The Times Wins 9-0
Justice Chambers opened last Thursday’s decision in Hearst Communications v. Seattle Times Company with another lament about his current position:
We are asked to interpret the Joint Operating Agreement between the two daily metropolitan newspapers serving the greater Seattle area. We are told that our decision could lead to the closing of one of these newspapers. The advantages of having two great newspapers in our state’s largest city, each with an independent editorial and reportorial voice, are numerous and we do not address our task lightly. Our duty, however, is to interpret and apply the law.
The rest of the decision is fairly mundane. The court unanimously found that the force majeure clause – the part which dealt with strikes, terrorist attacks, etc. – is clearly distinct from the section which spells out in careful detail what constitutes a loss year for one of the two papers. The ruling allows the Times to claim both 2000 and 2001 as loss years which, when added to 2002, allow the Times to end the Joint Operating Agreement (JOA). Hearst Communications has stated that without the JOA the Post-Intelligencer may not survive. So today the future looks a little dimmer for the Post-Intelligencer, but this is just one battle is larger contract war. For a little more background, read The Stranger’s pre-decisions blog entry.
Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.