The King 5 report was correct.

The Seattle P-I newspaper is being put up for sale. Steve Swartz, president of Hearst Newspaper Division, told the newsroom that Hearst Corp. is starting a 60-day process to find a buyer. If a buyer is not found, Swartz said, Hearst will pursue other options. The options include moving to a digital-only operation with a greatly reduced staff, or completely shutting down operations. In no case will Hearst continue to publish the P-I in printed form, Swartz said.

And, in no case will Hearst try to buy The Seattle Times—which is a huge gift to Frank Blethen:

Swartz said the company is not interested in attempting to purchase The Seattle Times.

And, in regard to the possibility that the P-I may go online only in the very likely event that it can't find a buyer: I recommended pretty much exactly that course of action in March of 2006 in The Stranger.

Also, to answer the comment questions about where Sam Machkovech's post about the Belo speculation went... I'd heard the same Belo rumor late last night, and checked it out this morning. The rumor that the sale of the P-I is linked to a Hearst Corp plan to purchase the Belo Corporation is not true, according to Belo spokesman Paul Fry, who told me this morning that he'd already fielded several other calls on the subject. (According to the Belo rumor I'd heard, Hearst wanted Belo for its TV properties, which include King 5—which would explain how King 5 got the P-I sale scoop. In order for such a deal to go through, Hearst would have to get rid of the P-I because of federal cross-ownership rules that prohibit a company from owning a television station and a newspaper in the same market. But, again, according to Belo Corportation: the rumor is not true.)

And Obama's duty-bound to preserve it:

The countdown clock is ticking on the digital television transition and it is becoming increasingly clear that the nation will not be ready. Analog television broadcasts are scheduled to stop on Feb. 17 and, after that, only digital signals are to be available. Then millions of Americans who rely on analog TV sets and antennas must start using converter boxes that will allow them to receive digital signals, or see only a black screen.

In 2005, Congress devised a program meant to ensure that this transition would be smooth. But with 40 days to go, it is now clear that we are heading for a train wreck — unless Congress delays the transition for a few months to allow more time to prepare.

I'm conflicted on this. The idea that government—after years of preparation, public service announcements, and appropriations—must cater to the American living room as a portal to the swill of American broadcast is disappointing. I mean, have you seen television recently? But I'm a little out of touch with broadcast television viewers, I suppose; considering I got my analog TV for $20 at a garage sale and share a cable bill with five other people. I don't need the ethereal connection to the towers that loom over my house.

Is television a right? The airwaves are owned by the government—the people—but you've got to pay for a working television. If you only have a radio, you don't have a right to watch television at home. As analog sets become the extinct technology, you've got to pay to keep up.

But somewhere in the cockles of my callous heart, I'm concerned that the viewers hardest hit by the television conversion will be the poor and the uneducated. Although broadcast television is a subpar conduit for information—man, is it subpar—these folks are the least likely to have an alternative news source. Owning a computer and an internet connection, or having a paid subscription to the newspaper, is a privilege of class, income, etc. So perhaps the government should wait a while. Nonetheless, I'd be happier about the delay if the Obama Administration also were to push a program for $100 computers in every home and free wifi across every city.

And that seems like a bad sign.

The Seattle P-I's publisher hinted early Friday he would shed some light about a Thursday TV report that the paper would be put up for sale.

Contacted at home, editor and publisher Roger Oglesby said, "There's nothing I can tell you now. I will call you later today."

Oglesby would not say whether he plans to address the newsroom Friday. He declined to speak further.