This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.
The Seattle Times has been running a full court press to build 520 in any way the state (and Microsoft) wants. It’s always felt to me that money drives news in our local papers (now paper), but with Microsoft paying $40,000 for a full page ad supporting the bridge it’s not even being done under the table. I don’t blame Microsoft for this – $40k is a great deal if it helps them get their multi-billion dollar road subsidy. When credible news sources have a conflict of interest, I at least usually hear a disclaimer in the story – not so with the Seattle Times. Should newspapers be ethically bound to drop or at least moderate stories that directly benefit them?
There should definitely be full disclosure. I’d also like to see it in stories about SLU, where they own about 7 acres (much of it parking) which are for sale.
Ha ha, you guys crack me up. There are no “credible news sources”, there is only credible news, and the way you learn what it is, is to check different sources and compare what they say.
Eventually, you may find some sources you personally trust to be mainly right in the long run, but I’m pretty sure the Times won’t be among them.
“and the way you learn what it is, is to check different sources and compare what they say” (sigh) but we’re in a one paper town…