This JOA Agreement
WARNING:
If you are not from Seattle, or in the journalistic field, do not read on - this will bore you. Of course you may do so, but at your own risk - don't blame if you find the following boring.
Now, here's the post.
Today, or yesterday, it was announced that the Seattle Times and the Seattle PI would find a way to resolve their dispute over the Joint Operating Agreement (JOA). Binding arbitration.
As you know, this dispute has gone back a long way. The Seattle Times Company has claimed it has been losing money over a period of time - thus giving good cause to terminate the JOA. The Hearst Corporation, owners of the PI, claim differently. So they have duked it out legally for a few years.
I'm not going to get into the nitty-gritty details of this. But I will provide some historical background. In the early 1980's, the PI was losing money. It was about to go under. For fear there would be only "one editorial voice", they let the two papers form a messy pact called the JOA. Basically, newsrooms would be seperate, but all business operations would be combined. And, if the Seattle Times Company lost money, they could terminate it, end the PI, and pay the Hearst Corporation a bunch of money over the succeeding 40 or so years.
That was put together before Cable TV, the "New Media," and the internet all became major forces in the way people get information. I still think that the owners of the PI live in that past world. For I think it is advantageous for the Hearst corporation to let the Times end the JOA. Here are a few reasons why.
First, newspaper circulation is declining. If not the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, generally, less and less people buy newspapers. There is less of a chance that younger readers will subscribe. Even though I read the PI and the Times, I get the news - free - off their websites. If younger readers do not subscribe, then there is less a chance it will continue.
In the last three years, PI circulation has declined to 133,000 - down 15 percent in just three years. That is circulation they will never get back. And it will keep going down. This is bad for business.
I actually did subscribe to it. But I realized I was not reading it (at the time), newspapers themselves are messy to deal with, and I was getting news off the internet. And I was looking to save money. So I cancelled my subscription after two years.
More and more, advertising is subsidizing the cost of news today. That means some of the cost will be pushed onto the consumer. Since you are paying for it indirectly anyway, doesn't it make more sense to read these things off of the internet?
Secondly, there is no real "one editorial opinion" anymore. If the PI goes, you have the Times as the only statewide paper. But you still have regional papers (the The Everett Herald or the King County Journal) city papers, neighborhood papers. You have several network newscasts. In wired Seattle, you have a plethora of blogs. There are news and talk radio stations. There are plenty of places to get other editorial opinions. Trying to raise this argument will only result in more battles - and a loss of revenues for the Hearst Corporation.
Finally, the Seattle Times Company will be giving the Hearst Corporation free money for the next 40 years. That is payment for doing absolutely nothing. Hey - I like free money. The archaic Hearst corporation does not need to do anything - only collect.
I suspect that the reason why the Hearst Corporation is fighting this tooth-and-nail is because they want to have a forum in every major city to have their boring columns read. Columnists are themselves an obsolete breed. Now, with the internet, people make it their hobby to collect news, comment on it, and put money into it. Twenty years ago, this was not possible, but the internet has made the distribution of news much, much cheaper than it once was. It turns out that Lincoln Stephens was right "Freedom of the press is only available to those who can afford a press." Or, Charlton Heston: "The internet did for the first amendment what the industrial revolution did for the second amendment."
The Hearst Corporation needs to pull their heads out of - well, you know where - and understand that this JOA termination is in their best long-term interest.
Here is an article, by the way, which agrees with me (and from a leftist paper):
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=31029
If you are not from Seattle, or in the journalistic field, do not read on - this will bore you. Of course you may do so, but at your own risk - don't blame if you find the following boring.
Now, here's the post.
Today, or yesterday, it was announced that the Seattle Times and the Seattle PI would find a way to resolve their dispute over the Joint Operating Agreement (JOA). Binding arbitration.
As you know, this dispute has gone back a long way. The Seattle Times Company has claimed it has been losing money over a period of time - thus giving good cause to terminate the JOA. The Hearst Corporation, owners of the PI, claim differently. So they have duked it out legally for a few years.
I'm not going to get into the nitty-gritty details of this. But I will provide some historical background. In the early 1980's, the PI was losing money. It was about to go under. For fear there would be only "one editorial voice", they let the two papers form a messy pact called the JOA. Basically, newsrooms would be seperate, but all business operations would be combined. And, if the Seattle Times Company lost money, they could terminate it, end the PI, and pay the Hearst Corporation a bunch of money over the succeeding 40 or so years.
That was put together before Cable TV, the "New Media," and the internet all became major forces in the way people get information. I still think that the owners of the PI live in that past world. For I think it is advantageous for the Hearst corporation to let the Times end the JOA. Here are a few reasons why.
First, newspaper circulation is declining. If not the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, generally, less and less people buy newspapers. There is less of a chance that younger readers will subscribe. Even though I read the PI and the Times, I get the news - free - off their websites. If younger readers do not subscribe, then there is less a chance it will continue.
In the last three years, PI circulation has declined to 133,000 - down 15 percent in just three years. That is circulation they will never get back. And it will keep going down. This is bad for business.
I actually did subscribe to it. But I realized I was not reading it (at the time), newspapers themselves are messy to deal with, and I was getting news off the internet. And I was looking to save money. So I cancelled my subscription after two years.
More and more, advertising is subsidizing the cost of news today. That means some of the cost will be pushed onto the consumer. Since you are paying for it indirectly anyway, doesn't it make more sense to read these things off of the internet?
Secondly, there is no real "one editorial opinion" anymore. If the PI goes, you have the Times as the only statewide paper. But you still have regional papers (the The Everett Herald or the King County Journal) city papers, neighborhood papers. You have several network newscasts. In wired Seattle, you have a plethora of blogs. There are news and talk radio stations. There are plenty of places to get other editorial opinions. Trying to raise this argument will only result in more battles - and a loss of revenues for the Hearst Corporation.
Finally, the Seattle Times Company will be giving the Hearst Corporation free money for the next 40 years. That is payment for doing absolutely nothing. Hey - I like free money. The archaic Hearst corporation does not need to do anything - only collect.
I suspect that the reason why the Hearst Corporation is fighting this tooth-and-nail is because they want to have a forum in every major city to have their boring columns read. Columnists are themselves an obsolete breed. Now, with the internet, people make it their hobby to collect news, comment on it, and put money into it. Twenty years ago, this was not possible, but the internet has made the distribution of news much, much cheaper than it once was. It turns out that Lincoln Stephens was right "Freedom of the press is only available to those who can afford a press." Or, Charlton Heston: "The internet did for the first amendment what the industrial revolution did for the second amendment."
The Hearst Corporation needs to pull their heads out of - well, you know where - and understand that this JOA termination is in their best long-term interest.
Here is an article, by the way, which agrees with me (and from a leftist paper):
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=31029
posted by EricMatthew at 8:02 PM
<< Home