Back in the old days, and I mean the 1990s, there was a general approach to getting a story in the press. A campaign or advocacy group would issue a press release, call reporters at the half a dozen or so outlets in town that might cover an issue or an event, and then one would “spin” the writers and reporters. No matter what side of the candidate or issue, everyone “worked” the press to try and get what everyone called then, “a good story.” A big win would be one in which a story, made one side look better than the other. The effort wasn’t always successful or would yield mixed results. What was acceptable was a story that had both sides equally laid out with accurate quotes. The world and the city of Seattle are different now when it comes to press coverage. A recent story at KUOW reminded me of those “old days.”

Before I point to that story, I can’t say whether the situation is better or worse because when it comes to the media, all things are possible with a good strategy. But the example what happens today is a situation earlier this year in which a reporter at the Seattle Times, Jake Goldstein-Street, wrote a story with this headline: Eviction reforms in Olympia get a boost from Seattle tech giants. The day before this story was published in print, I had called the reporter and left a message because I got a hold of the letter supposedly declaring the support of the “tech giants” (the original headline) for the really bad legislation. I also called the Amazon lobbyist locally and in Washington DC to ask them what they thought they were doing.

My calls were all of the same variety; is this letter for real (it was a Word document with no letter head and no actual signatures just names), and would anyone like to hear about why “the report” the bill was based on was bogus before they circulated a letter in support? The reporter never bothered to call back even though he had plenty of time to hear from someone on the other side of the legislation and the report. The next day I talked (some might say yelled) with the reporter.

“Did you call the signers of the letter?” I asked?

“No, I didn’t,” he said.

“Jake, that was bad. You didn’t do your job,” I said. “I have an e-mail from Amazon’s lobbyist saying that they don’t support the legislation, the lawyer who signed it did it on his own, as just a person.”

And I heard from other signers who said the same thing; “the company doesn’t support this, I do.” So the headline and the story was wrong. I called the editor and left him a message. Was there a correction or even an update to the online story with a quote from someone in the business responding to “the report?” Today the story online has “execs” rather than “giants.” But the story is online with all the same imbalance without any coverage of why the underlying argument that evictions are “an epidemic” isn’t true.

The problem in today’s media world may have to do with the speed things move. Goldstein-Street could call people on cell phones, email and text people, put together his story and pull the trigger in minutes. Add to that the fact that in the world of Donald Trump, the press feels under attack or at least justified in sticking to their story and defending their reporters even when they make really bad and provable mistakes. Deadlines come and go, and the next cycle spins up much faster covering over people’s sense of nuance. I doubt most people even read the story so the headline was about all they got. And I might have reversed some of the damage with the legislative committee working on the bill with an email I forwarded from Amazon’s lobbyist confirming they had no position on the bill. The damage in the wider public was done; well, at least Amazon and Microsoft hate landlords too! Finally, the notion that landlords are bad and tenants are downtrodden is just accepted; no need to waste any shoe leather trying to track down whether that is true.

So what does the opposite of the “Tech Giants” story. Well, it’s here at KUOW website with a headline: ‘I feel like I’m the bad guy.’ Seattle landlords grudgingly comply with new tenant law. Wow. I don’t like the word grudgingly because people who already have it out for landlords will find that confirmatory. But the story explains that the new law was challenged and does a great job of explaining why people who rent property feel that it undercuts their ability to help real people, the ones that bad legislation is supposed to help. Wow, again. And I understand after reading what the other side thinks too. Wow. And the reporter, Amy Radil, appears to have left her office to actually talk with people; there is a picture of the tenant advocates with her credit. Now if her colleagues would put the sandwich down, put on their coats, and do the same kind of reporting, maybe we can return to the good old days of the “balanced story.”