See the forums for a related discussion: What’s so great about daily print newspapers?
Update 03.16.09: Via Monica Guzman at the P-I:
Publisher Roger Oglesby just announced in the P-I newsroom: Tomorrow will be our last print edition, but seattlepi.com will live on.
Update 2: Aubrey Cohen will be staying on with the online-only P-I.
Update 3: Word comes via emails I received from Seattle Bubble favorites Bill Virgin and Mark Trahant that neither will be staying on with the online-only P-I. Their voices will be sorely missed.
Please vote in this poll using the sidebar.
Will you miss the (printed) P-I?
- Yes (31%, 69 Votes)
- No (69%, 155 Votes)
Total Voters: 224
This poll will be active and displayed on the sidebar through 03.21.2009.
ThomasB. » Mar 15, 2009 at 11:18 am
What am I going to use to make paper hats now? Bummer.
biliruben » Mar 15, 2009 at 11:25 am
Yes, mainly because what I will be now forced to read, if I want local news, is the Seattle Times which seems to write solely for software engineers living in the Issaquah Highlands.
Kary L. Krismer » Mar 15, 2009 at 11:35 am
I currently read both the P-I on the web and in paper format. I tend to miss things just looking at the web. That would probably be even more true if I was using the Times and its website. That website is a mess.
Ben » Mar 15, 2009 at 11:44 am
Bili – that is funny, because I always felt like both papers act like the universe ends at lake washington.
Lake Hills Renter » Mar 15, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Isn’t the P-I as a whole going away, including the website? I go there for local news, but I haven’t read an actual print newspaper in a decade.
The Tim » Mar 15, 2009 at 1:12 pm
RE: Lake Hills Renter @ 5 – Hearst is being pretty tight-lipped about what exactly they’re going to do with it, but a couple of recent articles have pointed toward a continued online presence of some kind.
Jordo » Mar 15, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Can I ask why we should care so much. I mean, yah, it’s never been this way before, but should we fear change?
VHS tapes are outdated, replaced with digital dvd/bluerays. The same thing is happening with print media (with online news sites/streaming video/ and the amazon kindle.)
Where there is a demand for local news, someone will meet that supply. I don’t feel like there is a “demand” for print journalism, but rather just local journalism. That will be met in the most cost effective way (digitally). It’s just a few old timers who don’t like change that are really going to care about it. Yah, there’s the nostalgia of having that disgusting black ink on your hands as you go to smear it all over your pristine white macbook, but I think we can learn to live without it.
It’s like old people complaining about how their old vinyl records were so much better, with all the unintended errors in the audio quality.
IMHO.
Andy » Mar 15, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Good riddance!
Several of my friends and coworkers have been in one way or another slandered or misrepresented in that liberal rag. Long time coming if you asked me.
EconE » Mar 15, 2009 at 4:04 pm
By Jordo @ 7:
I dunno…I’ve heard some tube w/ vinyl front end systems that absolutely TROUNCE my solid state w/ digital (SACD) gear. Good analog is too laborious and expensive for my tastes however.
I do agree that newspapers are dirty (not in the sexual sense) ink ridden rags that do nothing but add to most peoples clutter.
Just my 2 pesos.
Herman » Mar 15, 2009 at 4:12 pm
As expected, most of you miss the point.
You don’t care that the newspapers vanish because you don’t really care for news on paper. So what. The sheets of paper are not the point. This is what – we’re losing newspaper as a medium with a business model that can support investigative journalism. Arguably we’ve already lost it – newspaper journalists today outside of just a select few majors (e.g. NY Times) can’t afford deep reporting and just grab content off the AP or do local fluff pieces.
That’d be ok as long as there were a replacement – but there isn’t. People don’t pay for content on the Internet. Online ad revenue is not enough to support deep content origination. 150 TV channels instead of 3 mean lower ad spend per news show. So we are left with:
– Journalism which is not skeptical of power. They rely on access to CEO’s or Government officials for their content, for interviews and such, so they have to act as their mouthpieces.
– “News” that is based on superficial pundit commentary rather than investigation.
– “News” that relies on derivative content instead of original content. If a news agency invests in expensive investigative journalism to break a story, what is their reward? Today the story is immediately repeated, commented on, and mashed-up into derivative work online and on TV – the others take the benefit but not the cost. There is no such thing as an exclusive; there is no such thing as getting the “scoop” that sells the paper or the TV ads.
Wave goodbye to the PI, but when you do, realize that the erosion of its quality and its eventual demise are just mile markers on our road to a total loss of objective media. Without a durable business model, government and corporations will remain but without the counterbalance of the media.
Technology and policy have changed media in ways that the authors of the Constitution did not foresee – they had counted on the press to serve the public’s interest in ways that corporations and governments do not.
(For an example of the impact: “Stewart vs. Cramer” – John Stewart calls out CNBC for failing to expose the upcoming financial disaster. Why did CNBC behave this way? See my comments.)
Kary L. Krismer » Mar 15, 2009 at 4:39 pm
RE: Herman @ 10 – The problem is the current state of affairs isn’t that great as it is. Lots of stuff goes unnoticed. Instead we get news of Sarah Palin’s daughter breaking up, and an arrest warrant for Lindsey Lohan.
Scotsman » Mar 15, 2009 at 4:42 pm
The P.I. represented investigative journalism? I thought they were partisan hacks. Who would have guessed!
They won’t be missed. Perhaps their demise will cause others to see that a non-partisan paper or other medium that really did do evenhanded reporting could find a market, and be a viable business.
Maybe the government needs to take over the papers. They do everything else so well….
The Tim » Mar 15, 2009 at 6:14 pm
By Andy @ 8:
In print it’s called libel.
;^)
cutienoua » Mar 15, 2009 at 6:17 pm
P-I what?!
I am glad they will not call me to offer subscription no more!smile
David Losh » Mar 15, 2009 at 6:38 pm
RE: Herman @ 10 –
I wanted to disagree with your comment, but it makes an excellent point.
query_squidier » Mar 15, 2009 at 6:40 pm
I’ll just miss picking the paper up during lunch for something quick to read. The comics, the editorial/opinion pages, the local news, and the front sections… in that order. The comics are better in the P-I than the Times.
The business and, heh, real estate sections can be safely tossed aside.
But most importantly, to hell with the sports section. For the love of the flying spaghetti monster, is basketball over yet??
PIsiteisdown » Mar 15, 2009 at 9:15 pm
I just went to the PI’s website. I get the text “seattlepi.com is currently experiencing technical difficulties. Some features of the site may be unavailable or not function as usual until full service is restored.” I took a screenshot for posterity.
Not with a bang, but a whimper, eh?
seattlepi.nwsource.com redirects to disaster.seattlepi.nwsource.com. Since seattletimes.nwsource.com is functioning perfectly, I can’t think of any technical reason for this.
Didn’t the PI guarantee pay through 3/15? Is this the death rattle?
Anthony Teamson » Mar 15, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Yes, I will miss the PI. I will be more depressed now because I’ll have to read something more substantive concerning current events. I am certainly am going to miss its schizophrenic head mast type that proclaims it to be a serious paper only to find the Simon on American Idol was mean to Paula. Oh, well I guess I’ll either fork over for Teen People magazine or TV Guide.
Herman » Mar 15, 2009 at 11:52 pm
RE: David Losh @ 15 –
I understand the dilemma.
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 11 –
The current state of affairs you refer to is because the process has already been unfolding for 10-15 years. The death of the PI is not the starting point. It is simply another milestone. Cost-cutting, the AP, consolidation, proliferation of cable channels, and conglomerate ownership of news media has taken its toll.
The quality of the journalism has been so battered over those years that you’ll have lost respect for it long before the presses stop.
Herman » Mar 15, 2009 at 11:55 pm
By Scotsman @ 12:
Ironically, NPR and PBS might be the best and most skeptical news resources left.
David Losh » Mar 16, 2009 at 7:23 am
RE: Herman @ 18 – RE: Herman @ 19 –
Who are you and what did you do with Herman, again excellent points.
Ira sacharoff » Mar 16, 2009 at 7:26 am
RE: PIsiteisdown @ 17 –
PI website is up again this morning.
Kary L. Krismer » Mar 16, 2009 at 7:46 am
RE: Ira sacharoff @ 22 – But without soundoffs apparently.
BTW, I agree with Herman in 19. Only I sort of wonder whose fault it is. It seems like the public isn’t that into real news, so they try to adjust to what the public wants.
Chuck » Mar 16, 2009 at 10:18 am
No matter what else can be said, it’s really hard to light the fireplace with or housebreak the puppy on an online newspaper.
anony » Mar 16, 2009 at 10:57 am
I gave up the print version of the paper years ago because I found they were just piling up while I read the online versions. I do value what the reporting provides though. Contrary to what Herman says, I do think they still get some good “scoops” and papers around the country will sometimes pick up a Times or PI story. They do justify some of the cost (not enough, because other papers don’t have any money either) since they pay the Times or PI for rights to reprint the story. I think the papers have always been better news sources than TV just because TV format lends itself to more sensationalistic, superficial, lazy thinking.
The real problem isn’t what people pay for, it is that the newspapers lost their monopoly on print ads. An ad in the paper used to be the only and best way to advertise your car, house, skis, available jobs, or whatnot, and I believe it was a significant source of revenue. Now it is much easier to go to Craigslist or a host of other websites, so how do the papers make money? The 50 cents to buy the paper doesn’t even pay for printing costs, they need to make it on ads.
I guess the answer is no, I won’t miss the print version, but I do hope they find a way to make money off of decent investigative reporting.
Kary L. Krismer » Mar 16, 2009 at 11:00 am
Web only it is.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29722882/
anony » Mar 16, 2009 at 11:41 am
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/403793_piclosure17.html
“Steven Swartz, president of Hearst Newspapers, said in the release the Web site “isn’t a newspaper online — it’s an effort to craft a new type of digital business with a robust, community news and information Web site at its core.”
He continued: “The Web is first and foremost a community platform, so we’ll be featuring new columns from prominent Seattle residents; more than 150 reader blogs, community databases and photo galleries. We’ll also be linking to the great work of other Web sites and blogs in the community.”"
It doesn’t sound like the web version will have much of a focus on hard nosed investigative journalism.
td » Mar 16, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Herman makes an excellent point. Local newspapers keep the businesses, politicians, and citizens in check. Unfortunately the PI hasn’t been a true investigative reporting operation for quite some time.
deejayoh » Mar 16, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Seattle P-I to publish last edition Tuesday
By DAN RICHMAN AND ANDREA JAMES
P-I REPORTERS
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer will roll off the presses for the last time Tuesday….
as reported in the PI!