And then there are the disadvantages of local ownership...

This morning on KUOW, I caught most of the debate over I-920 between William Gates Sr. and Seattle Times owner Frank Blethen.

As Blethen was railing against "absentee owners" and the advantages of family ownership, it reminded me of something that came up last Tuesday at Drinking Liberally.

Isn't the latest round of mal-endorsements by the Seattle Times a big counterexample for Blethen? I mean, we have two major papers 'round here. One paper, the Seattle Times, is locally owned. And the owner seriously compromises the integrity of the Editorial Board because of his obsession over a single issue (repeal of the estate tax) . It would be a joke to claim any kind of autonomy for the Editorial Board of the Times this election season--unless you are refering to a concensus view of the four Blethens on the Board.

The other paper, the Seattle P-I, is owned by the Hearst Corporation. But Hearst doesn't interfere in the Editorial Board's work. The PI's Editorial Board has nearly complete autonomy in developing and publishing a concensus view.

Which paper is doing a better job of serving the public's interest?