Log In

View Full Version : Seattle Post-Intelligencer is Put Up For Sale



Zeno Swijtink
01-09-2009, 10:19 PM
We are witnessing the disappearance of many of the great newspapers in the country. Utne Reader formats like this one are both a cause of this, and will be affected by this. How many of you are still paying for home delivery of physical newspapers??

*****

Seattle Post-Intelligencer is Put Up For Sale (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/Seattle-PostIntelligencer-is-apf-14021451.html)
GENE JOHNSON and PHUONG LE, Writers - The Associated Press

SEATTLE -- Hearst Corp. put Seattle's oldest newspaper, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, up for sale on Friday and said that if it can't find a buyer in the next 60 days the paper would likely close or continue to exist only online.

If it does become an Internet-only operation, the P-I, as the paper is known locally, would have a "greatly reduced staff," Hearst said in a statement. Hearst is a major media company that also owns TV stations, other newspapers and magazines including Cosmopolitan.

"In no case will Hearst continue to publish the P-I in printed form" once the 60 days are up, Hearst said. Steve Swartz, the head of Hearst's newspaper division, broke the news to employees in a meeting Friday.

Seattle is one of two major cities on the verge of losing its second daily newspaper as the industry tries to pull out of a tailspin brought on by falling circulation and advertising revenue. Denver's Rocky Mountain News recently put itself up for sale in the face of steep losses and could close if a buyer isn't found soon.

Hearst said it is not considering buying The Seattle Times, the city's other daily paper, which has handled non-news functions for the P-I since 1983 under a federally approved joint operating agreement. Hearst has owned the P-I since 1921, and the paper has had operating losses since 2000, including $14 million last year.

The mood in the P-I newsroom was grim.

"People are kind of depressed. There's some crying," said Candace Heckman, P-I breaking news editor who has worked at the paper since 2000.

Heckman told The Associated Press that Swartz was peppered with many questions by staffers but declined to say more.

"Our journalists continue to do a spectacular job of serving the people of Seattle, which has been our great privilege for the past 88 years," Swartz said in the written statement. "But our losses have reached an unacceptable level, so with great regret we are seeking a new owner for the P-I."

Chris Grygiel, an assistant city editor, said that while the newspaper's Web site is strong, the print edition has always been the flagship, and it's not clear how an Internet-only operation might work.

"Right now people are just trying to digest what happened," Grygiel told the AP. "No one knows what to make of it."

The news was first reported by Seattle's KING-TV on Thursday night, taking even top editors at the P-I by surprise. Rumors of the P-I's imminent demise have surfaced repeatedly over the years, but the paper's footing seemed a little more solid after Hearst defeated an effort by The Times to dissolve the joint operating agreement two years ago.

Joint operating agreements allow newspapers like The Times and P-I to share business and production operations, which cuts their costs, while keeping their newsrooms separate and independent. They're exemptions to federal antitrust law allowed by the Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970, designed to prop up failing papers. Of more than two dozen JOAs created since the law was passed, fewer than 10 remain.

Many industry analysts expected the P-I, backed by Hearst's deep pockets, to outlast The Times, which is controlled by the Blethen family. The Times, like newspapers around the country, has had severe financial troubles of its own and has cut 500 positions in the past year.

Also Friday, the Star Tribune of Minneapolis ended talks with a union representing employees after being unable to agree on a request for concessions, setting the stage for a possible bankruptcy filing by Minnesota's largest newspaper. Canada's Globe and Mail also said Friday it would cut 80 jobs, or 10 percent of its work force.

"We report on this stuff all the time, and everybody here knows this is a business and sometimes business decisions hurt," said David McCumber, the P-I's managing editor. "But even seeing colleagues and friends go through this at other papers doesn't prepare you for when it happens to a paper and to colleagues you love and admire and strive with every day."

In 1999, Seattle's joint operating agreement was modified to allow The Times to switch from afternoon to morning publication, directly competing with the P-I. Hearst began paying The Times $1 million a year for the right of first refusal should The Times be put up for sale.

The Times gave notice in 2003 that it was seeking to end the JOA, saying the agreement was no longer financially viable. Hearst sued to block The Times from doing so, and the matter was settled in April 2007, with Hearst paying The Times $25 million not to end the agreement before 2016.

As part of that settlement, The Times paid $49 million to settle Hearst's legal claims and to erase a provision of the JOA that called for Hearst to collect 32 percent of The Times' profits through 2083 should the P-I go out of business and leave The Times with a monopoly.

Times Publisher and CEO Frank Blethen said in a statement that the JOA structure is inefficient and had been a big part of the deep losses both papers have experienced.

"If the P-I does close and the JOA ends, it will enhance the chances that The Seattle Times can survive the recession," Blethen said.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels said he hoped a buyer can be found for the P-I. "And if that proves impossible, I look forward to seeing an electronic version of the state's oldest newspaper. Whatever the outcome, this is a big change for Seattle," he said.

The newspaper's signature 30-foot-diameter globe, spinning "It's in the P-I" in neon lights, is a popular Seattle landmark.

The P-I was founded as the Seattle Gazette in 1863 and has a weekday circulation of 117,000, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations. The Times' circulation is about 199,000.

lifequest
01-10-2009, 07:29 AM
I still subscribe to the Santa Rosa Press Democrat (and apparently so do a lot of my neighbors) but the subscription price has been creeping up regularly the last few years. Its still affordable but more people will see it as a frill to be cut to reduce expenses.

Declining advertising revenue and the migration of classifieds for rentals and cars have moved to Craigslist mainly. The big stores still stuff the paper with their ads but they seem to be getting more desparate and as more stores close the ads will drop off too.

It looks like an irreversable decline and fall for the big papers. Even the appeal of print journalism as a career seems to be making the situation worse.

I like being able to sit down and read the news by holding a paper in my hands but more people prefer the Internet version or blogs or other sources whose journalistic relaibility is questionable.

Its looking like reading the paper is becoming some quaint holdover from simpler times.

"Mad" Miles
01-10-2009, 10:49 AM
Zeno,

I buy the PD daily and the Sunday NYT's. Both delivered. It's not cheap but I like sitting with my back to my west facing living room window, listening to the radio (KRSH, unless it's the Saturday KRCB or Sunday KPFA twang fests, I mute commercials and DJ chatter) in the late morning or early to mid-afternoons. I also monitor Waccobb, Slate.com and DissidentVoice.org online.

Every time I'm done checking my email (two to four times a day/night), clearing the waccie traffic and visiting my money (such as it is), I check Slate and DV.

Great articles about the crimes currently being committed by the state of Israel on DV lately, by the way.

Oh Yeah, I generally don't watch TV news, unless something momentous is breaking and then it's PBS, C-SPAN and CNN. If I were to watch Fox with any consistency I might be coerced into destroying my TV (and I Love TV, I'm sorry, but I've read Jerry Mander's book, and it's a crock of ...) or worse, acting in more than my usual anti-social ways.

I watched MSNBC during the campaign results, because of their fun graphics, but was flipping to the channels I mentioned above and more often....wait for it....COMEDY CENTRAL and The Daily Show with John Stewart followed by the Colbert Report!!!! Best fucking TV news and commentary around. Topical, funny, satirical and with a heart. They say what I feel and think (well in the case of Steven Colbert it's more like he says the opposite of what I think and feel, but because he's satirizing the right wing cable pundits ala O'Reilly, Hannity et al he's actually speaking for me/us).

From the early eighties until late into the nineties I watched the McNeil/Lehrer News Hour on PBS (it's been the Lehrer News Hour for quite some time.) At first some articulate critics were allowed to tear the comfortable and powerful a new one. That was quickly quashed. I still watched to monitor moderate neo-liberal to extreme right wing establishment views, but that got boring so I cut it out. Plus, see my comment above about TV and rage.

There was a long period in the early nineties where I had the time to read the NYT's daily, plus The Nation, In These Times, Z Magazine, and Harper's every month or week. I stopped because after having studied Political and Social Philosophy/Theory for seventeen years, the analysis that I provide myself when reading the daily paper, or when viewing/reading any other reporting or commentary, was just getting repeated in the magazines I've listed. That got boring and it was not cheap. So I cancelled my subscriptions.

Aside from all of the above, plus the other online electronic media, the decline of newsprint journalism has alot to do with the financial restructuring of that industry, from the early eighties on. Writing staff has been cut over and over again. Use of bland one-size-fits-all syndicated coverage has hurt. The consolidation of ownership, resulting in the consolidation of editorial opinion may be the biggest offender.

And when newspapers became profitable in the nineties for a brief while, getting unprecedented 15% to 25% returns on the investment dollar, (one of the main impetuses for the consolidation of ownership in the industry) the owners felt that anything less was cause for disinvestment preceded by massive slashing of staff, services and overloading their pages with the dwindling advertisments already mentioned.

The traditional return on newspapers was between 2% to 10% depending on the health of the economy. Owning and publishing a newspaper was more a public service, and a way to maintain political power through control over public opinion, than it was seen as a financial investment solely done for the sake of profit.

(These profit numbers are from memory, and I suck at retaining factual information such as numbers, names, etc. I cannot vouch for their accuracy, they only reflect my vague memory of what I've read and heard.

But the concepts and sequences of events, things that I have no difficulty recalling, are fairly accurate. If anyone wants to do a little research and find the actual numbers, I would be grateful for the reminder. Perhaps others would as well?)

I've known a number of newspaper reporters / journalists who have been down-sized, early retired or just laid off over the years. I follow commentary and news about the media. This is just the beginning of the very end of a very long sad story.

When I can no longer get my news on newsprint, what will I carry to the toilet to briefly peruse during my "morning constitutional"? I have to sneak that as it is (the newsprint, not the visit to the bathroom) because believe it or not, newpapers are contraband where I work. Handheld electronic devices are even more of a no, no, so the internet won't be an alternative available to me either.

Finally, I assume bias and interest in everything I see and read. I've never bought the myth of journalistic neutrality. The key is knowing the bias of your sources, comparing those sources, checking for ones own bias and then making an evaluation as to the "accuracy" of what you're seeing and hearing based on a sufficiently wide representative sample of different and conflicting views.

For a very good and accessible account of this see Howard Zinn's preface to The People's History of the United States.

It's called critical thinking and it's one of the essential habits necessary for intellectual life.

Sorry for the little pedantic sermon here at the end. I'm a teacher, I just can't help myself!

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce: