http://seattlest.com/2006/03/10/post_intelligencer_death_watch.php All comments for Post Intelligencer Death Watch en-us 2009 seattle_james Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:30:00 -0800 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss scarequotes@gmail.com scarequotes@gmail.com 60 http://seattlest.com/2006/03/10/post_intelligencer_death_watch.php#comment-163024 http://seattlest.com/2006/03/10/post_intelligencer_death_watch.php#comment-163024 Comments Fri, 10 Mar 2006 13:27:26 -0800 <p>Now if the argument is about an online only Post Intelligencer I would be very interested in seeing them try to do something like that. I think it would ultimately fail, but I would love to see it.</p> http://seattlest.com/2006/03/10/post_intelligencer_death_watch.php#comment-163021 http://seattlest.com/2006/03/10/post_intelligencer_death_watch.php#comment-163021 Comments Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:26:26 -0800 <p>What bugs me about the P-I/Times discussion frequently is how often people present a one town/one-newspaper scenario as a fait accompli. A huge amount of business politicking is going on behind the scenes between the Blethens/Knight-Ridder and the Hearst Corp. that has nothing to do with anything other than jockeying for market dominance. Hearst would very likely be happy to let the P-I go under if they could make an offer on the Times instead: they did that recently with the San Francisco Examiner and then bought the Chronicle. But this new media/old media argument is largely specious. Old media (in theory) pays its way with researched, reliable news that comes out of a highly evolved structure. New media's presence is often frankly parasitic when it comes to fact-finding (rather than gossip-finding). It's simply not there (yet) as a primary news source.</p>