As those of you follow me on Facebook know (and if you don’t follow me, why not? I’m right here), I’m on a vision quest down the West Coast and won’t be back in full force here until next Monday, although there may be a bonus “interview” with the one candidate who refused to talk to me, courtesy of a forum I moderated at which I got to ask plenty of pointed questions (and got some excellent, thoughtful responses).
In the meantime, if you enjoy my regularly scheduled programming, I urge you to help me keep this site going by pledging your monthly support at Patreon. Your support sustains the work I do, and I appreciate it beyond measure.
Justin, as a fellow Socialist, I’m sorry to read your screeds above. I don’t want to be assumed to be in agreement with them, and I doubt if Sawant would, either.
RDPence, you’re not helping.
ECB, I’m very glad you’re writing again. From the photo above, looks like you could be traveling down through the Carmel area.
I was going to say basically this ^, but djw112 beat me to it and said it eloquently. Not printing what someone says because it may be perceived as or actually be offensive would more likely be seen as self-editing to favor Banks by casting her in a more favorable light. Non-journalists often conflate printing what someone says and saying it yourself. Quoting a person verbatim is not an act of endorsement, in any context, unless the writer explicitly says something to the effect of, “And I agree.” Maybe journalism works differently under socialism.
Erica, well let me clear that up for you then. Socialists do not attack or CONDONE attacks on fellow citizens with anti immigrant or racist remarks, regardless of the ability to do so under freedom of speech and press.
Your site has historically continuously attacked Kshama Sawant. You interview all candidates but not her to give equal coverage to all candidates. WHY is that?
Let’s not pretend that you’re an unbiased “journalist.” Hell, let’s not even pretend you’re a journalist at all.
Pamela Banks is taking extreme heat in local media for her ugly, shameful remarks you published in her interview, so really I can only thank you for helping to ensure she loses the election. This race baiting, vile interview sealed that deal. THANK YOU, we should send you flowers and a box of chocolates! 🙂
I would love flowers and a box of chocolates, thank you for your support!
It’s really funny to me when people think printing things people actually say that will obviously cast them in a poor light constitutes a conspiracy FOR the person who said those things.
Incidentally, I explained 17 times why I didn’t talk to Sawant, including at the beginning of this very post.
I expect journalism would work differently under socialism of the Sawant variety. First submit your writing to the Workers’ Council in charge of your Blog, and then to the local Ministry of Information. After those approvals, you can publish. I’m sure Sawant could explain how it would work, except she doesn’t talk to people who disagree with her.
Justin,
You’re right to be outraged by Banks’ anti-immigrant rhetoric, but very wrong to attack Barnett for printing the interview. If she’d censored these offensive remarks, that would be a form of bias toward Banks, protecting her from the public embarrassment and backlash from these remarks. That Banks (and Sandy Brown) are willing to “go there” in attempts to discredit their WOC opponents is indeed newsworthy, and the breach of journalistic ethics would have been to suppress these remarks, not make the public aware of them.
We as a community are thoroughly disgusted by the Pamela Banks interview published below, where Pamela made anti immigrant remarks, race baiting remarks about the racial makeup,of Kshama ‘ s staff, and statement that gun violence only affects black people in our community. I’m surprised that you, as a supposed journalist, would even put those incendiary and offensive comments into print. It’s fine to have dissenting opinions on candidates and their ideas and policies, because that’s democracy at work. However, engaging in clearly thinly veiled, if at all, ad hominem personal attacks on Kshama Sawant based on and talking about her ethnicity and immigration status, the racial makeup of her staff and volunteer activists, and statements that gun violence somehow only affects black people in our community? Those are very low blows, below the so called belt. Is this how low Pamela Banks and her campaign and supporters will sink using identity politics and ad hominem attacks on political opponents? These remarks however by Pamela, and printed by you, not only attack Kshama in a shameful way, but also us in the dverse community of the 37th ld and district 3 who come from many, many different backgrounds, with varying immigration status, ethnicities, gender identities, sexual orientations, languages, cultures, religions etc. We are a community proud of our immense diversity, one of the most diverse communities in the entire USA in fact. We as members of the 37th LD and district 3 communities insist that you retract this interview with Pamela Banks and issue a public written apology here on your site not only to Kshama Sawant and her campaign and staff, but also to us the members and voters in this diverse community whom you and she have egregiously offended.
We are working diligently as well, due to these offensive and unacceptable remarks, to have Pamela Banks officially and publicly censured as a member of our 37th LD Democrats, and to have her 37th LD Democrats endorsement for District 3 City Council position *revoked.* asap.
Our LD is meeting tonight, and I suspect we will be discussing and voting on these issues.
Thank you,
Justin M. Renquist
Skyway, 37th LD Democrats, voting member and PCO of Earlington precinct
Co-chair, South Seattle Democratic Socialists of America