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.

x close
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.

KING 5 Says Opponents of Liquor Privatization Using Fuzzy Math in TV Ads

Politics   October 5, 2010 at 12:34 pm Bryce McKay

Yesterday, KING 5 reporter Robert Mak  fact-checked an ad released by opponents of this year’s liquor privatization initiatives.

His findings? The ad is pretty generally misleading. The opponents of privatization swung and missed on two out of three claims they made. The ad in question features a firefighter/EMT, who makes a batch of claims about the harms of privatizing state sales and distribution of liquor.

First, the narrator says that ten times as many stores will be selling liquor if we privatize. This claim is true, according to Robert Mak’s check. There are currently 315 hard liquor outlets, and a report by State Auditor Brian Sonntag anticipates that there will be roughly 3,300 if we go private.

The rest of the claims? Whiff.

The ad says Washington will have twice as many liquor stores per capita as California. According to Mak, to finagle this comparison, the No on 1100 campaign discarded the auditor’s figures and made up a new estimate for the number of liquor stores privatization would create. Reality:  Number of people per liquor store in Washington post-privatization? 2,000. In the Golden State? 2,800. Whoops.

Mak also smacks down a claim that Privatization would cut over $200 million in local funding for police and fire. According to Mak, there may be a loss in revenue, but that money doesn’t necessarily get cut from police or fire departments.

Anne Martens with the Protect Washington Coalition (which opposes initiatives which would cost the state revenue) defended the ad, saying the cost of the initiatives—$180-$192 million over five years on the local level, according to the state Office of Financial Management—is the important issue.

And, she defended the third claim, saying police and fire still might be cut due to our budget crisis. “King County already has a $60 million deficit even without these initiatives. If we make the problem worse, core services like police and firefighters will get cut.”

See the segment for yourself (which includes the original ad) here.




  • fgruben

    Who could be surprised that the government is lying ( thru their puppets ) to us?

  • Arthurofrhodes

    The “No” campaign is now fueled with more than $7 million, about 90 percent from out-of-state beer companies and beer distributors. If you think these guys care one whit about public safety or local government cutbacks, you are fooling yourself. Expect far more distortion. Even the claim of 3000+ stores is suspect. Subtract 300 or so state liquor stores. Subtract those small store for which a liquor inventory will be too expensive to keep on hand. And if the problem is access with loose stores, that problem exists now is squarely on the shoulders of the Liquor Board, which spends 90% of its resources on marketing and sales at best 10% on enforcement, if that. You can bet the problem won’t be with the big stores, most of whom have a better compliance record than the state stores, the state liquor in the U District being one of the worst in the state system. You’d think if the state cared about preventing problems with minors and alcohol, that would receive their utmost attention. But that’s not their priority. It’s all about $$$.

  • Arthurofrhodes

    The “No” campaign is now fueled with more than $7 million, about 90 percent from out-of-state beer companies and beer distributors. If you think these guys care one whit about public safety or local government cutbacks, you are fooling yourself. Expect far more distortion. Even the claim of 3000+ stores is suspect. Subtract 300 or so state liquor stores. Subtract those small store for which a liquor inventory will be too expensive to keep on hand. And if the problem is access with loose stores, that problem exists now is squarely on the shoulders of the Liquor Board, which spends 90% of its resources on marketing and sales at best 10% on enforcement, if that. You can bet the problem won’t be with the big stores, most of whom have a better compliance record than the state stores, the state liquor in the U District being one of the worst in the state system. You’d think if the state cared about preventing problems with minors and alcohol, that would receive their utmost attention. But that’s not their priority. It’s all about $$$.

  • Arthurofrhodes

    The “No” campaign is now fueled with more than $7 million, about 90 percent from out-of-state beer companies and beer distributors. If you think these guys care one whit about public safety or local government cutbacks, you are fooling yourself. Expect far more distortion. Even the claim of 3000+ stores is suspect. Subtract 300 or so state liquor stores. Subtract those small store for which a liquor inventory will be too expensive to keep on hand. And if the problem is access with loose stores, that problem exists now is squarely on the shoulders of the Liquor Board, which spends 90% of its resources on marketing and sales at best 10% on enforcement, if that. You can bet the problem won’t be with the big stores, most of whom have a better compliance record than the state stores, the state liquor in the U District being one of the worst in the state system. You’d think if the state cared about preventing problems with minors and alcohol, that would receive their utmost attention. But that’s not their priority. It’s all about $$$.

  • Blue Light

    Yes, fgruben, the term “misleading” is… uh… misleading. It is lying. There is right, there is wrong. And some of us can see it, even if those reporting it can’t (or won’t) say it.

  • Flowtacious

    However, there are lost of little communities around the state who rely on their share of the State liquor dispersement. Many of these communuties have a) no retail establishments that can sell liquor and b) a city budget that is very law enforcement heavy. So if you take $50,000 out of their general fund and replace it with exactly zero in new sales tax revenues from private liquor stores, the odds are heavy that a cop or a fireman will lose their job. Not true in the big cities, not true everywhere, but there are plenty of these situations.

  • misha

    But Walmart and Costco (who are funding the “yes” campaign) have our best interests at heart, right?

  • C.O.

    yes, they do. See, their best interest is also your best interest….lower prices, better selection, improved availability.

  • Scoop1111111

    ‘Cmon folks… wrap your head around this initiative. Of course it’s about the money for big box stores. If you don’t see that, you are misinformed or have been duped. Tons more hard booze in proven to mean more DUIs, more kids overdosing, more domestic violence, more tax payer cost for stuff like e.r. visits and detox, more police needed. Is the right to buy a gallon of hooch on the way home from the bar at 2 a.m. and a price break at the checkout stand is worth the extra social costs and harm to kids and families around WA? If so–sad.

  • Garrettgp

    Ummm No that is not true the states that don’t have state run liquor stores sell less to minors than Washington and have lower DUI rates which Washington has one of the highest in the country. And also you couldn’t buy the liquor after the 2 a.m. anyways so that point is out the window.