Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsMonday, March 16, 2009
City / Media Blethen: "No Joy"
Posted by Eli Sanders on Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:46 AM
The Seattle Times publisher also suggests that the P-I's closure is not, by itself, going to save his newspaper. Full statement in the jump.
The Hearst Corporation’s announcement that it is closing the Seattle P-I is unfortunate, but understandable, given the significant losses that both newspapers have experienced as a result of the Joint Operating Agreement.Though The Seattle Times and the Seattle P-I have been fiercely competitive, we find no joy in the loss of any journalistic voice. Today’s announcement is an acknowledgement that in the current economy it is a struggle for even a single newspaper to be profitable and impossible for multiple papers in a single market.
An end to the JOA gives The Seattle Times the best opportunity to be viable long term, but, short term, weathering this recession will still be a significant challenge. Even without the JOA, The Seattle Times must continue to achieve additional efficiencies and cost savings in order to weather this very difficult time and emerge with a sustainable business model for the future.
We know that there is — and will continue to be - a strong demand for the journalism and community service that newspapers provide. As the largest daily newspaper in Washington state and the Web site with the largest local audience, we remain hopeful that The Seattle Times will be able to serve the community with journalism of distinction for many generations to come whether in print, online, or in new platforms not yet imagined.
1
I predict the Seattle Suburban Times will continue to dis Seattle residents and continue to lose subscribers.
If they don't link online commenting to physical or virtual paid subscriptions (possibly value added with something like a free garage sale ad every month, or birth/engagement/wedding announcements, etc), return corner ads to the front page and run columnar ads (one or two column width) on the front and other sections, their business model won't survive.
I'll be reading the NY Times, since they seem to actually care about local Seattle news, unlike the Seattle Suburban Times.
If they don't link online commenting to physical or virtual paid subscriptions (possibly value added with something like a free garage sale ad every month, or birth/engagement/wedding announcements, etc), return corner ads to the front page and run columnar ads (one or two column width) on the front and other sections, their business model won't survive.
I'll be reading the NY Times, since they seem to actually care about local Seattle news, unlike the Seattle Suburban Times.
2
Free garage sale ads? Don't they have Craigslist in the suburbs? Who the fuck looks in a newspaper for garage sale notices?
4
The "Joint Operating Agreement" killed newspapers? Sorry Frankie, but the JOA is the only thing that prolonged their life.
The Seattle Times will be out of business by the end of this year. Nobody seriously doubts that. And the JOA won't be the thing that killed the Seattle Times. And the Internet won't be the thing that killed the Seattle Times. Not Google. Not corporate media ownership. Not death taxes on inheritance.
No Frank.
It's you.
You.
Your hubris. Your tolerance for really boring writing. Your unsympathetic personality in the community (dog-shooter). Your embrace of nepotism (Ryan?) Your righteousness, in promoting "diverse" managers who aren't competent. Your intransigence on advertising policy, while the world was going digital. Your lethargic, halting movement to online media. Your nostalgic purchase of newspapers in Fucking Maine! Your asinine, whip-saw editorial stands. Your ability to use self-affirming industry awards to deny, deny, deny the need for change. Your dismissive attitude to everyone in your own business that didn't go to J-school.
The only problem with newspapers is that they are run by newspapermen. You're the poster child.
You guys pretty much fucked-up a monopoly by trying to defend it, instead of trying to leverage it.
Nobody in the business community will shed a tear for you either, Frank. We'll feel bad about your employees, and then watch the rest of the Blethen Family turn on you to account for how this opportunity was squandered.
Keep blaming everyone else Frank. It simply reaffirms what we all know about you.
The "Joint Operating Agreement" killed newspapers? Sorry Frankie, but the JOA is the only thing that prolonged their life.
The Seattle Times will be out of business by the end of this year. Nobody seriously doubts that. And the JOA won't be the thing that killed the Seattle Times. And the Internet won't be the thing that killed the Seattle Times. Not Google. Not corporate media ownership. Not death taxes on inheritance.
No Frank.
It's you.
You.
Your hubris. Your tolerance for really boring writing. Your unsympathetic personality in the community (dog-shooter). Your embrace of nepotism (Ryan?) Your righteousness, in promoting "diverse" managers who aren't competent. Your intransigence on advertising policy, while the world was going digital. Your lethargic, halting movement to online media. Your nostalgic purchase of newspapers in Fucking Maine! Your asinine, whip-saw editorial stands. Your ability to use self-affirming industry awards to deny, deny, deny the need for change. Your dismissive attitude to everyone in your own business that didn't go to J-school.
The only problem with newspapers is that they are run by newspapermen. You're the poster child.
You guys pretty much fucked-up a monopoly by trying to defend it, instead of trying to leverage it.
Nobody in the business community will shed a tear for you either, Frank. We'll feel bad about your employees, and then watch the rest of the Blethen Family turn on you to account for how this opportunity was squandered.
Keep blaming everyone else Frank. It simply reaffirms what we all know about you.
5
"No joy" my ass. This is a dream come true for Frank. Now if he could just get rid of the pesky unions and repressive estate tax his life's work will be complete.
6
@4, The Seattle Times is experiencing the same financial problems that EVERY NEWSPAPER IN THE US is experiencing. It's clearly not all Frank Blethen's fault. (Plus, that "J-school" thing? Some of Frank's favorite reporters at the Times didn't go to J-school, so I have no idea what you're talking about with that one, and suspect you don't actually know either!)
How about hoping that the Times survives instead of dreaming of its demise? You'd really like to live in a city that has no daily newspaper just so you can feel some weird satisfaction that this guy you hate has finally lost everything? You're a moron.
How about hoping that the Times survives instead of dreaming of its demise? You'd really like to live in a city that has no daily newspaper just so you can feel some weird satisfaction that this guy you hate has finally lost everything? You're a moron.
7
I'm looking forward to reading the Seattle Post-Times Intelligencer scrawled upon the chalk-board in the town square.
8
@6 - You are trying to portray 4's comment as scheudenfreude, and it ain't going to work. He/she is clearly not hoping for no paper in this town. They are making an observation about why the Times will (eventually) fold. You could have responded to any of the eminently reasonable points DarrenO made; instead you prefer to fight straw men of your own creation. Telling, that.
9
Why in anyone's name would we hope The Seattle Times survives? (Other than for the sake of its employees.)
Oh, I get it. You think we value the supposed nobility of its for-profit service to the community?
(Have another cup of the Kool-Aid!)
Anyone with half a wit knows that newspapers are in trouble because of either a reluctance/passivity to change (particularly Frank), or because of insurmountable debt service due to mindless acquisitions (many, including Frank).
The Seattle Times strategy is fundamentally unchanged in 20 years, but for the Web which they were dragged into, kicking and screaming. And, nothing about that strategy was developed, in any way, to leverage the market advantages of newspapers. So, they incrementally increased their cost basis, while exponentially eroding their franchise. Stupid move.
The only people that would judge Seattle as a city because it won't commit its perishable news to unsustainable wood products, are the same nostalgic saps that want slow-moving trams clogging the streets.
How do you feel about living in one of the cities in the world without horses & buggies? (You see, it is possible for us to survive another tide of human progress.) Sorry "Jane," but the 19th century was over just a wee while ago.
Frank and his newsie buddies have been staring down the barrel of change for 20 years and they have often blinked, but didn't really move.
He hasn't been willing to make the radical changes required so none of this - none - should come as a surprise. It was a self-inflicted wound.
Frank's fixation on journalism awards and Poynter Institute gigs have created a massive blindspot about the relevance of his alleged-journalism, and the Times credibility in delivering it. That conversation never seriously happened at the Seattle Times, and the evidence is borne-out today.
Ironically, the guy's name is "Frank," when in fact he wouldn't permit people to be that way with him. The last person that did (Mason Sizemore) walked away when he dared to challenge His Eminence.
More...
Oh, I get it. You think we value the supposed nobility of its for-profit service to the community?
(Have another cup of the Kool-Aid!)
Anyone with half a wit knows that newspapers are in trouble because of either a reluctance/passivity to change (particularly Frank), or because of insurmountable debt service due to mindless acquisitions (many, including Frank).
The Seattle Times strategy is fundamentally unchanged in 20 years, but for the Web which they were dragged into, kicking and screaming. And, nothing about that strategy was developed, in any way, to leverage the market advantages of newspapers. So, they incrementally increased their cost basis, while exponentially eroding their franchise. Stupid move.
The only people that would judge Seattle as a city because it won't commit its perishable news to unsustainable wood products, are the same nostalgic saps that want slow-moving trams clogging the streets.
How do you feel about living in one of the cities in the world without horses & buggies? (You see, it is possible for us to survive another tide of human progress.) Sorry "Jane," but the 19th century was over just a wee while ago.
Frank and his newsie buddies have been staring down the barrel of change for 20 years and they have often blinked, but didn't really move.
He hasn't been willing to make the radical changes required so none of this - none - should come as a surprise. It was a self-inflicted wound.
Frank's fixation on journalism awards and Poynter Institute gigs have created a massive blindspot about the relevance of his alleged-journalism, and the Times credibility in delivering it. That conversation never seriously happened at the Seattle Times, and the evidence is borne-out today.
Ironically, the guy's name is "Frank," when in fact he wouldn't permit people to be that way with him. The last person that did (Mason Sizemore) walked away when he dared to challenge His Eminence.
10
@8, Really? S/he seemed pretty clear on those points to me. It's all Frank's fault, and nobody will shed a tear when his paper goes down. I don't think anybody would disagree that Frank Blethen is an arrogant jackass. But I do disagree, wholeheartedly, with the suggestion that if the Times fails, it'll be all his fault. I think that's stupid. It's not about Frank Blethen -- the death of newspapers. It's much, MUCH bigger than that.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Telling, that." Unless you too think I work for the Times? For the record: I don't work for any news media organizations at all. I just value newspapers -- in print and online -- and the work that reporters in this city do day in and day out. I'm dismayed by the death of the PI and horrified by the idea that the Times may be soon to follow. I don't find my reaction, in that regard, to be all that outrageous.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Telling, that." Unless you too think I work for the Times? For the record: I don't work for any news media organizations at all. I just value newspapers -- in print and online -- and the work that reporters in this city do day in and day out. I'm dismayed by the death of the PI and horrified by the idea that the Times may be soon to follow. I don't find my reaction, in that regard, to be all that outrageous.
11
@9, DarrenO, your points are directed at Frank in specific, but they apply to EVERY NEWSPAPER in the country. That's the part I object to.
Yes, newspapers failed to keep up with the technology and have shot themselves in the foot because of that (but note that it's not just Frank who is the problem in that regard -- it's the editors, staff, and even the reporters themselves).
Yes, the way news is being consumed by the populace is changing and newspapers need to change with it. Yes, yes, yes to most of your arguments as to why the Times might go down. But those things aren't specifically Frank Blethen's fault. He hasn't help -- again, jackass! But you clearly hate the man with a vengeance and I think that's coloring your view on this point.
Also, your horse/buggy analogy fails, in my opinion, because the way news is headed right now is not towards a faster, more efficient replacement. It's headed towards blogs written by Joe Citizens with no oversight and ethical responsibility whatsoever.
I'm not arguing that the Seattle Times should STAY THE SAME, nor am I arguing that there are no good news blogs out there. What I'm saying is that we need reporters in Seattle covering national and local news. We need GOOD reporters who know what they are doing and have a code that they live by when it comes to being as impartial and accurate as possible.
And the best reporters in this city are the ones who work for the newspapers (including The Stranger, but I don't think it's planning to shift to a daily format any time soon!). TV reporters? Please. Bloggers? Please. The reporters at the Times and the PI are really damn good at their jobs -- WE NEED THEM. Now that the PI is gone, we need the Times more than ever, in my opinion. Thinking about this city with NO newspaper at all -- that's a horrifying thought to me. And it should be equally horrifying to anybody who has half a brain in this nation.
I don't value the Times's "nobility." I value news reporting and the way it helps keep our government in check. I shudder to think of a country -- or even a state -- that doesn't have reporters keeping an eye on what the politicians and states/cities/counties/whatever are up to.
That's all I'm saying. Frank Blethen is an asshat. I couldn't agree more. But it's irrational to blame him and only him for the downfall of the entire newspaper industry.
More...
Yes, newspapers failed to keep up with the technology and have shot themselves in the foot because of that (but note that it's not just Frank who is the problem in that regard -- it's the editors, staff, and even the reporters themselves).
Yes, the way news is being consumed by the populace is changing and newspapers need to change with it. Yes, yes, yes to most of your arguments as to why the Times might go down. But those things aren't specifically Frank Blethen's fault. He hasn't help -- again, jackass! But you clearly hate the man with a vengeance and I think that's coloring your view on this point.
Also, your horse/buggy analogy fails, in my opinion, because the way news is headed right now is not towards a faster, more efficient replacement. It's headed towards blogs written by Joe Citizens with no oversight and ethical responsibility whatsoever.
I'm not arguing that the Seattle Times should STAY THE SAME, nor am I arguing that there are no good news blogs out there. What I'm saying is that we need reporters in Seattle covering national and local news. We need GOOD reporters who know what they are doing and have a code that they live by when it comes to being as impartial and accurate as possible.
And the best reporters in this city are the ones who work for the newspapers (including The Stranger, but I don't think it's planning to shift to a daily format any time soon!). TV reporters? Please. Bloggers? Please. The reporters at the Times and the PI are really damn good at their jobs -- WE NEED THEM. Now that the PI is gone, we need the Times more than ever, in my opinion. Thinking about this city with NO newspaper at all -- that's a horrifying thought to me. And it should be equally horrifying to anybody who has half a brain in this nation.
I don't value the Times's "nobility." I value news reporting and the way it helps keep our government in check. I shudder to think of a country -- or even a state -- that doesn't have reporters keeping an eye on what the politicians and states/cities/counties/whatever are up to.
That's all I'm saying. Frank Blethen is an asshat. I couldn't agree more. But it's irrational to blame him and only him for the downfall of the entire newspaper industry.
12
No, actually, it's NOT much, much bigger than that.
- Use an archaic delivery system (paper)
- Delay the adoption of new technology, and then finally proceed with an incoherent strategy.
- Employ and promote unquestioning followers.
- Overextend your finances making ill-advised acquisitions.
- Neglect opportunities to leverage your media in other channels (TV, radio, etc.)
- Coddle family members in positions of increasing authority.
- Push sales reps out on the market who are untrained and unprepared to make decisions.
- Define quality on your terms: Steadfastly refuse to measure the satisfaction of customers (readers), in deference to journalism awards.
- Pollute your circulation books with meaningless numbers in order to justify higher ad rates.
Everyone in journalism keeps acting like there is this some big, evil force sweeping their industry, unique unto them.
Folks: It's called market economics.
If journalists are too blinded or too stupid to understand what's happening to them, I question why we expect them to provide helpful analysis on other, more complex issues. Really.
No, actually, it's NOT much, much bigger than that.
- Use an archaic delivery system (paper)
- Delay the adoption of new technology, and then finally proceed with an incoherent strategy.
- Employ and promote unquestioning followers.
- Overextend your finances making ill-advised acquisitions.
- Neglect opportunities to leverage your media in other channels (TV, radio, etc.)
- Coddle family members in positions of increasing authority.
- Push sales reps out on the market who are untrained and unprepared to make decisions.
- Define quality on your terms: Steadfastly refuse to measure the satisfaction of customers (readers), in deference to journalism awards.
- Pollute your circulation books with meaningless numbers in order to justify higher ad rates.
Everyone in journalism keeps acting like there is this some big, evil force sweeping their industry, unique unto them.
Folks: It's called market economics.
If journalists are too blinded or too stupid to understand what's happening to them, I question why we expect them to provide helpful analysis on other, more complex issues. Really.
13
Jane,
For example let's just say that you jumped off the Aurora bridge and hit the water at 96mph.
And then all of your peers also jump off the bridge, experiencing the same, tragic tug of gravity.
Is the fact that you are all smacking the water mean at about the same time, space and speed mean that there is some unjust physical property effecting your body? Or, is it simply a case of individual people, making individual (but virtually identical) decisions, that result in the same SPLAT noise.
The fact that Minneapolis, Denver and San Fran are all making the same SPLAT, doesn't lessen Frank's responsibility for his own leap.
Jane,
For example let's just say that you jumped off the Aurora bridge and hit the water at 96mph.
And then all of your peers also jump off the bridge, experiencing the same, tragic tug of gravity.
Is the fact that you are all smacking the water mean at about the same time, space and speed mean that there is some unjust physical property effecting your body? Or, is it simply a case of individual people, making individual (but virtually identical) decisions, that result in the same SPLAT noise.
The fact that Minneapolis, Denver and San Fran are all making the same SPLAT, doesn't lessen Frank's responsibility for his own leap.
14
Much, much bigger than FRANK BLETHEN, DarrenO. The rest of your points I've already agreed with, did you notice that part?
Although, "Neglect opportunities to leverage your media in other channels (TV, radio, etc.)" -- I'm not sure what you mean by this one, considering an enormous chunk of the TV and radio news coverage already comes directly from the print newspapers.
Although, "Neglect opportunities to leverage your media in other channels (TV, radio, etc.)" -- I'm not sure what you mean by this one, considering an enormous chunk of the TV and radio news coverage already comes directly from the print newspapers.
15
Carmen, my argument is that the entire newspaper industry has made all those same mistakes. Not just the owners/publishers -- but everyone all the way down to the reporters themselves (many of whom balked at the idea of a website, balked at having to blog, flat-out refused to learn about Twitter (not that I blame them for that one. . .), etc.). It's not Frank who jumped off the bridge -- it's EVERYBODY in the newspaper industry.
Yes, they were shortsighted and they really screwed up by not embracing new technologies much, much faster. In my opinion, that's not a reason to cheer for the end of newspapers. Instead, it's a reason to try to keep them going long enough to catch up and get back on their feet. And not only that, the entire industry needs to rally TOGETHER, in my opinion. Because the changes that need to be made to keep it alive are changes that almost EVERY paper will need to make in order for those changes to actually work (for example: micropayments).
Yes, they were shortsighted and they really screwed up by not embracing new technologies much, much faster. In my opinion, that's not a reason to cheer for the end of newspapers. Instead, it's a reason to try to keep them going long enough to catch up and get back on their feet. And not only that, the entire industry needs to rally TOGETHER, in my opinion. Because the changes that need to be made to keep it alive are changes that almost EVERY paper will need to make in order for those changes to actually work (for example: micropayments).
16
p.s. Since when have I argued that there's anything "unjust" about what's happening to newspapers, by the way?
17
Why do we feel bad for people that keep denying gravity, and were warned to stay-off the bridge?
What makes newspapers so special that they should be forgiven their decades of reticence (while racking-up monopolistic profits), so that we should do something special to "keep them going" until they learn?
I think you give daily journalists a little too much credit. It's not like there's a gifted hand on the editorial tiller, making sure that our communities are well served by print journalists. Much of the crap that makes it off the P-I's press actually does a major disservice to the community. (Will Kery Murakami ever write a story that doesn't imply racism in ever corner of our lives? Jesus!)
Why do we feel bad for people that keep denying gravity, and were warned to stay-off the bridge?
What makes newspapers so special that they should be forgiven their decades of reticence (while racking-up monopolistic profits), so that we should do something special to "keep them going" until they learn?
I think you give daily journalists a little too much credit. It's not like there's a gifted hand on the editorial tiller, making sure that our communities are well served by print journalists. Much of the crap that makes it off the P-I's press actually does a major disservice to the community. (Will Kery Murakami ever write a story that doesn't imply racism in ever corner of our lives? Jesus!)
18
Hearst Corporation pull plug on Seattle P-I print edition, Seattle P-I publish final print edition, freak out, online-only out, SEATTLE P-I BECOME ONLINE-ONLY NEWSPAPER!
ONLINE-ONLY SEATTLE P-I WILL SMASH ONLINE-ONLY SEATTLE TIMES!
And no, I don't feel like letting it go.
ONLINE-ONLY SEATTLE P-I WILL SMASH ONLINE-ONLY SEATTLE TIMES!
And no, I don't feel like letting it go.
19
You're only looking at the little picture, though, Carmen -- the local picture. Maybe we don't need PI journalists -- maybe we don't even need printed newspapers (much as I would admittedly sorely miss them). But we have to have journalism in some form -- respected, real, ethical, watchdogged journalism.
You truly don't see why that is important??
Monopolistic profits? Would we be having this conversation if that were actually true?
You truly don't see why that is important??
Monopolistic profits? Would we be having this conversation if that were actually true?
20
Saying that newspapers dying is a bad thing is like people saying that falling home prices are a bad thing. Not if you're looking to buy a first home!
It's not a good market or a bad market. It's simply a market. Winners win. Losers lose.
Saying that the P-I going out of business is bad suggests that the market has conspired unfairly against them. In fact, instead of having all of the city's reporting power trapped in the defense of a print distribution network, this change will open-up new ways of getting information.
Change is good.
Saying that newspapers dying is a bad thing is like people saying that falling home prices are a bad thing. Not if you're looking to buy a first home!
It's not a good market or a bad market. It's simply a market. Winners win. Losers lose.
Saying that the P-I going out of business is bad suggests that the market has conspired unfairly against them. In fact, instead of having all of the city's reporting power trapped in the defense of a print distribution network, this change will open-up new ways of getting information.
Change is good.
21
First, your presuming that the newspapers are, today, providing "respected, real, ethical, watchdogged journalism." I disagree, and therefore will not miss something we don't have.
Further, Fortune Magazine reports that the newspaper industry turned an 27.3% EBDITA profit from 2000-2007.
http://newsosaur.blogspot.com/2008/10/fa…
First, your presuming that the newspapers are, today, providing "respected, real, ethical, watchdogged journalism." I disagree, and therefore will not miss something we don't have.
Further, Fortune Magazine reports that the newspaper industry turned an 27.3% EBDITA profit from 2000-2007.
http://newsosaur.blogspot.com/2008/10/fa…
22
Ah, yep, I do think the majority of newspapers are staffed by reporters who are respected, real, ethical, and talented, for that matter. We definitely disagree on that point.
I also disagree with Tako -- I think you can most certainly say it's bad the PI is going out of business without also buying into some weird conspiracy theory about the market "conspiring unfairly" against them. In fact, I've been saying that all day.
Newspapers are dying because they screwed up. And also, it is bad that newspapers are dying. There, I said it again.
Change is great and also necessary, but there are far too many people who don't seem to mind at all the idea that journalism is disappearing. I am, quite frankly, absolutely stunned by that opinion.
I also disagree with Tako -- I think you can most certainly say it's bad the PI is going out of business without also buying into some weird conspiracy theory about the market "conspiring unfairly" against them. In fact, I've been saying that all day.
Newspapers are dying because they screwed up. And also, it is bad that newspapers are dying. There, I said it again.
Change is great and also necessary, but there are far too many people who don't seem to mind at all the idea that journalism is disappearing. I am, quite frankly, absolutely stunned by that opinion.
23
Listen, this is pretty simple:
1) Were the challenges to newspapers known 5-7 years ago?
2) Were the responses at newspapers adequate to address these challenges?
Answers:
1) Yes
2) No
So why do you feel surprised at the result?
Why do you feel the need to reward the complacent?
Listen, this is pretty simple:
1) Were the challenges to newspapers known 5-7 years ago?
2) Were the responses at newspapers adequate to address these challenges?
Answers:
1) Yes
2) No
So why do you feel surprised at the result?
Why do you feel the need to reward the complacent?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
-
Announcing The Stranger's Tournament of Dunces! Who's the Dumbest Representative in the State House? by Christopher Frizzelle
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (23) RSS