In the case of the P-I that's exactly what was happening. Hearst gutted it once subscription numbers swayed in the 1980s. They never gave equal advertising money to the P-I as they had claimed they would and they never supported the paper after the JOA, but rather put the Times into direct competition with the P-I by making a morning edition of the Times. What was done to the SF papers under their JOA is the same thing that was done to the P-I/Times by the same corporation. Hearst hates competition, even when they own it.
The thing that really makes me sad is that the P-I predates the Seattle Times by 40 years; it's our original paper and seeing it go down with such a sad little whimper hurts the history-buff in me as well as the former journalist.
Here's the real irony of the death of the P-I, though: Hearst has owned both papers since 1921, but it bought the P-I first. The Times was the progressive paper originally. Once Hearst bought out the Times, it became the conservative paper and the P-I became the progressive paper. The JOA of the 1970s was actually the beginning of the end for the P-I, not its salvation as hoped. A rash of high-profile prizes saved the P-I from going down a long time ago.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: Thu, Mar. 12th, 2009 09:46 pm (UTC)The thing that really makes me sad is that the P-I predates the Seattle Times by 40 years; it's our original paper and seeing it go down with such a sad little whimper hurts the history-buff in me as well as the former journalist.
Here's the real irony of the death of the P-I, though: Hearst has owned both papers since 1921, but it bought the P-I first. The Times was the progressive paper originally. Once Hearst bought out the Times, it became the conservative paper and the P-I became the progressive paper. The JOA of the 1970s was actually the beginning of the end for the P-I, not its salvation as hoped. A rash of high-profile prizes saved the P-I from going down a long time ago.