The bad news: The Seattle Post-Intelligencer publishes its last print edition tomorrow. The good news: Hearst, after needless dilly-dallying over what should have been a fairly obvious decision, has announced that it will continue SeattlePI.com as "the leading news and information portal in the region."
Hearst Newspapers President Steven Swartz says the post-newspaper site "isn't a newspaper online—it's an effort to craft a new type of digital business with a robust, community news and information Web site at its core."
Hopefully, that includes lots of aggregation, reader engagement, social tools, user-generated content and other Webby features that will distinguish it from a newspaper-on-a-screen. If Hearst can use this opportunity for some bold experimentation in what a local news-based online site can become—and find an ad-based business model to support it—this could be a watershed moment in new media, and a model for other publishers to follow as the presses begin to go silent. Godspeed.
No surprise there. The shutdown of the print product of the Post-Intelligencer was something that many people saw coming for quite some. It'll be interesting to see where that publication goes from there.
Posted by: Walter L. Johnson II | March 16, 2009 at 02:16 PM
Not sure that success in this case is really a watershed moment. The PI has all but given up the real intent of journalism. With a staff of 20 it would be hard pressed to cover anything more than a 3-car crash.
Finding a way to aggregate a bunch of local content, unfiltered through the rigors of journalistic training is not what we need. We need a newspaper to find a way to embrace technology and deliver more content that matters.
Posted by: Todd Copilevitz | March 16, 2009 at 07:35 PM
How long will the online only P-I survive? Vote in my poll.
Posted by: Mike | March 16, 2009 at 08:30 PM
A staff of 20 may still be too many to support. Journalism's been separated from money.
At best, that separation is temporary; at worst, it's permanent.
On the positive side, a lot of reporting work currently done is in the form of features, particularly of the fluff kind, and re-writing press releases and blotter reports.
Both can be done by almost anyone without the time and money currently devoted. The time saved can at least begin to counterbalance the fewer number of paid staff.
Making up the rest? I guess we're banking on links, volunteers, and some luck (in particular, that online advertising can hold anyone's attention).
But regardless, we'd better start testing these theories, because the research is in, and conclusive, on the current system.
Posted by: James daSilva | March 17, 2009 at 12:39 AM