You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front Economy
Seattle P-I staff asking for donations
2009-03-05
A movement is stirring to keep the Seattle Post Intelligencer going. According to a P-I employee website, journalists plan to keep an online version of their paper going for at least a couple of months if the paper stops publishing, which could happen mid-March.

The goal is to get subscribers and philanthropists to fund the online version.
As opposed to advertisers and investors ...
"In the short run, the hope really lies with grant makers, foundations, and individuals who have a large sum of money at their disposal and want to invest it in their community to support journalism that goes two, three, or four layers deep," said Reporter Daniel Lathrop.

P-I staffers point to successful online papers in Minnesota and San Diego. They think the same type of models could work in Seattle and believe people appreciate the kind of watch-dog and community reporting the P-I offers.

The Hearst Corporation, the P-I's owner, plans to sell the newspaper if no buyer steps forward.
Posted by:Steve White

#17  thanks, Dar, for crushing my schadenfreude :-(

/JK - he'll bring that sparkle of superiority and disdain for the advertising market to the online version. Wish we could short now, but it's hard to gain profit when they move from 0 value to...virtual 0 value
Posted by: Frank G   2009-03-05 20:36  

#16  Rather I should have said "implies".
Posted by: Dar   2009-03-05 20:10  

#15  Sorry, Frank--this article indicates that McCumber will be moving to the online-only P-I.
Posted by: Dar   2009-03-05 20:09  

#14  Seattle P-I Editor: 'We Get to Decide What Is News and What Isn't'
Seattle Post-Intelligencer Managing Editor David McCumber has posted a blog item defending his decision to not run the photos of the two ferry passengers the FBI is seeking in order to question them about their suspicious activities on several Seattle-area ferries in recent weeks.

McCumber says the paper didn't consider the photos news-worthy.

I certainly have plenty of feedback to consider from the ferry photo issue as we go forward.

I understand that people have a hard time with the concept that we get to decide what is news and what isn't, and what is fair and what isn't.

Several people have basically told me I didn't have the right to withhold the photos of the individuals the FBI want to identify. One person even said, "You have a responsibility to obey all FBI directives."

That's not the way a free press works.

If everything any government authority handed us was automatically unquestioned "news," we would be a state-run newspaper. Strangely, some of the same people who have made arguments that we should unquestioningly follow the FBI's directives are also very critical of "big government."

This afternoon I got a call from a Washington State Ferries captain who thanked me sincerely for the decision not to run the photos. He said he feared we were moving to some sort of brown-shirt state where hysteria replaced reason.

He ended our short conversation by quoting Benjamin Franklin:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporaray safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I think there are very good arguments on both sides of this issue. The captain -- and old Ben -- expressed what I consider to be the controlling point here more eloquently than I was able to myself.

Thanks for considering all sides of this. We certainly have.

McCumber's tale of a conveniently unnamed ferry captain calling him and quoting Ben Franklin sounds a little to convenient for me to accept that it really happened, but even if it did, it's irrelevant. There was no liberty issue at stake involving the photos - which were, after all, just photos of two men in a public place. The P-I runs pictures of unidentified people in public places all the time.

I guarantee you that the P-I has, at some point during McCumber's time as the paper's managing editor, run a photo of random unidentified people on a ferry, either in conjunction with a story about the ferry system, or as stand-alone art.

McCumber, then, believes pictures of unidentified people on a ferry are newsworthy only as long as the pictures are not connected to an FBI effort to ensure the safety of the thousands of people who ride the ferries every day.

But of course the photos of the mystery men were newsworthy - otherwise, McCumber 's paper would not have published two stories about them and the FBI's search for the two men. If the story was newsworthy - and the P-I clearly thought it was - then the photos were newsworthy, too.

And yet the paper chose not to publish them.

Because, as McCumber asserts, "We get to decide what is news and what isn't."


One can hope McCumber was one of the first assholes out the door, and immediately set upon by starved rabid weasels. I'd consider that news
Posted by: Frank G   2009-03-05 18:59  

#13  A suggestion for the paper's final headline: "Rosebud".
Posted by: DMFD   2009-03-05 18:41  

#12  They didn't get the message. The lefties concept of charity is to use 'other' people's money to contribute as compared to conservatives who use their own money to contribute. Since their remaining readership would be largely composed of the former, the 'donations' are likely to less than what is needed for operations. Like most lefties the market system [as in know your customer base] is something foreign to them.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-03-05 15:53  

#11  I live in Seattle - I have $5. I'll buy it.

As long as I can fire the editors, writers, and reporters. Watching them take their agenda out the door in grocrey carts would almost be worth five bucks.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2009-03-05 15:46  

#10  How much would it take to make you go away - forever?
Posted by: Richard of Oregon   2009-03-05 15:25  

#9  Sorry, Heather. The federal government rewards failure. I don't.
Posted by: tu3031   2009-03-05 15:05  

#8  To the media elite this sentence probably makes sense.

The Hearst Corporation, the P-I's owner, plans to sell the newspaper if no buyer steps forward.

Heather, you need some remedial work at a Journalism Summer School.
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2009-03-05 14:13  

#7  I'll gladly donate a middle finger salute.

Two, even.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2009-03-05 13:48  

#6  I'm willing to toss in a sawbuck if they video themselves doing Jackass stunts and post them on the website.
Posted by: ed   2009-03-05 13:48  

#5  Seriously, did they ever consider giving the readers what they want, instead of what the paper chose to ram down their throats?

Betcha the answer's a huge NO.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2009-03-05 13:32  

#4  Pull the Obama signs off the editors' walls and burn them for heat.
Posted by: Dar   2009-03-05 12:18  

#3  Send 'em some canned food.
Posted by: mojo   2009-03-05 12:14  

#2  Blood and souls for my Lord Soros!
Posted by: Mitch H.   2009-03-05 11:53  

#1  SOS (Soros Our Souls)!

And only in newspaper land would the following sentence make sense:

The Hearst Corporation, the P-I's owner, plans to sell the newspaper if no buyer steps forward.

Posted by: charger   2009-03-05 11:50  

00:00