Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

They’ve Felt Intimidated

1. Dex, the phone-book company, picked up more than 600 phone books from city council member Mike O’Brien’s office last week, but the pile of unwanted books has started to grow again. (O’Brien has asked constituents to drop off their unwanted phone books at his office to help dramatize the case for legislation making it tougher for phone-book companies to deliver books people don’t want).

Dex doesnt seem to be getting the message: Earlier this week, the company dropped off a stack off nine new Yellow Pages at the city council—one for each council member.

When Fizz, trying to be helpful, asked O’Brien’s office if they wanted us to help them drag the nine books onto O’Brien’s pile of protest, an exasperated O’Brien  staffer responded, “We don’t want them!”

2. SHARE/WHEEL, the homeless advocacy group, plans to resume camping outside city officials’ houses in three weeks, an anonymous SHARE member tells PubliCola. The group has asked the city to give it $50,000 to pay for bus tickets; the city has said it will give SHARE the money, but only on the condition that the group keep it’s shelters open throughout the year. SHARE doesn’t want to do that because they say they may run out if money.

As we’ve reported, some SHARE members say they’ve felt intimidated into participating in the campouts in the past by threats that they’ll be kicked out of SHARE’s shelters if they don’t.

“Participants are so filled with fear from threats of being kicked out onto the streets if anyone speaks their mind,” the anonymous SHARE member who contacted PubliCola about the latest round of protests says.

3. Did you know that BP is one of the main backers of I-1053, Tim Eyman’s initiative to re-institute the two-thirds legislative majority rule for raising taxes? The (now-infamous) oil company has contributed $65,000 to the cause ($50,000 on June 1 and $15,000 on July 9).

It makes sense. The legislature is considering raising the hazardous substance tax—which would fall largely on oil companies. Conoco Phillips ($50,000) and Tesoro ($65,000) are also big contributors to the initiative.

Environmentalists pushed the idea of raising the voter-approved hazardous substance tax (for the first time in 20 years) last session, but it failed.

4. Yesterday, we reported that the R-71 case would be back in the courts this Friday. However, later in the day,  U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle dismissed the motion from Protect Marriage Washington (the anti-gay rights group that is trying to prevent the state from releasing the names of the people who signed their initiative to repeal domestic partner rights) to take up their case.

Settle is waiting to see the official paperwork from the U.S. Supreme Court which decided against Protect Marriage Washington 8-1 earlier this year, ruling that initiative signatures in general were public record, but also saying groups could challenge release on a case by case basis.

PMW will be able to re-file after Settle reviews the paperwork and jurisdiction over the case is officially back in his hands.




  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    @1 Whilst I'd love to see O'brien get an anti-phone book law on the books, the impact on internetless people (the old people who complain they don't get the internet) and the 1st/speech issues would be problematic. We'd be more likely to get the Council to pass a bill naming any possible deep bore tunnel “Conlin's Deep Goat”.

  • dude

    Wouldn't the proposed law allow people to opt-out of getting phone books so that people who still want one could still get one?

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    I thought they were going for an opt-in system? If it's opt-out, unless the thing has sufficient fiscal or criminal penalty to offset the financial benefit to these firms, it would be useless.

  • jeffw66seattle

    Obrien's phone book drive is an exercise in hypocritical futility. I believe that Publicola itself reported that the phone books – which recycling centers don't want – have been picked up periodically by Dex itself, which “re-resources” them. In other words, Dex is dropping off the phone books, which are being taken to Obrien's office, Dex picks them up from Obrien's office and re-distributes them to offices and neighborhoods.

  • http://43rddemocrats.org Michael M.

    The proposal is an “opt-in” proposal. So those who don't have the internet, or people who rely on phone books, would still get them. Circulation would go down, which, in theory, would reduce the cost of advertising for small businesses, and the only people who would get the books would be people who actually want them and may use them to look up a plumber.

    Allowing people to opt-in makes sense, and I don't really feel it's a “free speech” issue, but the Courts would probably disagree.

  • http://43rddemocrats.org Michael M.

    At this point, I really don't want any of my taxpayer dollars going to SHARE/WHEEL. I don't care if they promise to keep their shelters open. Their tactics are reprehensible, and they should not be rewarded for their appalling behavior.

  • Jakers

    Let's make it so you only can opt-in online.

  • Jakers

    Re-purposing is better than recycling. The best is to not print unwanted books in the first place. One thing that we did at my work is create an opt-in list ourselves and then told the distributor how many we wanted for the company, which they kindly obliged and only delivered that amount. Surely if we can swing this, the city government could do it, too.

  • giffy

    They should be completely defunded and the money given to a less assholish and annoying organization.

  • ivan

    Easy for people who have roofs over their heads and jobs, and don't have to worry where their next meal is coming from.

  • giffy

    So why not allow them to be pressured into pointless political gestures in order to receive such things? I mean they are poor and hungry so exploiting them is fine!

    There are lots of great organizations that assist the homeless who are much more deserving of money than SHARE.

  • Jakers

    My guess is that the program is pretty good overall, but that some people that generate money, power or influence from their position were the ones doing the pressuring.

    But I'll withhold judgment until I know what these people make or what power and influence their positions give them.