GREAT MOMENTS IN READER FEEDBACK: The real reason the Seattle Times shuts down the comment section.
It should come as little surprise that the Seattle Times editorial board endorsed a “no” vote Thursday on a state initiative that, if passed, would separate biological females from biological males in sports. This opinion is consistent with the slant of every story the paper has published on the subject.
Misguided? I think so. But it’s acceptable for the Times to have an opinion that differs from how the masses may think. What’s unacceptable, however, is the paper silencing all of its readers who want to push back.
Predictably, the comment section was disabled at the bottom of the editorial, continuing a trend of censorship on issues the Times knows will spark subscriber blowback. The paper almost always tries to justify the suppression by saying it’s a “sensitive” subject, but that is not the true reason.
What I think the Times’ bosses really want is to preserve what’s been described as the “illusion of consensus.” In short: They want to squash any evidence that their readers disagree with them.
Had the comment section been open, it almost certainly would have been filled with a chorus of subscribers voicing their opposition to the “no” endorsement. They would have pointed out that the Times has never shown any consideration to the biological females affected by trans athletes in their sports, and that the separation is simply a matter of fairness.
But this would make it known that the paper’s readers do not jibe with the agenda the Times is pushing. And the brass, well…the brass can’t have that.
Of course not. William F. Buckly famously said that “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” There probably aren’t many conservatives left in Seattle, but there are likely plenty of left-leaning Seattle Times readers who vehemently disagree with their stance that biological men should compete in women’s sports.


