After Buyouts and Layoffs, Nearly Two Dozen People Will Leave the Seattle Times Newsroom

Comments

1
The first person who ought to be laid off is Frank Blethen.
2
@1, I loathe Frank Blethen just as much as anyone else, but let's be clear here. The layoffs we've been seeing at the Times have far less to do with the Times' management than they do with the bottom falling out of the news industry's business model.
3
Daily print newspapers are a dying product, for the most part, across the country. The fault lies with consumers who don't want the product, not the people that make the product. It's really that simple and is what the social justice crowd needs to understand.
4
Really hate to see this happen, even though I often dislike the editorial bent of the Times. I worry about The Stranger too . . . Today's remedy: subscribe to the Times again.
5
"Analytics." My ass. Garbage in, garbage out.
7
@6: Well, that's my point. Blaming consumers is ridiculous. Pardon me, I thought that was self-evident.
8
@7, if it was self-evident, why post it? And why the "social justice" sneer? Unless you think it's not sad that people who have less money get thrown off the bus more easily than people who've built up retirement/savings, etc.?
9
The day The Seattle Times announces the deprecation of the Editorial section is the day I re-subscribe.
10
It's always been about ad revenue in the newspaper business, not street corner purchases or subscriptions. You can go back to the 1950s and even then ad revenue was king. By putting the online edition behind a paywall, the Times (and other newspapers nationwide) made the online versions subscriber-dependent. When people who once accessed the Web paper free didn't subscribe, eyeballs for the online ads dropped (and continue to do so), so ad revenue (what was the real cash cow for any newspaper) declined. Nationwide, the industry made a collectively stupid decision when it came to the online product (forgetting there are other free news sources people will access) and suffers for it. Perceived short-term gain turned into long-term loss.
11
@8: It's always sad getting laid off, it's happened to me - three times. But it's not getting "thrown off the bus", it's the employer not being able to meet payroll without cutting employees that don't have critical skills.
12
@8

"And why the "social justice" sneer?"

Kind of surprising he didn't say something about Clinton and corruption.
13
I subscribe to a couple of popular magazines and would bring them to work and drop them off in the break room and other employees would read them. Increasingly, over just the past year or so, all the magazines do is collect dust. Everybody is on their phones, and I mean everyone.

I can't remember the last time I saw a newspaper there.
14
The customers still want their product, they just want it for free. It is no different than music. Except in this case what hit the newspaper business the hardest was the loss of classified ad revenue. Of course the balkanization and trivialization of news doesn't help. When an increasingly cynical, ignorant populace only wants information that fits their own world view, mainstream newspapers are bound to have trouble maintaining quality.
15
No self-respecting Seattle resident should be giving their money to the Seattle Times. Their right-wing editorial page, which spits in the face of our city's values, is reason enough to not subscribe. But their news side isn't much better. Their stories are repeatedly biased, especially against progressive ideas and against social justice. Some of this comes from biased reporters, but a lot of it comes from biased news editors. It's not that the editorial page dictates news coverage, it's more that the editors on both sides of the wall share the same biases, and that's likely a deliberate result of Frank Blethen's hiring decisions.

In any case, subscribing to the Seattle Times is no different than writing a check to Fox News. Don't do it. Withhold your money until they are forced to make substantial changes in how they cover our community.
16
'When an increasingly cynical, ignorant populous only wants information that fits their own world view' What!?! Who made to you Czar of Information to The Masses? Shall we make reporters disappear who hold views different from yours, your Highness? Please show us the way!
17
@15, you got a typo. It's not the right wing editorial page, it's the Left Wing.
18
Drain the swamp. Seattle Times done. DORI MONSON SHOW 12-3 ratings SOARING!
19
@18 Probably because of all the brainwashed idiots who stupidly believe that FOX-TV is news.
I'll pass.
20
@15 - are you kidding? the times publishes countless puff pieces about the plight of the homeless, the "trans" community, etc. often times with the comment section turned off. just the other day, the article about jayapal getting shut down began with comments on. they were mostly mocking her, but not over the top rude. then comments were shut off.

the times seems to be lock step with the "progressive" blatherings of the council, mayor and the social justice regime.
21
Lack of Readership, Subscriptions, and Advertising Revenue are responsible for this. The Times didn't change early enough with the times. And now it's too late. Why would someone want to buy it? It's in bad shape. With no real plan to fix it. It will survive in some fashion. Like all newspapers across the country. It's go Electronic, or die.

Corporate is not to blame. But Seattlites themselves. They stopped subscribing to The Times. They choose to get their news elsewhere. Not because the Times is/was bad. it's just more convenient to people to get their news on their Electronic Devices. Whether it be Phone, Tablet, App, PC, etc. We're all guilty of it. Newspapers have a history of coming and going. This one is slooooowly going. it's a sign of the times. (no pun intended)

I myself, do not want to read a newspaper. I want to see my news on a screen, no where else. In that format I get to pick and chose the news that I see. I also get to pick the viewpoint of the news that I chose to read. That cannot be done with a newspaper.

It all comes down to choice. Read a newspaper or not. Read your news on a screen or not.
23
In this Age of Trump, it is vital to have a strong press. Agree or not with its edit policy, the Times news columns with pros writing the news more important than ever. Subscribe, quote and support a free press.
24
If the Times is like many other newspapers around the country it's expensive to publish a daily paper. Around 14% of the cost goes to the Editorial part, the editors, reporters etc. The rest of the cost is the atoms, the forests they cut down, the pulp to make paper (and the pollution in air and water), the printing presses and toxic ink they use and finally the huge fleet of trucks, vans and cars used to deliver that daily paper to your doorstep, coffee shop, stores and vending machines everywhere. The carbon footprint is enormous, and it's Everyday. Then at the end of the day it's trash. Everyday.

Yeah, you can recycle newsprint, but that takes a lot of energy too and the ink extracted is toxic waste.

Everyone who subscribes to the Seattle Times, gets it delivered or buy one on the run in a store covers about 3 or 4% of the cost of the daily paper. You really don't pay for the news, the advertising does. Just like you don't pay for radio or broadcast TV.

Nordstrom or Bartells don't know how many eyes see their ads and fliers. As one department store said last century 'I know half my newspaper advertising money is wasted, I just don't know what half.' Now online, the advertisers can count the clicks and negotiate a more realistic cost. The Times with a pay wall is not helping itself.
25
@21: The PI was my paper to subscribe to. When they pulled the plug on that, no way I was going to prop up the Blethen Pep Rally.
26
@23 understands. Please read and heed.