Disqus

Thursday, August 01, 2013

Melissa and I are flattered

The Seattle Times has an interesting job posting. One-Year Community Engagement Editor

Here's the job description:
The community engagement editor for the Seattle Times-Solutions Journalism Project will bring a startup mentality and passion and tenacity for seeking solutions to the big questions facing education. In this one-year position, the editor will develop and manage a blog for the project that will become the region’s destination for education conversations. This editor will edit and curate staff and community contributions and conversations, making the blog a destination for the latest news and most innovative thinking on education advances and policies.

It would appear that the Times would like to compete with this blog. That's not necessary. They can get a better deal by simply offering the job to Melissa. That way for the same price as a chance to steal this blog's traffic they can simply buy it.

11 comments:

Maureen said...

My first thought was that Melissa should apply, but then I remembered George Bailey

Melissa Westbrook said...

I think that the Times is trying to wrestle control of the conversation. But their problem is two-fold.

One, I believe that their blog, like Stand's, LEV's and Our Schools, will be severely controlled. Without real dialog, you don't have a blog.

Two, we barely control the dialog here so I wish them luck.

I'm all for more education outlets.

Name said...

This blog and its readers heavily influenced the last SB election and they know it. They are trying to control the conversation and I think it is a shame and a sham. I'll post links to this blog there daily so readers know where to look for another viewpoint.

That said, I agree with Melissa that the more outlets to talk about education the better.

Keep up the good work here. I click on the ads every time I visit.

Anonymous said...

You guys clearly know enough deformer jargon to sling.

You need to mix the jargon up with name dropping and insider scoops which won't get you in trouble.

"Shannon and Lisa were talking about ... and ... NCTQ backed up with a CRPE study on Meritorious Merit, Muck and Crap..."

"Vicki and Bill ...MET'd the GET and good thing I had that thumb drive! Bill walked by me!"

Sadly, you can't just put a shrine To Bill on a cart, and push The Care To Bill into the room, while you scurry along behind on your hands and knees, belting out "How Great Thou Art!" You have to pretend like their gossip is interesting, you have to pretend like their ideas aren't founded up on lies, and you have to pretend like the lies don't exist to cover power tripping venality. It isn't the kind of "intelligence" which creates the wheel, penicillin, the printing press, the semiconductor, the steam engine, duct tape ... but, when compared to the contestants on Big Brother or Survivor, the Lisas & Pauls & Vickis & Chriss all

LookLikeEinsteins.

Charlie Mas said...

The Times has a much more fundamental problem with conversation about education matters. When conversation is allowed - conversation, not just bumper sticker sloganeering - the education policies they support are revealed as worthless.

Anonymous said...

My husband and I were talking about your blog. We may not always agree with you, and he thinks you are prone to sentimentality and emotion-manipulating antics like many bloggers (all successful bloggers as far as I can tell), BUT we both come here often because we respect that you do your research, you really know what is going on, and you are the only game in town that is for real on this subject. We don't even know what you're talking about half the time, because our kids are too young to be in SPS, but they will be there in a couple of years so we're interested. And I grew up in a family of public school teachers (grandpa was a principal) in a different big metro area on the east coast. My husband teaches at the other end of the spectrum and has recently gotten pulled into some of the education reform discussions...

Anyway we're glad you're here, and I think that if the Seattle Times tries to outdo you they will only draw more traffic to, and interest in, this blog.

Danielle

Eric M said...

You know, they tried this about a year ago. Anyone remember? I forget what they called it, but they were gonna have a bunch of "conversations" about education.

For reasons already listed here, it died a quiet death. TheTimes has zero credibility when speaking about education, thanks to Lynn Varner.

It's kinda like your lying uncle, starting a new business and looking for investors.

Patrick said...

It's doomed to failure. Conversations are two-way communication processes, in which people may have differences of opinion or be aware of different facts. The Times wants a one-way communications process in which their chosen answers are the only ones talked about.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Danielle, thanks for the laugh. I don't think most people think of us as sentimental and manipulating people emotionally (sarcastic and mouthy, maybe). What's funny is that as newbies you did read us well because Charlie and I are really softies.

LooklikeEinsteins, also very funny (but I think you go to different parties than I do).

Name, thank you for the support (it keeps us in gas money).

Charlie Mas said...

The Times wants to restrict participation in their conversations to a chosen set of people who share their views. That's what has doomed their current effort. They had "conversations" with Susan Enfield, Tom Stritikus, Lisa McFarlane and others which they have identified as "education thought leaders".

It's an echo chamber, not a conversation.

seattle citizen said...

It's funded by a grant from Gates. Of COURSE it will be a one-sided "conversation" - they're being paid to advance the Gates agenda.
If I had the money, they'd sing MY song. I understand that the Times is struggling, but aren't they a news organization? Isn't news neutral? By accepting Gates funding to be the Gates mouthpiece for education "solutions," they have become merely another Gates prpaganda organ.
I just wonder why Gates had to give them money - the Times was already singing the "reform" song. Bytaking Gates money, all they've done is erase any appearance of objectivity.