Here’s something that’s going to make at least the anti-Blethen factions among current P-I subscribers howl with rage. According to several well-informed sources, when (or if?) the P-I stops printing, theTimes intends to automatically switch all P-I subscribers over to the Times without asking their permission first. In other words, P-I subscribers will have to opt out of taking the Times, rather than being given the option by Times circulation staff of opting-in to subscribing to the Times as a replacement for the P-I. Seattle Times spokeswoman Jill Mackie evaded answering my question about how the Times intends to handle current P-Isubscribers, instead offering the following:
There is a great deal of speculation about the imminent closure of the P-I, but at this point, we have not been notified officially that Hearst intends to cease publication. As a result, our focus is on continuing, to the best of our abilities under the circumstances, to fulfill our obligations under the JOA. With all the unknowns that currently exist, it is difficult for us to comment more specifically at this time. When we do have more information, we will be communicating with those affected by the anticipated changes. We will be posting information for readers/subscribers on the company Web site at http://seattletimescompany.com/ .
Indeed, The Seattle Times is definintely—surprisingly—in the dark about their longtime JOA partner’s plans.
Post-Intelligencer reporter Dan Richman just posted a story on the P-I web site saying that Hearst will announce its plans regarding the P-I sometime next week. Apparently, the paper will continue printing at least until then. Could the P-I experience some sort of last minute stay of execution? It seems far-fetched, but nobody seems to know what is going on right now at Hearst corporate.
And that apparently includes the Seattle Times Company as well. The Times Company, which administers the joint operating agreement with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, has yet to be “notified officially that Hearst intends to cease publication” of the P-I, according to an e-mail yesterday from Mackie.
I find that to be very strange – could it really be that Hearst and the Times Company have not been talking the fundamental issues related to the P-I’s shutdown (like, say, if and/or when it is going to happen) through? Apparently so, according to others at the Times, who say there has been a lot of befuddlement at on the corporate side of the Times because Hearst has not been communicating with them at all about their plans.
I checked with attorney (and former reporter) Kathy George of the Committee for a Two Newspaper Town, who said that it does not appear that, according to the terms of the JOA, the Times has an explicit legal remedy that could allow them to force Hearst to remain in the JOA and continue printing the P-I, at least for a few more months, on the grounds that Hearst had not offered sufficient formal advance warning that it is shutting down the P-I (something they likely would not want to do anyway).
Where the legal situation could become more interesting, George says, is if the Times went to court to stop Hearst from operating the planned online only news entity it is in the process of creating. The JOA clearly bars Hearst from operating a newspaper in Seattle outside of the agreement, so the central legal issue would hinge on whether the new, online only news entity is a “newspaper” or not. So far as I am aware, there is no indication at this point that the Times is actually considering going to court to try to stop Hearst from moving forward with its plans.
