We hear much lamentation these days about the deep partisan divide in our country, the degraded nature of the public debate, and that many Americans have stopped listening to one another. 

So it was with particular concern that I learned recently of Mayor Harrell’s decision to put the Seattle Channel budget on the chopping block. 

The mayor’s proposal would cut the Seattle Channel by $1.6 million, about half its annual funding. That would starve it of the skilled production staff, web designers and on-air talent needed to produce unique local shows that serve the public interest.

The cuts are surprising given the mayor’s stated support for openness and civil discourse. The uplifting theme of his first term has been “One Seattle.” At his 2022 inauguration he set a welcoming and refreshing tone by declaring that we should “really commit to listening to one another.”

The Seattle Channel’s public programming has more than demonstrated it provides the ideal forum for bringing the mayor’s vision of mutual understanding to reality. Shows like City Inside/Out create a metaphorical “safe space” where people with diverse viewpoints can speak, listen and, through an insightful host and respectful dialog, inform the audience about the pressing issues facing our city.

Host Brian Callanan takes an approach that is becoming increasingly rare in broadcast journalism. He asks a fair and informed question and then – wait for it – listens to the answer.  Then he asks a follow-up question for clarity, or he may challenge another guest with the point that was just made.

Having done hundreds of news interviews and seen first-hand every meanspirited media tactic in the book – the gotcha question, the ambush, the bait-and-switch, the bad-faith lead-in, the false fact-check – I can confirm the Seattle Channel stands out in its commitment to fair journalistic standards and producing a top-quality news product for viewers. And that's before we get to popular cultural shows like ArtZone (hosted by my sister-in-law) and Book Lust with Nancy Pearl.

Another sign of its value is the support it is receiving from across the ideological spectrum. The Seattle Times, Publicola, and Washington Policy Center are in agreement on this one. WPC and far-left The Stranger, with whom I would probably disagree about the color of an orange, are of one accord about Seattle Channel funding.

The mayor cites the decline in the cable fee revenue that funds the Seattle Channel, but this trend has been known for years; it didn’t pop up suddenly this year. Besides, regardless of funding source the city council faces a simple question. Is providing a balanced forum for dialog on key public issues, one the requires the budget equivalent of pocket change, a vital part of local government or not?

High-profile races like campaigns for president, governor or senate get lots of news coverage. But “down ballot” issues like special levies, citizen initiatives, and local races get much less attention. The Seattle Channel provides one of the few ways citizens can hear from representatives of both sides in an unbiased and professionally moderated venue.

The Seattle Channel is one of the few local forums where those with divergent views can come together and hold reasoned conversations. Let’s hope a majority of the city council can exercise the minimal creativity required within Seattle’s ample $8.3 billion budget to retain this needed community asset.