NPI demonstrates why no one should take anything the Seattle Times says as fact.

Seriously, we only get the weekend edition for the ads. The rest we will try to save as fireplace kindling; it's not worth using even as toilet paper.

http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2012/09/lets-put-washingtons-history-of-public-votes-on-supermajority-requirements-in-full-context.html

"Proponents of I-1185 use every opportunity they get to claim that voters have been consistently and overwhelmingly supportive of supermajority vote requirements on revenue-raising bills. But that’s not just not true.


As I have documented in this post, they are inflating the number of times that voters have said yes to these schemes, and they are not acknowledging that voters have also rejected supermajority vote schemes.

The Seattle Times, which likes to constantly remind us that it has won Pulitzer Prizes for investigative reporting, does not provide any of this context in today’s article about I-1185, which is very unfortunate. They claim to strive for objective, neutral reporting. But Andrew Garber’s story simply leaves too much important information out to meet our definition of objective or fair."

But what does one expect from a corporate media outlet? They are towing the establishment line, facts and reality be damned.