Dept. Of Self-Promotion, Special Credibility Edition

Some readers recall that I walked out of my job at Seattle Weekly last November. Many asked why, but I've kept my yap shut publicly. Until now. Last week, I spoke to a reporter at the Boston Phoenix who was working on a story about the New Times newspaper chain's takeover of Village Voice media. It's turned into a total clusterfuck across the country and the Boston paper has a decent account of it. My bit comes in here:

"Dawdy, too, is a vocal Seely [new managing editor in Seattle] critic, and references an e-mail exchange he had with Seely last October to bolster his case. The conversation began with Seely citing a story from the East Bay Express, the company’s paper in Oakland, as an example of the kind of stuff he’d like from Dawdy, who specializes in mental-health issues. The article in question, by Lauren Gard, was on the link between the Internet and sex addiction. “One thing the writer hints at here are the tendency for massage parlors to double as hand-job factories or more,” Seely wrote. “I’d love for someone to gauge whether this sort of thing is going on in Seattle.”

Dawdy then mentioned knowing a therapist whose business consists largely of Internet-porn addicts working at Microsoft. Seely asked if the therapist would go on the record. Dawdy said it was doubtful, but that details could probably be gleaned from online chat rooms. To which Seely responded:

“yep. think it might be futile to start from there and simply replicate this story. frankly, if you were up to visiting some massage parlors to see if certain practitioners would finish you off, that’s the sort of street-level expose i’d be up for running. but i’d never force you to do that.”

Dawdy took a pass. A week later, he quit."

Bizarrely, Seely defends his actions:

"In an e-mail, Seely confirmed this exchange, but noted that Dawdy wrote a story on a Star Wars–loving, gay-porn-producing, suicide-committing Seattle-ite that ran that same month. “Of all the writers to be evoking this sort of ‘criticism,’ ” Seely told the Phoenix, “you may indeed have found the least credible.” Dawdy, however, claims Seely urged him to play up the gay-porn component of the story in question. Told of this, Seely pointed out that the massage-parlor story never ran, and added: “Dawdy took direction well and never put up a fight in regards to suggestions on this or any other story. Not once. I’ll leave it at that.”

OK, Seels, apparently I have to draw a fucking map for you. I don't have to put up a protest when shit like that is offered to me for a story in order to be "credible." Why? Because it's a crime and you being a "made man" in the New Times hierarchy sort of made it impossible for me to question you on anything since you guys were firing folks who you didn't think were cool enough for your street-level exposes.

And, here's a wee bit of remedial journalism for you, 'bro. Credible journalists don't create stories in order to have news to write about. Nor do they commit crimes in order to create news. Why? Because then their more regular sources--like, oh I don't know, cops and politicians--will then have a really hard time seeing a reporter who commits a crime for a story as being "credible" and the old source network dries up. Readers have problems with it, too. Besides, it's illegal, except for vice cops. I am not a vice cop.

And how is it that an ass-clown like Seely becomes an avatar of "credibility" after penning a fake story about Seattle's mayor, which accused said mayor of embezzelling public monies, and a month later writes a full-blown cover story about, hold your breath, Cosby sweaters? Yeah, that's "credible." About as credible as an Eli Lilly press release about Zyprexa.

I know that all must sound incredible to regular readers of this here blog, but that's pretty much how that all went down. New Times (oh wait, you guys kept the VVM name) is damn lucky I didn't sue them. I guess their defense would be to question my "credibility."