Weeklies Wrangle! Real Change Sez Seattle Weekly's Trying to Go All Mike Wallace on Them

Fair enough. I can't say I am a regular reader, and it wasn't a story I thought there was enough meat to pursue (at least available to me), nor would I claim to know whether the same practices are in use.

That said, some of the criticisms are definitely valid, I think. If the decision to bash Bush, etc., is just a business model intended to move papers, that's fine. The question to my mind is: who benefits? While some of the vendors are definitely hard-up types, if it doesn't translate into substantial aid to Seattle's homeless (and is anyone arguing that a newspaper vendor is a good job?) then I think there's maybe a criticism to be made. Of course, they do more than most to help and aid the homeless community, but to mix advocacy with funding a bully-pulpit of peripheral relation to your advocacy is a questionable practice.

Secondly, my deeper concern and my intended focus had been to explore the relationship between RC and its related advocacy work pressuring the city government. In other words, can a group that's a stakeholder in city policy decisions be expected to be an impartial reporter on it? There is potentially a conflict of interest, though I would repeat I never dug deeper into the issue.

Lastly, your comment about "Is Tim H. using it as a bully-pulpit? I'm still looking for the newspaper editor who doesn't" seems somewhat off-topic to me. It's very vogue to be cynical about the newsmedia, and not without good reason, but that shouldn't become a "get out of jail free" card if there's really an issue. Certainly it's in the interests of other news sources to find and report such activities. Additionally, in the case of an organization that receives at least some charitable donations, or that has the veneer of a purely homeless advocacy group, to use that money or even that perception (insofar as it moves papers sold by homeless or poor people) seems to me to be of equally questionable ethical status.

Jeremy, I think I disagree. I should say RC used to bug me for a long time because I wasn't sure that street vendor was a terrific occupation -- I've gradually come around on the idea that something is better than nothing, and am convinced it does help homeless people especially gain a social presence.

But as a reasonably regular reader, I've noticed all sorts of local coverage that I haven't seen covered at all in our larger dailies. Spotty or not (and again, let's remember we're not talking about Hearst -- I mean, how good is Capitol Hill Times about running down multi-part stories?), it's a perspective. As for the Bush-bashing -- in Seattle a certain amount of that is going to sell papers. Is Tim H. using it as a bully-pulpit? I'm still looking for the newspaper editor who doesn't.

I know I disagree about the "substantial" donations, given the costs of running a newspaper. I don't know how they do it. And I haven't seen any evidence that "their vendor program isn't primarily for helping the poor and homeless." Besides being poor and sometimes homeless, they stand out in the rain all winter long and freeze their asses off -- I can't think that anyone would find that a sweet deal if they weren't living close to the edge.

A couple years ago I actually started looking into Real Change, too. I did a pretty fawning piece on their anniversary for The Belltown Messenger, and hadn't paid much attention to them before. What I actually found odd was the degree to which (at the time) they were devoting themselves to bashing George W. Bush.

While that's all fun and games, it seemed odd for a "homeless" newspaper to hate on the president more than on the city for the city's obvious failures to help Seattle's neediest. Going over their entire 2004 coverage online, I found that they were incredibly spotty and actually reporting on poverty issues. They'd report on city budget cuts to shelters that was threatening closure, then would never return to the issue. On other city issues, they'd solicit comment from groups of limited interest--on the Viaduct, I remember, they gave top comments to someone called "Magnolia Residents for a Raised SOlution" or something to that effect. It seemed an odd choice as no one else was hitting these people up for comment nor were they particularly well organized or vocal. A simple Internet search and I couldn't even track them down.

I also contacted some of the affected homeless shelters and outreach groups (a hard enough prospect to find someone in charge willing to speak to me) and found some ambivalence towards Real Change. It wasn't that they disliked what Real CHange did, it was they didn't care--it was unimportant to them. Some of them knew of the advocacy work being done through Real Change's activist side--it's called First THings First now, I don't remember if it was then--but overall, they didn't seem to have a strong opinion of whether Real Change was providing quality coverage of homelessness and poverty issues in Seattle.

Which troubled me then and still troubles me. Real Change is a non-profit that collects some substantial donations every year. Their staff of reporters are paid (though not well, really, and on a part-time basis as of a couple years ago) but still--if their vendor program isn't primarily for helping the poor and homeless, if their coverage of poverty and homelessness issues is spotty, and the paper spends substantial space on non-local or non-poverty issues, what is it everyone's supporting? It seemed to me that the paper had become a bastion for a bunch of hippies to rage against the war in Iraq under the guise of a homeless advocacy group. I don't doubt they do good work, pressuring the city to actually help on affordable housing issues and whatnot, but if the paper doesn't provide information on those issues and its business model isn't primarily intended to help alleviate those issues, isn't this just a front for establishing someone's bully-pulpit?

Wow. Dr. Wes is gonna kick Seely's ass.