March 05, 2009
Least Surprising News of the Day
A major stake in the Seattle Times valued at...
The McClatchy Co., which owns 49.5 percent of The Seattle Times Co., has again cut the value of its share of the Seattle newspaper company -- this time to nothing.
Because of The Seattle Times Co's. "comprehensive loss related to its retirement plan liabilities" in 2008, McClatchy's investment was zero as of Dec. 28, McClatchy said in its most recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Forget worries about a two-newspaper town. Will we even be a one newspaper town a year from now?
Posted by Eric Earling at March 05, 2009
08:30 AM | Email This
1. Last time I checked, McClatchy Co's math is indeed correct, as 0 does = 0. In fact, 2 X 0 (P-I + Times) also = 0. Our legislature would call the latter equation "advanced" math and as such, vote to remove it from the WASL.
2. now "pickled herring" you need to give our folks down in Olympia a break.
The Times was is asking Olympia for a special tax break for *itself*. I don't know that it ever favors tax breaks for the rest of us. They did endorse the Great Taxer after all. The Times claims that a tax cut for it will mean that it can save jobs.
Funny, that's what we conservatives have been saying since... since... forever.
Can't say it's a matter of great importance - they haven't done the job in years. Maybe decades. They won't be missed. There are so many other outlets available it's difficult to care if one or two - particularly one or two of the caliber of these two - vanish.
And as everyone knows, this isn't unique to Seattle. Print is a thing of the past. It makes its money off advertising, and the advertisers have so many choices nowadays even they don't care about losing the papers.
I'm enough of a traditionalist that I liked riding the train (in my commuter days) with a newspaper - but if I'd had the internet telephone (or the internet) available - would I have bothered? Probably............ not.
We'll be much worse off without major newspapers in the Seattle area - if it comes to that.
Much of what is commented on here (on local/regional politics) initially is reported by the Times or PI. We'll be poorer off if all there is to comment from is the press releases from the various interested parties. Journalism remains very important. I'm not a big fan of the PI but will be sorry to see it fold. I hope the PI's failure at least gives the Times enough of a shot in the arm to pull out of its current death spiral.
6. #5 I agree with you wholeheartedly. This town NEEDS a major newspaper...a more aggressive investigative one would be even better.
As long as these papers continue to push for more limits on my freedom, and more power for the government, I hope they fail *at that*. They chose to be adversarial. I simply want straight information from them. Is that too much to ask?
Duffman, wouldn't a Seattle newspaper be better if it started from scratch rather than make something of nothing. It might even be exciting?
Something better is guaranteed to arise. I just feel that starting from scratch and at a small scale is the wave of the future.
9. #8 Absolutely! But, it would be nice to 'maintain' continuity, at least from an historic perspective. May be they could combine and maintain the tradition and yet 're-form' in a dramatic way by persuading their talent to invoke a 'new direction'. Ergo...we'd get the best of 'both worlds' so to speak.
Was going to make the same comment you made, but you said all that was needed. Thanks.
11. I agree with jj@4....Those who have a love affair with a passing Entity and can't let go to move on to better things are themselves antiquated. There are a great many choices including many superior choices easily available. With the Electronic Age, news including investigative journalism are at ones finger tips whether it be Local, National or World is available via Radio, TV and the Internet. With these resources readily available, you can get your news and information now and not be limited by an upward of a 24 hour plus time delay in accessing needed and desired information which is usually very limited in its scope. No, the other Electronic sources completely eliminate the need for Old Fashion Slow Print as a current news source.
12. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. :)
Duffman, *evidently* Danial is not wrong. If he was wrong, we wouldn't be talking about the dying newspaper industry in the first place.
The Times is another liberal rag that needs to go away.
Remember folks, only two more weeks until the old Propaganda Isvestia is DEAD!
I'm sorry. You two are wrong and Duffman is right (for once).
The media you young 'uns talk about get their information from the dead tree press. For example, 90% of the blogs here take the info from the paper and make an opinion which we react to. If not for the paper, there is no one doing the research.
The investigative reporting means going to the State to pull out files and papers regarding topics such as election problems or problems with sex offenders which the new media (at least so far) does not do.
16. Seattle PI: Mocked in the blogoshere
I understand people fear losing their jobs, but daydreaming that your soon to be extinct newspaper can be kept miraculously alive in the way you describe is not in sync with reality.
Well duh: See Seattles liberalism for out of 'sync with reality'.
17. Swatter@15....Your're full of CRAP! Where do you come up with this 90% figure? You think that only the newspapers do investigating reporting? How Ridiculous! You have all kinds of Informational Gatherers gleaming the files, reports etc. not just local but, World Wide. These Gatherers are back by various News Agencies, Radio, TV, Informative Web Sites and others that have a far, far greater resources aka finances to draw from than any failing, starved for funds, newspaper. Get Real!
Do you guys remember the Danish cartoons depicting terrorists in way that offended Muslims? Remember that? I saw the cartoons. I used the information to make a judgment about whether they warranted such riots and killings. Where did I see them? Not in the newspaper. The newspaper chose not to show us these cartoons, even as *news*.
What are they supposed to do for us again?
19. Why is it that even though they are also having trouble cities in the UK and Ireland can support multiple papers, yet we're having trouble keeping any alive. It's more than just the new media. I've lived over there and the newspapers don't pretend that they are unbiased, neutral observers. Everybody knows that's just not true. In Seattle there is left and more left as choices both masquerading as "objective". If there was good reporting and some real give and take on issues people might actually buy both for the contrast. Our journalism schools fail when they foist the canard that reporters can step outside their own beliefs and values to report "objectively". The last election was a good case study. The media started out ready for a Hillary coronation but fell in love with the feeling in their leg they got from Obama. They jumped Hillary, ignored the rest of the field and joined the Obama/Biden ticket. When Palin came along they did more due diligence on her in 4 days than they have done on Obama in 4 years. As the reporting has increasingly become advocacy journalism the media is less relevant and none more so than print. They are uniquely positioned to explore issues in more depth than electronic media ever would. They can devote more to local coverage. Instead they all run the wire service stories from the AP and the NYT that I read online before I ever pick up a newspaper. There are serious outside pressures on the print media but they have substantially added to their own demise.
Why should I care what happens to the radical propaganda arm of the DNC?
The Times and the Pee Eye as well as the News Buffoon are nothiong more than house organists who play only those tunes that the power structure here in western Washington calls.
Oh there are exceptions, but they are rare. We have all whitnessed the brame affair, wherein the Tacoma Police Chief murdered his wife, a few years back. How is it that his history was common knowledge yet none of thes great investigative powers "knew anything of it."
Bravo Sierra, they were all three aware. They, all three, are filth and they are totally reprobate. There is nothing posative in their continued existence.