• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Y

Yeziknoradio

Hi gang.

Sorry to hear about one of your newspapers.

""These options exist: 1) Seek buyer. If no buyer, then 2) Go digital, or 3) Close.
No decision has been made," Hearst spokesman Paul Luthringer told the paper."

(source: http://www.reuters.com/article/wtUSInvestingNews/idUSN1042237620090310 )

I see Hearst is still running this thing.
Can it still be useful as a digital source?
Perhaps merged with one of your main news/talk outlets as a useful part of their website?

Or is it just useless and dead in the water?
 
It's extremely valuable. Their Web site gets more hits than the crosstown Seattle Times.

Hearst is one of the most secretive corporations in the world... so no one really knows anything.
 
I think there are a bunch of potentially amazing ideas that could involve the P/I team, name, web & news teams....problem is many corp's around here are scared to step into investment mode right now. Yet, when the economy is bottoming out, it's the BEST time to buy something cheap!

1) Would be great for a TV station to pair up. KING and SeaTimes have a partnership so that could be awkward. Fisher would be a great partner....but they are counting paper clips so not likely to go buy a former newspaper! KIRO just seems to be running kind of on auto-pilot, and the Trib (13) having problems ... but would be a great candidate given their other newspaper holdings.
2) Would be good for Amazon to consider expanding into content generation. Put some stuff out there that people will READ on the kindle!! Apple has done a great job of sliding into the music business (not just trafficing MP3's but finding and promoting new hits)
3) MSFT, Adobe, Google all have strong bases in the town. Have been weak in content generation...though not always their forte, except MSFT's presence with MSN.
4) Town is loaded with technology players...and government is repositioning all kinds of things. Interesting time to step up and address a challenge??

The P/I team are good people. I want to see them land and USE their skills!
 
Didn't the Times/P-I merge for Sunday editions back in '83?

It's a sad thing to see the P-I go this way. I was a former subscriber back in '93/'94 and it's going to be a drag now without Bill Virgin's column every Thursday to poke through.

Anyone here remember that free Radio Guide monthly that came out in the early '90s? It was a must pick up at my local 7-Eleven every month......

Ahhh.... the daze of newsprint and runny ink........
 
LITTLEBOYBLUE said:
I think there are a bunch of potentially amazing ideas that could involve the P/I team, name, web & news teams....problem is many corp's around here are scared to step into investment mode right now. Yet, when the economy is bottoming out, it's the BEST time to buy something cheap!

1) Would be great for a TV station to pair up. KING and SeaTimes have a partnership so that could be awkward. Fisher would be a great partner....but they are counting paper clips so not likely to go buy a former newspaper! KIRO just seems to be running kind of on auto-pilot, and the Trib (13) having problems ... but would be a great candidate given their other newspaper holdings.
2) Would be good for Amazon to consider expanding into content generation. Put some stuff out there that people will READ on the kindle!! Apple has done a great job of sliding into the music business (not just trafficing MP3's but finding and promoting new hits)
3) MSFT, Adobe, Google all have strong bases in the town. Have been weak in content generation...though not always their forte, except MSFT's presence with MSN.
4) Town is loaded with technology players...and government is repositioning all kinds of things. Interesting time to step up and address a challenge??

The P/I team are good people. I want to see them land and USE their skills!
Click to expand...

Unless it was grandfathered in, current cross-ownership rules don't allow ownership of a radio or TV station with a newspaper.

TV and radio can do "cooperative" content deals that don't involve combined ownership, but that's about it.
 
TVradioguru said:
LITTLEBOYBLUE said:
I think there are a bunch of potentially amazing ideas that could involve the P/I team, name, web & news teams....problem is many corp's around here are scared to step into investment mode right now. Yet, when the economy is bottoming out, it's the BEST time to buy something cheap!

1) Would be great for a TV station to pair up. KING and SeaTimes have a partnership so that could be awkward. Fisher would be a great partner....but they are counting paper clips so not likely to go buy a former newspaper! KIRO just seems to be running kind of on auto-pilot, and the Trib (13) having problems ... but would be a great candidate given their other newspaper holdings.
2) Would be good for Amazon to consider expanding into content generation. Put some stuff out there that people will READ on the kindle!! Apple has done a great job of sliding into the music business (not just trafficing MP3's but finding and promoting new hits)
3) MSFT, Adobe, Google all have strong bases in the town. Have been weak in content generation...though not always their forte, except MSFT's presence with MSN.
4) Town is loaded with technology players...and government is repositioning all kinds of things. Interesting time to step up and address a challenge??

The P/I team are good people. I want to see them land and USE their skills!
Click to expand...

Unless it was grandfathered in, current cross-ownership rules don't allow ownership of a radio or TV station with a newspaper.

TV and radio can do "cooperative" content deals that don't involve combined ownership, but that's about it.
Click to expand...

But remember, it wasn't kosher for a long time for radio stations to own more than one station on the same band in the same market (KOMO and KJR were sister stations throughout the '30s until the '40s, when the FCC broke up the NBC Red/Blue Networks and NBC Blue became ABC and KJR went independent.) Then the rules changed when somebody worked up a good enough argument for multiple station ownership again.

With newspapers disappearing the way they are, it would not surprise me if this old rule gets revisited again....and changed...... Today, with so much media out there, the argument for TV/radio and newspaper cross-ownership could be reasonable again. However, you also have to factor in just how much of the local media pie one corporation owns in the market. For example, Belo owns KING-TV, KONG-TV and NWCN. The addition of the P-I on top of this wouldn't be right. Or with Bonneville and KIRO AM/FM, KTTH and the P-I. Or Fisher with KOMO-TV, KUNS-TV, KOMO-AM, KVI-AM and KPLZ......

All of these corporations should have to sacrifice something for the P-I. Especially if they own a station that is news, talk or sports oriented.

This does have a flipside. Suppose Salem were to buy the P-I. Then we'd REALLY have a problem editorially with the paper (religious influence.) One could use that same argument against Bonneville (the media wing of the LDS) Since major daily newspapers are far more sensitive to influences like that than radio or TV, the P-I would have to tread very carefully around these matters if it were to fall into their hands. The Fairness Doctrine may be dead in radio, but it's still very much alive in most independent daily newspapers (save the Washington Times and a few others.) I don't think any religious media ownership of the P-I would sit very well with most local readers and would actually be an even BIGGER disaster than what they are facing now.
 
Bongwater said:
All of these corporations should have to sacrifice something for the P-I. Especially if they own a station that is news, talk or sports oriented.

This does have a flipside. Suppose Salem were to buy the P-I. Then we'd REALLY have a problem editorially with the paper (religious influence.) One could use that same argument against Bonneville (the media wing of the LDS) Since major daily newspapers are far more sensitive to influences like that than radio or TV, the P-I would have to tread very carefully around these matters if it were to fall into their hands. The Fairness Doctrine may be dead in radio, but it's still very much alive in most independent daily newspapers (save the Washington Times and a few others.) I don't think any religious media ownership of the P-I would sit very well with most local readers and would actually be an even BIGGER disaster than what they are facing now.
Click to expand...

Your one point is completely mute Bong, and one somewhat correct.

Back in the late 90's broadcasters were actively lobbying for the ownership rules between print and broadcast to be lifted but it never happened. The reason sited is exactly for the reason you mentioned in that the FCC wouldn't even consider it because of editorial control, number of voices, etc.

Fast forward to 2008-2009...The absolutely last thing any broadcaster would be interested in is owning a newspaper with print media being under water worse than radio and TV is. Not that any broadcaster would be in a position to borrow money to buy what's left of the PI anyway.

Your comment that somehow broadcasters should have to sacrifice something to save a newspaper is just ridiculous, (and yet somehow predictable).
 
TVradioguru said:
Bongwater said:
All of these corporations should have to sacrifice something for the P-I. Especially if they own a station that is news, talk or sports oriented.

This does have a flipside. Suppose Salem were to buy the P-I. Then we'd REALLY have a problem editorially with the paper (religious influence.) One could use that same argument against Bonneville (the media wing of the LDS) Since major daily newspapers are far more sensitive to influences like that than radio or TV, the P-I would have to tread very carefully around these matters if it were to fall into their hands. The Fairness Doctrine may be dead in radio, but it's still very much alive in most independent daily newspapers (save the Washington Times and a few others.) I don't think any religious media ownership of the P-I would sit very well with most local readers and would actually be an even BIGGER disaster than what they are facing now.
Click to expand...

Your one point is completely mute Bong, and one somewhat correct.

Back in the late 90's broadcasters were actively lobbying for the ownership rules between print and broadcast to be lifted but it never happened. The reason sited is exactly for the reason you mentioned in that the FCC wouldn't even consider it because of editorial control, number of voices, etc.

Fast forward to 2008-2009...The absolutely last thing any broadcaster would be interested in is owning a newspaper with print media being under water worse than radio and TV is. Not that any broadcaster would be in a position to borrow money to buy what's left of the PI anyway.

Your comment that somehow broadcasters should have to sacrifice something to save a newspaper is just ridiculous, (and yet somehow predictable).
Click to expand...

Well then, let's just agree to disagree.

If no broadcast media wants to buy the P-I (and no one said they HAD to), then someone with extra $$$ to burn will. Good luck to them.

If not, it's a sad day for Seattle, one of the last cities with TWO daily newspapers.

But I also believe in this day and age, you can't have your cake AND the ice cream. The '90s are over and if you are inclined to make a major daily newspaper work (they still look good in any portfolio), you would be all the wiser to let go of a few underachieving broadcast properties. Plus I do believe once you have a newspaper, you also control another part of the local news media and there should be limits on that still.

In the '90s (before the internet revolution), local newspapers were still a profitable industry on their own. Not by much, but Hearst and the Times still kept them. If they weren't, the Times and/or P-I would have disappeared completely by now.

Today with the internet, the days of newspapers are going the way of the vinyl LP. Never really gone though, but just a smaller piece of the pie a major corporation can't deal with.

In a perfect world, I'd like to see local people take control of the P-I. The price is getting about right and I hope that somebody (ahem, Mr. Gates), would take the initiative.

Predictable as I may be, I still speak for a LOT of people......some ever FAR more radical that I will ever be.......
 
TVradioguru said:
Unless it was grandfathered in, current cross-ownership rules don't allow ownership of a radio or TV station with a newspaper.

TV and radio can do "cooperative" content deals that don't involve combined ownership, but that's about it.
Click to expand...

But if the newspaper is gone ... does a cross-ownership rule still apply? This would be a WEBSITE collaboration, after all. I assume the paper is out of the equation.
 
LITTLEBOYBLUE said:
TVradioguru said:
Unless it was grandfathered in, current cross-ownership rules don't allow ownership of a radio or TV station with a newspaper.

TV and radio can do "cooperative" content deals that don't involve combined ownership, but that's about it.
Click to expand...

But if the newspaper is gone ... does a cross-ownership rule still apply? This would be a WEBSITE collaboration, after all. I assume the paper is out of the equation.
Click to expand...

I'm not a M&A lawyer, (I pay them to study this sort of thing), but I imagine that depends on the structure of the organization. If the the PI remains under the same incorporated structure but just doesn't print on paper anymore, then I believe the paper would still exsist as the FCC goes.

Again, shared content deals between newspapers and radio/TV stations go on in many cities. The reality is these deals usually don't last for several reasons: (1) Broadcast news people don't like print reporters. (2) Print reporters don't like broadcast reporters. (3) Because of reasons 1 and 2, decent shared content is almost non-existent. From a business/promotional side, eventually one feels like the other isn't pulling it's weight and the deal fades away. Typically these deals are a colossal waste of time and effort.

With newspapers fading away faster than any form of media, I'm not sure why any broadcast radio or TV station would bother. For sentimental reasons? That won't pay the bills.
 
I was disappointed a few years ago when KOMO merged radio & TV and people were STILL hung up (and may be today for all I know) on whether something was "radio" or "TV". These folks sit next to each other but were still drawing lines based on corporate boundaries ... of which the audiences know nothing (much of that has a LOT to do with Fisher corporate culture, though).

So today, in my fantasy world, I'd be looking at developing one awesome news gathering asset. Ask Hearst to invest in it, and Fisher invests in it. You create a room with some great news-gathering toys and then call a staff meeting with the crew from KOMO-AM, KOMO-TV, Seattle P/I. You invite the people at the meeting to look around the room and see how many of their veteran friends are still with the organization. Ask people to think about how many of their competitors are financially as strong and viable as they were five or ten years ago. Ask them if THEY WANT TO BE IN THE SAME BOAT five years from now? If not ... the boundaries disappear RIGHT THIS SECOND ... and we figure out how we're going to light the community on fire with news and information.

Core of the asset is web site with depth. If a former newspaper reporter wants to research and do the online story ... go for it. If they want to be on-camera, we give 'em a few minutes of training and go ... otherwise they function as story producer and a different "face" takes it to TV. Most relevant storides and headlines go to TV with supporting depth on web. Similar approach with different newswheel on radio ... but the idea is that you associate all these people with the NEWS brand.

Add community-based (probably volunteer) stringers to pick up micro-level stuff like "Burien City Council coverage" (web only) --- and you've now got a news engine that is prodcing on all platforms. If the content seems strong enough to warrant, publish a weekly magazine of some kind (like a mini-Newsweek) that puts the issues into some context. Print will never be timely anymore ... so its role has to be "in context"....people have easier time reading print and can take those "context pieces" with them at their leisure.

This isn't that far from do-able....but what usually gets in the way is the adage of "you have to spend money to make money" and we have a tough time with media egos. But as I mentioned above, it ultimately comes down to "do YOU want to be in this chair in five years or do you want to abdicate to the internet start-up that will do it for you". A license is no longer required for the broadcast component. A newscast that uses "You-Tube" like tectnology can be just as relevant as a TV news cast if the news-gathering reputation of the television operation has already suffered.
 
Re: KOMO-TV vs. KOMO-AM

LITTLEBOYBLUE said:
I was disappointed a few years ago when KOMO merged radio & TV and people were STILL hung up (and may be today for all I know) on whether something was "radio" or "TV". These folks sit next to each other but were still drawing lines based on corporate boundaries ... of which the audiences know nothing (much of that has a LOT to do with Fisher corporate culture, though).
Click to expand...

You're right on the money, LBB, and despite several management changes in both TV and radio (along with a new CEO) the "spirit of co-operation" between the two entities remains virtually non-existent. Perhaps the threats of "five years from know" can change that, but In my humble opinion I don't think it will. What's more likely to happen is Fisher will eventually spin off its remaining radio properties and become a TV/online-only company.
 
LITTLEBOYBLUE said:
Today's announcement is that the company will fold.
An especially ironic term for shutting down a newspaper.
Click to expand...

This is very sad news indeed. I'm guessing someone will launch a fresh new online source for Seattle to make good use of?
 
It's the end of an era In Seattle. Tacoma and Olympia are laying off staff and the Times doesn't look so good either.

However, up here in NW Washington, there is some happy news for newspapers:

http://www.goskagit.com/home/article/hot_off_the_press/

Don't forget to get your copy of the P-I tomorrow..........
 
Regardless of what you think of his columns, I think this board owes much gratitude to Bill Virgin. He was always one of my favorite writers in the city, and he offered a weekly glimpse into the local radio scene. His radio beat was a staple for years on radio-info. Though some of his columns were mediocre, particularly in the eyes of some of the radio heads working in our town, many were well done and conveyed meaningful discussion of radio in our market. Here's hoping we do not lose him. FYI: His article "Class Final: How to kill an American Newspaper" is sad but terrific. Here is a link:

http://www.seattlepi.com/virgin/403824_virgin17.html

Thanks, Bill for the great work. Hopefully we will continue to read on-line about the local radio scene, at least.
 
Bill is definitely one of best and a real asset to the P-I. Best wishes to him. He deserves it.
 
Bill Virgin should come over here to radio-info.com or one of the other radio boards and start posting.  It would be a very neat suprise to see him here!

As for the P-I itself, I don't see this as an ending for them.  They are still online and continuing forward in that way, so I am thinking of this as more of a transition.  In these days of the Internet, I think in the future more and more papers will go this way.  This would be like the transition from analog TV to digital TV, and it's cheaper to post stuff in electronic form than it is to print it (saves trees too).  If an online version of the P-I becomes more popular and when the recession winds down, they might hire back more and more people to report the news.  I'm thinking of it as this.... The P-I may be the first to go online-only, and may be an example to other papers that may go online-only as well, so they could very well become a "pioneer" in doing this during hard times.  With wireless Internet coming along as well, you will still be able to read the news on the way to work or sitting at the park.  And maybe in the future as well, they may very well require a subscription to the online version, but only allow top stories (front page news) and community-based or volunteer-based news to be available for free, like as though you are looking at a news-stand but aren't buying the paper. I think they should re-design the website though, to make it resemble a newspaper to try and keep with old times, and make it so even people without wireless Internet access, can still print off the online-version to a printer, to take with them.

So in a way....I don't think they "killed an American newspaper" to the most part....they just transitioned it.  The P-I is still around, but in a different form.  It'll be interesting to see what happens from here.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom