Um.

Ok.

Why should we in Seattle care about a suburban paper like the Seattle Times that has nothing to do with us?

I mean, seriously?

Will: Fuck you.

Can we please have a chorus of "shut up, Will" now?

I'm in the chorus. Rot in hell, Wil.

Patrick MacDonald's last day was Friday. Unless he decides to retire, I would think he should get a job pretty fast, but with this economy, who knows. Maybe he should have done like Cameron Crowe and gone into film making.

It's not just the Times: it's happening at every newspaper in this country. My pals from the NYT and all the way to LAT are shaking in their boots. Buyout is the new black. Newspapers fell asleep at the switch in 1992: anyone in the business KNEW this was coming. The Internet was referred to as "tablet technology" way back when - in 1992, in fact, when I went to a Society of Newspaper Design conference (to think that there was a time when there was an SND).

News flash: cutbacks at all media outlets nationwide due to corporations cutting back on advertising during recession.

In the old days, papers used to have corner ad slugs on the front, including the Times.

Adapt or die.

(I used to deliver advertising tear sheets so don't whine about how good it used to be ...)

Strangers next....

They are in the process of regrouping and figuring out who does what going forward

Kind of like Dino Rossi and his campaign? You know, the guy the Times unanimously endorsed and who only got 35% of the vote in King County (and probably about 20% in Seattle)?

Or like the Stranger, which endorsed the war in Iraq?

ok, now I'm torn between @9 and @10.

Maybe I'll just go back to reading the Wall Street Journal and laughing at Mort Drucker losing half his wealth in a Ponzi scheme ...

Why should we in Seattle who aren't students/staff/faculty care about a college paper like the Daily at UW that has nothing to do with us?

I mean, seriously?

I don't understand why The Times is "in the process of regrouping and figuring out." Didn't they just have a round of layoffs in May? Why didn't they have a plan to move forward after that round?

They certainly didn't do much to save themselves after May. They cut their content, lost Postman before the elections, combined their sections and started to charge more.

More money for less? It all seems very suspicious to me.

My theory is that Boardman is secretly working for Hearst to run The Times into the ground and will get a hefty bonus when the paper goes up for sale.

you may be right, @13. stranger things have happened.

that said, NYT stock is a buy if you can wait ten years.

I wonder what the mood is like over at KUOW?

I wonder what the mood is like at the Ballard Burger King?

Hey, didn't Union Bay just make deep cuts?


Dom, the Stranger is immune, right?

You guys hiring?

Boardman's not at fault here.
But I wish someone would dig into why the Times, P-I and (Tacoma) News Tribune all downsized to three section on the same day.
Couldn't have been merely a coincidence ...

I wish the papers, both the Times and the PI, would stop merely shrinking but also start adapting to a recession and to New Media. I'm not seeing any "change" other than a steadily shrinking number of pages in the paper delivered to my house daily...that's not adaptation. Silly me I prepaid my subscription through next July, but I have my doubts either paper will be in business that long.

Simac has a point.

It's like Vanity Fair going from 400 page issues down to 250 pages - but still the same format.

I don't understand how people can be so blasé about the fact that Seattle may soon become a "one paper town." To me, losing one of our two daily papers means, like losing the Seattle Sonics, that Seattle is ceasing to be a "World Class City." You can be all hipper than thou, but I like being proud of where I live. I've lived in Seattle for almost 20 years and in Washington over 40 so I think I have a right to say that.

And, btw, without the Times or the P-I, the Stranger would have one less source for its local news (since all their reporters, except for Jonah, seem to be busy posting on the Slog instead of going out into the field and do some reporting).

@16: The Times and the P-I share advertising, production and circulation. So it's hardly a coincidence the change was made for both papers.

Can't speak to the TNT.