This may seem like a subtle distinction, but it points to different causes and different solutions.

Yeah, it's too bad the "mainstream media" has not reported any negative stories about Bruce Harrell.

www.kuow.org/stories/moni...

www.kuow.org/stories/seat...

www.kuow.org/stories/seat...

www.kuow.org/stories/woma...

Didn’t Katie Wilson tell KUOW the checks arrive every couple of months?

To me, that would suggest it started sooner than September.

I think The Stranger should be careful about accusing a fellow journalist of making a factual error — a really serious thing — when they’re actually making a more subtle point about context and framing.

Is there a difference? Sure. In the first case, a reader might assume the parental support has gone on for ~ two years. Now we know it’s closer to one year.

Helpful to know. Does this justify The Stranger calling another journalist’s reporting inaccurate?

The new context is useful, but let’s just be clear about what this is about.

The criticism is that “Her parents supplemented childcare for her toddler (age 2?)” is substantially different from “Her parents supplemented childcare for her toddler for the past year.”

Katie Campbell’s original reporting of this fact was not at all inflammatory and the debate around it struck me as pretty nuanced!

Almost as if the story enriched the public’s understanding and sparked meaningful debate — something journalism is never supposed to do.

I agree: The Stranger's context was valuable! Just like @katiecampbell.bsky.social's original reporting was valuable.

And I’m excited to start this one by @johnlangan.bsky.social, after @talkscaredpod.bsky.social’s enthusiastic recommendation.

Just finished (very belatedly) The Hellbound Heart… and I’m still searching for a Clive Barker book that really clicks with me.

When I started covering homelessness in Washington State almost a decade ago, it was jarring at first to meet so many people on the streets who had such similar stories of aging out of foster care.

I'm really glad this book exists and I'm looking forward to checking it out.

They're not romanticizing being stuck in a hospital bed with no responsibilities and little stimulation, which is what happened to this writer.

When people "romanticize boredom," they're talking about how the ubiquity of screens, and their addictive designs, have drowned out certain quiet states of mind that were once central to the experience of being human.

Or maybe I'm overestimating how much regular people dislike this technology and people are pretty much okay with it / accept the tradeoffs!

Maybe it's the sort of thing where elites realized this technology was unhealthy and quietly backed way from it and shielded their kids from it and left the masses to suffer the effects.

And there happen to be corporations and individuals that have gotten fantastically rich as a result.

It's not hard to imagine a parallel universe in which this became the target of some kind of movement... I'm wondering why things did not congeal in this way.

Everywhere there is griping and despair about these things from the micro (people complaining they can't read a book or sit through a movie anymore, teachers bemoaning screens in classrooms) to the macro (all of politics getting weirder and nastier).