If The Seattle Times Co. and The Hearst Corp. get their way, you
won't be reading much about their bitter, high-stakes legal fight for
the next year or so.
It's moved behind closed doors. And the companies have vowed not to talk about it.
Last month, The Times and Hearst, owner of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer,
decided to settle their differences through binding arbitration,
confirming a tentative agreement first announced in late March.
Their dispute will be decided not in King County Superior Court,
where it started three years ago, but by a private arbitrator
handpicked by the two companies. If everything is on track, their
lawyers already have started filing papers with him.
Arbitrator Larry Jordan's decision, due by next May 31, could affect
the futures of both newspapers. If the former judge rules for The
Times, the P-I could close. While other parties could weigh in
later, Jordan's decision will be final as far as the two companies are
concerned -- no appeal. ...
...The central question Jordan must answer is the one Hearst posed
when it sued The Times in 2003: Has The Times really lost money, as it
says, under its joint-operating agreement (JOA) with Hearst? If his
answer is yes, the P-I's days could be numbered. ...
...The more-recent loss notices indicate Times newsroom spending
continued to grow, by 6 percent in 2003 and 5 percent in 2004, before
dipping 1 percent in 2005. Those numbers could provide more ammunition
for Hearst's lawyers. ...
...Rick Edmonds, a researcher at the Poynter Institute for
Media Studies in St. Petersburg, Fla., said the drop in The Times'
newsroom employment in 2003 and 2004 was fairly typical of large
metropolitan papers, perhaps slightly larger.
But while "granted, they had some unusual circumstances, they were
kind of plunging to bring that many people on in 2002," said Edmonds,
who monitors newsroom employment nationally.
More of this article...
Search Google News for more quotes by Rick Edmonds...
