http://seattlest.com/2009/02/11/why_the_pee_eye_is_doomed.php All comments for Why the P-I Is Doomed en-us 2009 seattle_seth Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:15:00 -0800 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss sek@sethkolloen.com sek@sethkolloen.com 60 http://seattlest.com/2009/02/11/why_the_pee_eye_is_doomed.php#comment-1586354 http://seattlest.com/2009/02/11/why_the_pee_eye_is_doomed.php#comment-1586354 Comments Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:48:47 -0800 <p>First, P-I circulation is about 132,000, not "200,000 or so." Hearst is shutting down the P-I. They're not going to sink substantial money into it, and it would take substantial money to do what you're talking about. Sure, they might keep something going as an experiment, but it would be with a few tech people and a small editorial staff. And it would still lose money. From Hearst's point of view they know exactly what they're doing: getting rid of a money-loser. Not a business person, are you? </p>