5 Reasons Hearst Should Go Online-Only in Seattle

The suits at Hearst Corp. are cogitatin’ furiously about what to do with the teetering Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The deal is entangled in a web of union contracts and a joint operating agreement with the equally teetersome Seattle Times that makes the decision even messier.

One option for Hearst: To keep the P-I alive as an online-only newspaper.

Why this would be the best option if not for Hearst, then for. . .everyone. [The following points assume the Times would survive as a print newspaper--not guaranteed but perhaps more likely if Paper No. 2 disappears from the market.]

1. This would be the first case I’m aware of where a major metropolitan daily went web-only, providing at least a partial proof-of-concept case study. Get rid of the trucks, the newsprint and paper-only support staff [sorry; not all jobs can survive] and determine whether online revenues can support a vital, or at least competent, newsroom.

2. It would help answer a key question: Do competing newsrooms produce journalism that better serves the public interest than a monopoly newsroom alone? Or does the competition create a race to the bottom? A scrappy online-only competitor to the Times would test that case in the new environment.

3. It would force the paper-bound Times to compete, hard and daily, for online audience, ensuring staff develop the fast-and-sharp, multimedia-focused, link-rich journalism chops necessary to thrive in the developing news world.

4. It would therefore force the old dogs to learn new tricks or get the hell out of the way more effeciently than buyouts, firings or any of those bootless “writing for the web” or “video 101″ seminars.

5. It would preserve real jobs. In this economy, any corporate leaders who choose to responsibly preserve paychecks over habits acquire a gigantic karmic IOU. Redeemable in the next life, if not later in this.