• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

The end of the San Francisco Chronicle is threatened

Hugh

Member
February 25, 2009
Hearst Threatens to End San Francisco Paper
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
Hearst Corporation said Tuesday that it would close or sell The San Francisco Chronicle unless it could wring concessions from its unions, raising the prospect of San Francisco becoming the largest city in the country to lose its dominant newspaper.

Hearst said The Chronicle, which has daily circulation of 339,000, lost more than $50 million in 2008 and will lose more this year. It has had significant losses every year since 2001.

“Without the specific changes we are seeking across the entire Chronicle organization, we will have no choice but to quickly seek a buyer for The Chronicle or, should a buyer not be found, to shut the newspaper down,” said a statement by Frank A. Bennack Jr., Hearst’s vice chairman and chief executive, and Steven R. Swartz, president of its newspaper division. The company did not specify those changes, other than “a significant reduction in the number of its unionized and nonunion employees.”

The California Media Guild, which represents many Chronicle employees, had no immediate response to the ultimatum, which union officials said surprised them.

A Hearst executive called the statement “a warning” to the unions, and said that the company did not want to close the paper. He was granted anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for the company.

Hearst owned The San Francisco Examiner for more than a century, but the rival Chronicle became the city’s dominant paper. In 2000, Hearst bought The Chronicle for $660 million, and sold The Examiner. But it kept many Examiner workers, significantly increasing the size and cost of The Chronicle’s staff.

Since 2006, newspaper advertising revenue has plunged nationwide, and more so in California. The Chronicle has made deep cuts, signed a contract to outsource printing and explored selling its building. The Examiner, which has a much smaller staff, is now a free paper.
 
I don't think I've heard any newspaper owners threaten to end their paper. They all seem to have many other options. Even Detroit's daily paper is able to keep deliveries a few days a week. The NYT has gone to Carlos Slim twice now. I find it hard to believe that the San Francisco Chronicle would shut itself down without union concessions.
 
If they did "end", any idea if they would just axe their dead tree version and maintain the web presence?
 
I can't figure out exactly why I care about the demise of newspapers. I obviously don't read every city's local paper, why should I care? But I do, and it does sadden me to see them die off like this. I don't even read my own local paper, I subscribe to a national one, (the WSJ). Maybe it's just because ~I~ enjoy reading the paper so much, and I assume many others do as well. I'm sure there are many people out there who are on the verge of losing their local paper, a companion they've had every morning for most of their lives.
 
That was conspicuously absent from the article. I would guess that they will keep a web presence. Detroit's paper did.

If that's the case then I wouldn't exactly call it the demise of a particular newspaper but the evolution of it.

I read somewhere, Slashdot perhaps, that more or less stated the only real customers that remain of the traditional newspaper are the senior population and advertisers aren't really interested in that demographic, which leads to a lack of revenue and such things as forced furloughs (which our local paper has done, but remains suspiciously unreported) or worse.
 
Back
Top