MISSING INGREDIENTS
The 101 favorite restaurants issue was not very useful to your readers [“Dining Showcase 2003,” April 23]. When it comes to restaurant reviews, there are three primary issues a good review must cover: (1) What is the type of food served, (2) how well is the food cooked, and (3) how good is the waitstaff. But in your special issue, the Seattle Weekly writers seemed to go out of their way to avoid all three of these essential topics. Instead, they focused on trivia such as the history of the restaurant, the owner’s around-the-world travels, or descriptions of the restaurant’s clientele. These would all be entertaining topics to read in a long review that covered the fundamentals well. But in a capsule review where the essentials have been omitted, such a focus does a disservice to readers.
Vytenis Babrauskas
Issaquah
A VERY HAPPY HOUR
I love the dining guide [“Dining Showcase 2003,” April 23]! I would not have found out about all the dining options around town if it wasn’t for Seattle Weekly. I recently went to Kaspar’s for happy hour. What a great way to eat fine food while having an affordable evening.
Bill Caradonna
Seattle
SCOOP SAVVY
I just thought Knute Berger might like to know that the reading public is well aware of the Weekly‘s scoop on the Times in covering the KCTS debacle [Mossback, “Chasing the KCTS Story,” April 23]. When I read the Times article about how they had been “planning” their big exposé on Channel 9’s financial woes, I said to my partner: “Jeez, what rock have they been hiding under? The Weekly has been writing about this for months!”
Keep up the good work!
Michael Kuntz
Seattle
KINDERGARTEN PAPER
You people never cease to amaze me. Seattle Weekly, the “little guy,” got screwed out of a Pulitzer, huh [Mossback, “Chasing the KCTS Story,” April 23]? Bullshit. Your quality of writing and reporting rivals only that of a kindergarten newsletter. Your constant complaining and one-sided reporting is laughable, to say the least. You are a joke. Of course, you will never print a letter like this oneit would be too balanced for the Weekly to have any opinion other than your own in there. The day the Weekly or the Times gets a Pulitzer for “uncovering” the KCTS story is as likely as the day Mickey Mouse gets elected president of the United States. You didn’t uncover anything. All you did was bring to light how some bitter, pissed-off employees at KCTS wanted the top guy out. Well, now he is. What now? Any solutions? I didn’t think so. The Weekly seems to be more concerned now with getting screwed again by the Times than with the future of KCTS. If you really gave a damn about KCTS itself, you would focus on its future. Given your track record, that is very unlikely.
Melissa Stepaniuk
North Bend
Mossback replies: Melissa, Mickey Mouse was elected president.
TABLOID TALES
I am in accordance with the April 23 article “Pants on Fire,” which disagrees with the decision by the King County Journal to print a bogus article as a “favor to law enforcement.” This reminds me of a state-run newspaper in some dictator-ruled country where the truth to all printed news is questionable. Anonymous sources to the King County Journal should now be fearful that the newspaper might expose them as “a favor to law enforcement.” That is, if there ever was an anonymous source for their stories, or was that a fraud as well? The entire relationship between a newspaper and the public is an assumed trust. If there is no trust, and the newspaper prints bogus stories when they decide it is acceptable, then there is no difference between them and a checkout-stand tabloid.
G. Martinez
Edmonds
DECO IT’S NOT
I found Erica C. Barnett’s piece on new monorail design proposals interesting [“Mono a Mono,” April 23]. However, there is nothing remotely “Art Deco” about the 1962 Alweg monorail; I urge Ms. Barnett and the editors to acquaint themselves with the style.
Kurt Armbruster
Seattle
HEAVY-HANDED SUPE
I was pleased to see an article about the Seattle School District’s superintendent and its crisis in your paper [“Why They Hate Olchefske,” April 16]. I found the coverage informative. However, as an employee of the district, I feel that the article was slightly biased towards Olchefske as an “architect” of reform, a brave, misunderstood man who is resigning because he’s “just watched all the acrimony and divisiveness grow over the last six months,” with his presence now causing a distraction. Olchefske has stated that people can’t seem to get beyond the financial problems and move forward, as if the citizens and employees are being petty about the financial problems that he, as a former investment banker, is largely responsible for. The cuts that are happening due to this mismanagement are no minor detail. The article failed to mention a lawsuit over the report card issue that has cost the parents of one school thousands that the district may have to reimburse, largely due to Olchefske’s heavy-handedness. Where were the quotes from some of the majority of dissatisfied principals and parents? Why were they not represented?
I would be interested in learning about some of the positive effects Olchefske created and/or implemented during his tenure.
With four seats opening up on the school board, no superintendent, and a financial crisis, I think the need for public involvement and fair, informed, honest reporting is extremely crucial to our district’s future. Even long-term employees of the district have little understanding of the process of hiring a new superintendent and how to get involved. We need to be seeing more about this in the press.
Mia Roozen
Seattle
WORLD WITHOUT BILLIONAIRES
So much of our so-called good works in society is simply putting out fires rather than getting at the root of society’s problems. “Can the Rich Be Good?” [April 16] is another attempt to show the rich as benevolent in the eyes of the great unwashed masses in our society who do not share in this wealth. Has it ever occurred to anyone that no one deserves to cream off billions from our economy in the first place? If we believe in true equality, then we need to take a look at what kind of society we really want and change our system so that billions cannot end up in the hands of just a few billionaires around the world, leaving vast numbers in poverty.
Instead of applauding the billionaires for giving some of their billions away, let’s prevent the amassing of such excess profits so that everyone can have a chance at equality in goods and services from the start and not have to become welfare recipients of the billionaires’ foundations.
Georgie Bright Kunkel
Seattle
Applause? Criticism? Write to Seattle Weekly, 1008 Western, Ste. 300, Seattle, WA 98104; fax to 206-467-4377; or e-mail to letters@seattleweekly.com. By submission of a letter, you agree that we may edit the letter and publish and/or license the publication of it in print, electronically, and for archival purposes. Please include name, location, and phone number.
