All this puts protesters in a tricky situation, playing with matches. Their issues and grievances typically have a tough time breaking through to media attention.
Like newspapers everywhere, the Times has been decimated by plummeting circulation and ad revenue, by repeated layoffs and slashed budgets. The stately art deco office building and modern printing plant are long gone. But the paper continues to pursue gutsy journalism and national prizes.
Been noticing that the TV ads you see are all starting to look and sound the same? Mournful piano music, poignant images, nostalgic voice-overs and hopeful messages telling us to "stay strong"? America's Big Brands are here to help. Here's a video that parodies the new form - watch and you'll never look at these ads the same way again.
I am not joking when I say that those cable news sets remind me of horror movies. I keep expecting someone wearing a hockey goalie’s mask to sneak up on the pundit in question and strangle him or slash his throat. And depending on who the pundit is, I sometimes kind of root for it.
As small newspapers disappear, the impacts are largely cultural and intangible. The good ones tell readers what their local town council is up to, who’s running for mayor, or what caused that car crash on the highway through town.
Crosscut's early years were about as bumpy as Seattle streets, but two saviors came to its rescue: the Gates Foundation and KCTS. Now it's a force.
The problem, says publisher Tim Keck, is that "all the diversification was in one area, events and entertainment." What was smart diversification turned out to be a perfect storm of revenue-peril. So it's white-knuckle time.
These glossy magazines have prevailed longer than other print publications, as advertisers like the "happy urban problems" formula that prevails.
The Times may be stuffy (less so now), and its socially-liberal/fiscally-conservative editorial page grates against the progressive Seattle groupthink. But it hasn't been snapped up, gutted, or chained. Amazingly, it's still there, proudly independent. That's rare. But for how much longer?
The court's logic was simple: If the government is going to forbid or penalize false statements, it has to establish what's true. Do we want government deciding what political statements are true and false?
12Page 1 of 2