I grew up reading two local Seattle newspapers every day. Beginning in the 4th grade and continuing through most of my life, when I lived in Seattle that is, I would read the Seattle Post Intelligencer in the morning and the Seattle Times in the evening. Sometime in the 80′s, I think, the two papers began operating under a ‘JOA’ (joint operating agreement); citing financial reasons so they began using the same advertising and operations departments but leaving the editorial functions separate. Many of us bemoaned that action mostly because we said the quality of the papers would be negatively affected.

Sometime during the 90′s, I think, the Seattle Times announced it would begin publishing only a morning paper citing the fact that late-in-the day readership was falling and it’s ability to cover breaking news was out-performed by electronic media. Many of us bemoaned that action mostly because we said the quality of the papers would be negatively affected and the competition for both papers to get the best stories, each of which had carved out a special place in our daily rituals, would be impacted.

Sometime in 2006 I stopped my subscriptions to both papers and started picking up only the occasional single issue at newsstands, most often the Sunday combined issue.   I enjoy the special sections offered on Sunday, the editorial pages for both papers are included in this combo issue and,  truthfull, I’m addicted to the advertising inserts after more than 25 years in the advertising industry I find glancing at the inserts is one way to get a quick cultural reference point as to what is going on in the world of commerce. When I did read the regular pages I noticed fewer and fewer articles written by local reporters while more stories were date-lined from other cities where either one or both of the newspapers had affiliates.  Recently I noticed the honest-to-goodness breaking story about a new cancer treatment discovered at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center – located less than 1 mile from the offices of either paper – was written by the AP and printed verbatim by both.

Sometime in the early part of this decade both papers began reducing page counts and then eliminating editorial staff – citing dwindling advertising sales, specifically classified advertising – which was a cash cow for papers. as it brought in immediate cash for liquidity and thousands of readers  who had no other avenues to find ‘things’ – which added to the sales rate and thusly could result in higher ad rates for the display advertisers.  Both papers suggested they would be able to offer more in-depth coverage on issues and topics online at less cost. They added sales staff specific to their online sites.  Many of us bemoaned that action mostly because we said the quality of the papers would be negatively affected – but I subscribed to the email alerts from both papers just the same.

Evidently old habits die hard and quite possibly those who decide what goes into the watered-down daily papers are sitting on the editorial desk at the online version too, at least at the Seattle Times, if the quality of editorial judgment as to what constitutes “Breaking News” is considered.

Here’s the Seattle Time Breaking News email I received today:

yep.  That’s breaking news.  Not the critical issues of the middle east  where it’s heating up between Israel and the factions trying to control the Gaza strip.  And certainly not the issues regarding the huge budget deficits faced by the state, cities and counties – not the flood damages and snow slides in the passes due to the dramatic weather conditions of late.  Nor, evidently  is it important to call attention to the ‘hide-the-weenie’ political games being played by the Governor, Country Exec and Mayor with a 90day postponement on the decision on what to do about the Alaskan Way Viaduct

Nope. It’s all about switching to salt. I wonder if one of the affiliate papers in Detroit or Cleveland will pick up that story?