Comments on: Requiem For A Newspaper, Part I: There’s nothing more we can do http://seattle.metblogs.com/2009/01/13/requiem-for-a-newspaper-part-i/ Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:15:38 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Requiem For A Newspaper, Part II: The Road To Online | Seattle Metblogs http://seattle.metblogs.com/2009/01/13/requiem-for-a-newspaper-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-16402 Requiem For A Newspaper, Part II: The Road To Online | Seattle Metblogs Thu, 15 Jan 2009 06:46:49 +0000 http://seattle.metblogs.com/?p=8441#comment-16402 [...] explained in Part I why the P-I as a print newspaper is dead. But let me rehash some points I and others have already [...] [...] explained in Part I why the P-I as a print newspaper is dead. But let me rehash some points I and others have already [...]

]]> By: John Eddy http://seattle.metblogs.com/2009/01/13/requiem-for-a-newspaper-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-16399 John Eddy Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:22:57 +0000 http://seattle.metblogs.com/?p=8441#comment-16399 "There’s Nothing More We Can Do" Well... unless you can afford the newspaper. =) "There’s Nothing More We Can Do"

Well… unless you can afford the newspaper. =)

]]> By: elasticsyntax http://seattle.metblogs.com/2009/01/13/requiem-for-a-newspaper-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-16393 elasticsyntax Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:55:11 +0000 http://seattle.metblogs.com/?p=8441#comment-16393 You're right that the Times <i>could</i> have adopted the strategies, but so could any paper. I'm saying that this could be the final kick in the pants. Why does the P-I have to be the one? The Blethen's have shown they are more willing to bleed money than Hearst ever was, which is not to say that they did it wisely. Content is not the problem, monetizing it is. You’re right that the Times could have adopted the strategies, but so could any paper. I’m saying that this could be the final kick in the pants. Why does the P-I have to be the one? The Blethen’s have shown they are more willing to bleed money than Hearst ever was, which is not to say that they did it wisely.

Content is not the problem, monetizing it is.

]]> By: Dylan http://seattle.metblogs.com/2009/01/13/requiem-for-a-newspaper-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-16391 Dylan Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:45:18 +0000 http://seattle.metblogs.com/?p=8441#comment-16391 But the Times could have adopted any of these online strategies before, and has stood in the way of Hearst doing more online with the P-I. They've had ample opportunities to do what the P-I has been doing online, and they haven't. And the idea that the Times could expand their newsroom after the monopoly fails to take into account that the Times lost as much as the P-I last year, they have less cash on hand than Hearst, and that getting the P-I's share of the revenue isn't going to be enough to staunch the bleeding. I think a lot of people dismissing the idea of a single-market, online-only news site forget that a city can be a niche just like a neighborhood or an industry. If people didn't care what happened locally and only thought nationally, then local papers would have died 40 years ago when national TV news was taking off, or 25 years ago when USA Today was first published. It could work. The key thing is focusing on content and having a startup mentality about how to run the business... but that's Part II. But the Times could have adopted any of these online strategies before, and has stood in the way of Hearst doing more online with the P-I. They’ve had ample opportunities to do what the P-I has been doing online, and they haven’t.

And the idea that the Times could expand their newsroom after the monopoly fails to take into account that the Times lost as much as the P-I last year, they have less cash on hand than Hearst, and that getting the P-I’s share of the revenue isn’t going to be enough to staunch the bleeding.

I think a lot of people dismissing the idea of a single-market, online-only news site forget that a city can be a niche just like a neighborhood or an industry. If people didn’t care what happened locally and only thought nationally, then local papers would have died 40 years ago when national TV news was taking off, or 25 years ago when USA Today was first published. It could work. The key thing is focusing on content and having a startup mentality about how to run the business… but that’s Part II.

]]> By: elasticsyntax http://seattle.metblogs.com/2009/01/13/requiem-for-a-newspaper-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-16390 elasticsyntax Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:49:30 +0000 http://seattle.metblogs.com/?p=8441#comment-16390 I think lost in this kerfuffle is that this is the opportunity for the Times to adopt many of the online strategies that have been bandied about as ways to save the P-I. It may be time for people to stop shitting on the Times (forgive the Bush endorsement) and actually read it. It isn't a bad paper, and support from the community, it could use the void left from to P-I to actually expand it's newsroom. The P-I is dead. There will be no savior. If an online ghost remains, it will be as petri dish for to see if an single-market, online only news source can exist. I have low hopes. I think lost in this kerfuffle is that this is the opportunity for the Times to adopt many of the online strategies that have been bandied about as ways to save the P-I.

It may be time for people to stop shitting on the Times (forgive the Bush endorsement) and actually read it. It isn’t a bad paper, and support from the community, it could use the void left from to P-I to actually expand it’s newsroom.

The P-I is dead. There will be no savior. If an online ghost remains, it will be as petri dish for to see if an single-market, online only news source can exist. I have low hopes.

]]>