Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« "Potheads Rally Behind Michael Phel… | Stupid Sex Offenders Booted From My… »

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

City / Media Asked and Answered (Or: Hearst Still Isn't Buying It)

Posted by Eli Sanders on Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:05 AM

Remember those three questions people were asking about Hearst's plans for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer? Well, Seattle's Committee for a Two-Newspaper Town, which put the questions in a nice letter to Hearst on Monday, has actually received answers:

Here's a PDF of the Hearst response, which:

• Re-states Hearst's disinterest in purchasing the Seattle Times

• Breaks the news (as far as I can tell) that Hearst did not make its $1 million payment on Feb. 1 to retain its "Right of First Refusal" to buy the Times—which provides at least a million reasons to really believe the above.

• And says Hearst is "still studying the possibility" of a continued web presence for the P-I, but that any continued web presence would exist outside of the current Joint Operating Agreement with the Times.

All of which, when combined with this leaked e-mail, makes it a bit easier to discard some of the many speculative theories floating around about Hearst's Seattle intentions and narrow in on what now seems the most likely (though still speculative) scenario for what will happen in mid-March, when the P-I almost certainly ceases printing:

Seattle will have a web-only version of the P-I and, despite serious doubts about whether a web-only newspaper can make it financially, Hearst will be making a run at the brave new business model for written news.

Comments (6) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Those Hearsts may be cocksuckers, but they ain't dumb.

Posted by laterite on February 4, 2009 at 9:52 AM

None of that means Hearst can't come in and buy the times after Frank goes tits up.

Somebody will. This area is too significant to have a newspaper vacuum. Hearst might be just trying to bleed the little bastard dry -- every single drop of blood.

They're playing you, Eli. Don't let them do it. They are in this for the long haul, and you need to stop reacting to every little thing they tell you as if it meant something.

Posted by ivan on February 4, 2009 at 10:13 AM

ivan for the insightful and prescient win.

Posted by Will in Seattle on February 4, 2009 at 10:30 AM

@2, 3: Ivan, if Will in Seattle is calling anything you wrote "insightful and prescient" you may want to rethink it.

Posted by rjh on February 4, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Ivan's right - even if Hearst had it's heart set on the Times, this is exactly what I'd expect them to say at this point. And why re-up the first-refusal right? To stay ahead of all the other eager buyers?

Posted by Read it in the Times on February 4, 2009 at 12:21 PM

What part of a money-losing business don't you all understand? Why in hell would Hearst want to buy the Times at this point? Everyone agrees it's teetering on the brink of collapse. Anyone buying it buys into all the debt, the Maine papers, the McClatchy minority ownership, the unions, etc.

There are plenty of newspapers for sale out there, many of which have far more upside than the Times (the Austin American-Statesman, for example, which would fit well with Hearst's Houston and San Antonio papers). Buying the Times makes no sense.

Face it: The only one crazy enough to try to make a go of it with the Times is Frank Blethen.

Posted by outoftimes on February 4, 2009 at 3:04 PM