Seattle Times losing $12M in '04, layoffs planned (On the Ropes!)

Puget Sound Business Journal ^ | 12/20/04 | various

[BurbankKarl]

Seattle Times losing $12M in '04, layoffs planned

The Seattle Times will lose more than $12 million in 2004 -- a record -- and plans layoffs and other cost-cutting measures, according to a memo to Times employees from president Carolyn Kelly.

"Our immediate objective is survival," Kelly wrote.

Staff reductions by early February are inevitable, and Times publisher Frank Blethen has signed off on downsizing recommendations, the memo said.

Kelly wrote the company has not made decisions on how many staff members will be affected and who will lose their jobs. The Times will freeze hiring for selected open staff positions.

The newspaper plans news space reductions, cutting back in the Sports, Ticket, NW Weekend and Wine sections, and eliminating movie listings three days per week.

Over the next year, the company will reduce the Sunday section by 130 pages, according to the memo. The Times also will cut back on travel coverage, shrink use of syndicated material and color, and reduce the number of pages in the TV book.

Other reductions listed in the memo include reducing market research projects, sponsorships, and United Way and other corporate giving. The paper will cut back on in-paper employment ads, reduce front-desk staffing, and scale back discretionary spending on meals, travel and conferences.

The Times has lost money for five straight years. Four years ago, revenue fell by $50 million in one year, and the company has never recovered, Kelly wrote.

A spokesperson for the Times, Kerry Coughlin, said the cuts reflect the new fiscal "reality" of the current newspaper industry and are aimed at "getting the company realigned with the new financial picture.

[BlessedBeGod]

Thanks for letting me know all of that! I'm from Illinois and pretty unfamiliar with what's going on in Washington, aside from Gregoire and the election. If she mentions the layoffs again, I'll have to bring those things up.

[Southack]

When the need for pure entertainment strikes, many Hollywood moguls go back to the tried and true. They know that some movies are just so bad...that watching them becomes funny, rip roaring funny. Suddenly, you aren't laughing because the actress told a joke or because an actor hit his buddy on the head with a frying pan, but rather, you start laughing at the movie itself. We laugh at the fishing line that we can see holding up the hub cap that is pretending to be a spaceship in Plan Nine From Outer Space. We laugh at tomatoes chasing down and "attacking" people. We laugh at Jennifer Lopez playing a lesbian gangster in love with a man named Gigli. This sort of notoriously bad entertainment even spawned its own hilarious television series, MST3000. Some things are just so bad that they become funny...pause... When they're mocked.

Seattle got its own firsthand taste of this sort of "entertainment" from the editors of the Seattle Times on Friday, August 27th. In what may very well come to be regarded as the worst editorial ever published in American history, the editors of the Seattle Times managed to neglect facts, omit details, and self-contradict their own logic in why they endorsed Senator John Kerry for the Presidency in 2004.

Now in all fairness, Senator Kerry may have some good points, it's just that the Seattle Times couldn't figure out what they were. The editors opened up their "endorsement" by first saying "Four years ago, this page endorsed George W. Bush for president. We cannot do so again - because of an ill-conceived war..."

Now this is truly funny. Senator Kerry and President Bush have *both* said that knowing today what they didn't know in 2003, that they would both still authorize an invasion to stop Saddam Hussein from funding the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, shooting at UN authorized aircraft patrolling Iraq's no fly zones, as well as harboring such terrorists as Abu Nidal, Abu Abas, and someone colloquially known as "al-Zarqawi."

So the Seattle Times' editors are essentially saying that even though *both* candidates hold the same position on invading Iraq, that they can't endorse President Bush for that position...again.

Oh, and that whole "again" thing isn't even accurate. Most people still believe that the Seattle Times originally endorsed VP Gore in 2000, but were overruled by the owners to endorse then-Governor Bush, for personal business reasons.

But wait, it gets better (or worse). Next, the Seattle Times' editors said "A less-belligerent, more-intelligent foreign policy should cause less anger to be directed at the United States." Apparently, our policy of being nice and "intelligent" prior to 9/11/2001 was a real winner, yes?!

Then there is this kicker: "Admittedly, Kerry's campaign rhetoric is even worse on trade. But for the previous 20 years, Kerry had a strong record in support of trade, and we have learned that the best guide to what politicians do is what they have done in the past, not what they say."

Wow! Senator Kerry's rhetoric is worse on trade, but the editors at the Seattle Times simply choose to not believe him, and this is their ENDORSEMENT of him!

Sadly, their endorsement editorial dives into some areas that aren't even funny. For one thing, the editors write "We also agree with Sen. Kerry that Social Security should not offer private accounts."

Anyone who doesn't want to privatize Social Security is one of two things: racist or uninformed. Black men average dying by age 62. Unprivatized Social Security benefits don't begin in full until age 65. If you want Black men to be able to pass their retirement benefits on to their heirs, then you have to privatize Social Security. As it stands, payments stop when you die. That's simply not acceptable, especially with Black men passing away, on average, before they receive their first payment.

The editors also display an ignorance of stem cells. They printed that "We disagree also with Bush's ban on federal money for research using any new lines of stem cells."

Except, President Bush's ban places no restrictions on animal stem cells (quick, call PETA!), just some restrictions on the abuse of human embryos and stem cells. This is entirely in line with where such early stage scientific research should be concentrating, anyway. If something promising can be shown with animal stem cells, then one can attempt to make the case for human research...not the other way around as the Seattle Times does in their comedic editorial on Friday.

The editors at the Seattle Times also didn't bother with full disclosure. Their President and COO Carolyn Kelly is a recent financial contributor to Patty ("Osama builds daycare centers") Murray. OK, now that *is* funny. However, anyone who can be taken in by either Osama Bin Laden or Patty Murray is hardly qualified to be giving fair minded Presidential endorsements in editorials.

For one thing, the Seattle Times doesn't point out Senator Kerry's strong points. His two decades of recent and current Senate service are essentially unmentioned in their endorsement editorial. Why? Surely they are proud of Senator Kerry's legislative accomplishments and Senate Intelligence committee attendance, right?!

For another thing, the editors didn't have the courage to list the positive accomplishments of Mr. Bush's Presidency, such as his delivering on his campaign promises of deploying our national missile defenses, cutting our taxes, giving raises to our military, paying for prescription drugs for senior citizens, as well as later disarming Libya of its WMD programs without further bloodshed in the Middle-East.

Nor did the editors at the Seattle Times focus on the direct campaign promises of Bush and Kerry for the future after this election. Omitted are President Bush's plans to offer private school choice scholarships for inner city minority children to get them out of failing schools. Missing is Senator Kerry's promise to Teamsters' President Hoffa to drill for oil in every inch of Alaska.

If their editorial endorsement had been a movie, one would have had no trouble finding holes in the plot. The people of Seattle deserve better Presidential evaluations...

...but at least they can mock the Seattle Times for having penned an editorial that finally makes "Swept Away" appear intellectually intriguing, by contrast.

[radiohead]

Both Papers Suck,Both Papers need to die!

I'm right w/you. They can't even tempt me with the free newspaper offers. Sometimes it's all I can do to stop myself from beating a poor newspaper box to death over some biased headline when I'm at the bus stop.

However, here's a serious question for anyone w/some extensive e-commerce experence. How much is it costing these newspapers to go online and how much (if any) revenue are they generating from their online sites?

What I'm getting at is, how much of these losses can we attibute to new technologies eating up profits and not contributing to revenue and how much to people just refusing to buy liberal lies? (not that that's a bad thing)

[NurdlyPeon]

As a life-long Seattle resident, I want to ping each and every person who has commented on this thread. 'Needs to die', 'piece of crap', 'wouldn't wrap fish'.... All I can say is "Testify brother Freepers, Testify". Thank you all.

[KevinDavis]

Where is Willie Green??? He usually posts this type of info..

[Political Junkie Too]

Other reductions listed in the memo include reducing market research projects, sponsorships, and United Way and other corporate giving.

Liberals abandon giving to the needy, but they'll keep the Wine section.

-PJ

[birbear]

However, here's a serious question for anyone w/some extensive e-commerce experence. How much is it costing these newspapers to go online and how much (if any) revenue are they generating from their online sites? What I'm getting at is, how much of these losses can we attibute to new technologies eating up profits and not contributing to revenue and how much to people just refusing to buy liberal lies? (not that that's a bad thing)

This may not be a direct answer to your question, just another way of thinking of it.

Newspapers make their money with ad revenue. Obviously if the major print media aren't being successful that means the ad revenue is going some place else (or management at the Seattle Times is fiscally irresponsible with the revenues they are generationg, which is an entirely different point).

Listening to Seattle radio, I'm sensing that more and more print advertisers are become radio advertisers. Seattle residents spend so much more time in their car and in front of their computer screens that I think it's eating into the print media market.

At least that's what I'm suspecting. Hopefully somebody with more e-commerce experience than me can directly answer your question.

[FreedomSurge]

Excellent point!

[radiohead]

Seattle residents spend so much more time in their car

Or whacking newspapers boxes at bus stops! I think you're on to something. Whether you're in the car or on the bus w/a walkman (I listen to talk, others may be listening to music), you spend a lot of time commuting in Seattle.

I bet few people have time to just sit w/the paper before they leave or when they come home. It's a quick glance and out of the door. And when you come home, there's tons of other stuff to do (like FReeping) besides read the paper. If customers don't catch an advertiser on the radio or tv, they don't catch it at all.

My last reason for getting the paper was for the Sunday food coupons. Now that I shop online, I can't use them (there are other ways of getting discounts), so byebye newspaper.

[Boazo]

WOW, Just in time for Christmas!!!

[birbear]

I haven't subscribed to a daily paper in over 3 years. My ex still gets the Times -- I steal the comics and the Parade section out of it most Sundays.

In the summer time I'll check out the sports section a little closer to follow baseball, but I can do all that online via Yahoo!

The only thing the newspaper is good for is to for something to read while sitting on the john.

[Moonman62]

I wonder if this is what it was like when buggy whips went out of style.

[Libertina]

shouldn't they follow that advise and just raise the price of their newspaper until they are prosperous?
ROTFLOL GREAT analogy! Oh the humanity, indeed!

[MarMema]

They can't even tempt me with the free newspaper offers.

They used to call us all of the time. My husband took great pleasure in having long conversations with them about why he would never consider spending money on their newspaper.

[nightdriver]

I only hope that the Post Intelligencer (or the "PI," as it is termed) is in equal or worse shape.

[Recovering_Democrat]

See ya later, socialist paper.

[BurbankKarl]

You rip off the paper from your ex?

Actually, if you actually need any news, just snake the sports section at Starbucks.

[Let's Roll]

Why yes ... I'm sure it's just that their message isn't getting out.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

Congrats to all those who canceled their subscription. It works.

I canceled my subscription to the Orlando Sentinel (a Tribune company) when they endorsed Scumbag in 1996. That was eight years ago and have not read a page from that liberal rag since.

Here is hoping more people follow suit. Boycott radical Marxist publications, shows and their sponsors.

[Psycho_Bunny]

If the knowledge that the Seattle Times is on the verge of Bankruptcy is the only Xmas present I get this year, I'll be happy as a clam.

Actually, knowing that employees are over there right now - even as I type this - talking and worried about losing their jobs puts a big smile on my face.

I can only hope that the PI is in the same financial straights.