Seattle Times, please pull your head out

I'm used to being disappointed in Seattle's daily newspapers. Inevitable, I reckon. Dead tree media's loss of luster, however, certainly shouldn't effect a newspaper's efforts to provoke and compell its readers. Moreover, a newspaper should at least have some idea of what it's readers are interested in. This morning, on the front page of the Seattle Times was "California's elusive bass has a lure of its own", in which we are subjected to a poorly written LA Times (tsk! tsk!) piece about the giant bass of Montgomery Lake and the anglers who pursue them.
My simple question is Why? The Northwest is primarily about salmon, steelhead and trout, yet both dailies offer outdoor coverage that is bland, disconected and uninspired. Fat bass in SoCal? Cool, but who the fuck cares in West Seattle? Check the sports page in today's edition: Woah! The weekly fiisshing column, but once again it's the same press-release driven non-news and tired "top spots of the week" aimed at dudes with offshore boats. God damn.
In contrast, last year I visited the Midwest -- and I mean the middle of the mid-West -- eastern Ohio. It's really a lovely place: rolling green hills, hardwoods, and dotted with lakes stuffed with bass, pumpkinseeds, sunfish, walleye, sauger, crappie -- you name it. Yet this town's small paper (a weekly, no less!) went out of its way to cater to the hoards of ugly-stick waving anglers. There were moon charts, water temps, catch counts, tournament news, gear pieces, technique pieces and an adorable shot of little Sara Spinyray (age 5) hoisting a bucketmouth bass hauled outta Custer lake. As suspected, she was pulling plugs in heavy cover. "Ain't it a friggin' pig", the excitable youngster was quoted as saying.
Now I doon't expect the Times to attempt to "cater" to anglers, but right now it just seems like they ain't even trying.

How's your paper?