As you may already know, before Amy J. Ruiz—currently embroiled in Samspazzoutgate—worked for Sam Adams office, she worked for the Mercury. And before that she spent years toiling away in the excellent newsroom to the north, at our sister paper, The Stranger. Shockingly, word of this story has spread to Seattle, and our cohorts at The Stranger (not just Dan) are also putting their two-cents worth in.
For very entertaining reading, check out Stranger news editor Erica C. Barnett’s interpretation of “the Amy situation” (and her follow up post where she says Dan is full of crapola), as well as Sandeep Kaushik’s (who worked with Amy in 2003-4) assertion that the WW had ulterior motives for including Amy in the story.
Read, enjoy, tell Seattle to mind its own bees-wax. KIDDING! (Insert smiley face emoticon here.)

Bang bang, choo-choo train, let me see you shake that thang. Wm. Steven Humphrey is the editor-in-chief of the Portland Mercury and has held the job since 2000. (So don’t get any funny ideas.)

2 replies on “The Amy J. Question: What Seattle Thinks (As if You Care)”

  1. Changing Forums:

    A quick note on the ridiculous, idiotic, unfair crucifixion of Amy Ruiz. I have more to say on the matter but let’s just begin easy:

    Can anyone believe that taking Ruiz off the case while Pulitzer Prizewinning Superstar, Master of Diligence, unmasker of Goldschmidt, Nigel Jaquiss remained on the case would have mattered? No offense to Amy, but Jaquiss is the more daunting opponent, and if anybody was going to get Adams, it was him.

    Even if Amy’s hiring was key to Jaquiss’ re-ignition into the story, she surely didn’t provide proof of Adam’s lie. There was a significant outside component.

    And for all the talk of Amy’s supposed lack of qualification, where were all you naysayers when she got the job? As someone who has worked with her, I’m amazed at her tenacity, knowledge, research skills and dedication (not to mention an immense tolerance for–or even appreciation of– the mundane drag that so often accompanies city politics). I honestly believe that Amy knows just about as much–or more than–many members of local government. She’s just not a politician.

    On that note, voted positions don’t always assure the best competence. They can be better indicators of willingness to bend over, lie, one’s own neediness, and maybe even narcissism. Not always of course, but often times.

  2. I don’t for a minute think that Amy colluded, but I don’t doubt that the added benefits were on Adams’ mind when he hired her.

    And why did the Pulitzer-winning Jaquiss actually use the word “happenstance” in his story? Ick.

Comments are closed.