’s aiming for hipness shorthand to deride the Seattle Weekly, but it feels like a lazy playground game of stone throwing. I guess that I understand people feeling an obligation to to vocally despise the paper (and the local humans who write it) now that it’s owned by New Times, but I’ve picked up a few issues since the takeover and have been pleasantly surprised. I wonder if blanket statements like this are well-informed or just knee-jerk reactions.

    I admit that I didn’t read it much in the year before the merger (the very long long features didn’t really capture my attention and I grew weary of all of the anti-monorail, anti-density party line). The new version does seem like a change of pace. Some of it doesn’t work, some of it does.

    Huan Hsu’s article was hardly sensational; I did think that it was informative. I didn’t know anything about about the operations at Real Change before reading it and now I do. I don’t really care that some vendors aren’t homeless, which actually seemed like the conclusion of the article.

    I can’t really fault the Weekly for not being the Stranger. We already have one of those and it’s more than enough.

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