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.

Times’ Metro Ad Proposal Would Only Deepen Budget Hole

Opinion, Politics, The C is for Crank   December 30, 2010 at 4:32 pm Erica C. Barnett

Sorry to pile on to the Seattle Times, but the editorial that ran this morning suggesting that Metro get out of the business of selling ads is a classic case of cognitive dissonance. On one hand, the Times wants Metro to be leaner, meaner, and more financially stable (by cutting drivers’ wages and making employees pay more for health care, among other things); on the other, they want it to stop selling ads entirely—giving up nearly $6 million in annual revenue—because of a “dicey” recent debate over an ad condemning Israel.

The Times writes:

Advertising is a form of free speech and government should not have to make dicey decisions on which group to support or not — or which to appear to support or not. Look at how unwieldy this debate has become. [...]

No matter how hard Metro lawyers toil, it will be difficult to craft policy that slices the free-speech principles properly.

You know what’s difficult? Deciding where to cut bus service. Raising fares on transit-dependent low-income people. Negotiating labor contracts with powerful unions. Compared to that, figuring out what constitutes hate speech is a snap.

And the thing is, government agencies decide which companies’ ads to run all the time. Is the process sometimes “unwieldy”? Sure, but that’s why agencies have policies dictating what ads are acceptable and what ads aren’t.

Kind of like, you know, newspapers.




  • ratcityreprobate

    Only if the lost revenue can be made up with a new tax on print newspapers. Better yet, how about a new tax on print newspapers and Metro continues to sell ads.

  • Barleywine

    Reminds me of the holiday decoration debate.
    Everything is fine unless athiests or Satanists want to put something up, then everything gets taken down as a way to settle it.

    I really see both sides, but we can’t have it both ways.
    And free speech should win in the end, even if we have to shield our eyes and hold our noses.

  • Jakers

    Could KC Metro lease the space to a private agency and then that private agency could control speech by the fear that it would lose all the business if it ran something questionable?

  • Barleywine

    I’d rather have Metro running it.
    Government is supposed to be blind. A private agency could do damage to that ideal.

    But it would offer a hiding place for King County electeds.

  • Pstonews

    Metro doesn’t need to eliminate advertising (although the right-wing Seattle Times would prefer not to have the competition), it needs MORE:
    http://pstransitoperators.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/ad-revenue-a-solution-to-metros-budget-crisis/

  • http://twitter.com/SeaRFez Stephen Fesler

    Except there is little economies of scale. Might as well keep a marketing job and get it done like everyone else. Why give more public dollars to outside advertisers?

  • http://twitter.com/SeaRFez Stephen Fesler

    Nice, Erica, you nailed it dead on. Loved the snarkiness too. :)

  • Anonymous

    This would matter if anyone still cared what the Seattle Times has to say.

  • Barleywine

    I still get it on Friday, Saturday and Sunday.
    I’m not beholden, but I care.

  • Jakers

    Economies of scale to me would mean that they would have a company specialized in outdoor handle it, such as clear channel or titan. They could put it out to bid with a minimum bid of what ever expected profit would be if they did it in-house.

  • Wallingfordguy

    TVs on buses playing ads? That’s obnoxious, as are free standing ad kiosks and ads in shelters. I’d get rid of the stupid bus wraps and just go back to ads on the sides of buses and above the windows inside.

  • Barleywine

    There have been some amazing wraps.
    In fact, those inventive things have been some of the best things Metro has done.

  • http://pstransitoperators.wordpress.com/ Jeff Welch

    Not having public transportation available is “obnoxious”. Putting further demands on taxpayers unwilling to shoulder that burden is “obnoxious”. We are no longer in a position to consider esthetics with regard to public transportation funding, and unless and until people are willing to pony up in a town unwilling to drop an extra .02 on a can of pop – alternatives need exploring.

  • Wallingfordguy

    Reducing public transit funding challenges to a binary “cut service” or “plaster with ads” decision is also obnoxious. We also haven’t asked taxpayers recently if they’re willing to pay more for the bus. The last few times we have they’ve said yes.

  • http://www.twitter.com/joeszi Joe Szilagyi

    Seriously, the Times is really a bunch of clueless cunts aren’t they? Screw being polite. What possible value do they add to Seattle beyond enriching the Blethen family? Apologies to the staff, but I hope the entire thing folds just so we never have to read any more insights from this parody of an editorial board. I weep for the people that follow them like sheep.

  • http://pstransitoperators.wordpress.com/ Jeff Welch

    What would YOU reduce it to? People don’t want to pay additional taxes to support public transportation. Even modest increases in fares result in equally outraged whining. When have we last raised fares by public vote? NEVER, to my recollection, so not sure what you’re talking about.

  • Wallingfordguy

    Well I think “increase revenue” vs. “reduce expenses” would be a good frame. Clearly that should include a look at labor costs as well as all potential revenue sources.

    There are numerous examples of folks in this area voting to fund transit. The only time I recall a “no” vote was on the “Roads & Transit” vote in 2007 which was pulled down by the Roads portion.

  • Gomez

    It won’t matter if the wrap ads have zero impact, which advertisers will quickly pick up on should Metro not do away with the practice. I’m sure it costs a pretty penny relative to other posted channels.

    Ad sales are not an ATM. Supply and demand still applies and advertisers won’t just blindly pay to spam every available channel.