Comments on this Story

Most Commented Stories Today
Most E-mailed Stories Today

Your comments....

Welcome to the story comments section of www.tucsoncitizen.com! We've recently made some improvements to our commenting system, and we'd like to share some helpful hints with you:

You must be logged in to comment or rate comments. Log in or create an account through our new registration system

All comments are subject to our guidelines (listed below) and our user agreement.

Comment ratings

You can rate other users' comments with a thumbs up/thumbs down rating, using the corresponding buttons that appear beneath each comment. The totals of thumbs up/thumbs down are displayed. Users are limited to one vote per comment and are not allowed to rate their own comments. Any registered user may rate comments.

User Guidelines

You share in the Tucson Citizen community, so please keep your comments smart and civil.

We encourage comments that are articulate, constructive and informative. We try to promote a healthy and creative community conversation, but our readers need to play their part. Debate and disagree, but 'play nice' while you voice your opinion.

The Tucson Citizen does not allow:

Comments that violate these guidelines may be removed.

Editing

Do we edit user comments? No.

Commentors are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. The content of comments is not edited. Users who violate these standards may lose their privileges on www.tucsoncitizen.com.

Reporting

Citizen editors can't read every post, all the time. Trolls, spammers and other troublemakers can slip past our radar. We rely on our commentors to help us maintain a healthy community conversation.

Our guidelines do not prohibit comments solely because they are heartless, cruel, coarse, mean, foolish or stupid. Disapproval by other commenters can keep those types of comments to a minimum. Ultimately, however, self-policing is the best method. In other words, don't be a jerk.

What can you do if you see something inappropriate in a comment? Use the 'Report' button to send the comment to a moderation queue. Appropriate action will be taken on violations reported to www.tucsoncitizen.com.

Justice Dept. questions potential Tucson Citizen buyers

The U.S. Department of Justice is investigating the sale of the Tucson Citizen by querying potential buyers about contact with the broker handling the sale.

Mar 3, 2009 @ 3:35pm
If the Citizen is putting restrictions on the sale, like requiring a printed version to protect their interest with the ADS, let their be no sympathy for their demise.
Report | Quote | -5 +17
Mar 3, 2009 @ 3:40pm
The "Citizen" isn't doing anything here. Its the owner of the Citizen, Gannnett, that is selling the paper.
Report | Quote | -3 +18
Mar 3, 2009 @ 3:43pm
The non-Citizen died many years ago when it started drinking the open-borders fanatics' kool-aid.

It's now just a rotting corpse that is stinking up Tucson.

Bury it.
Report | Quote | -7 +20
Mar 3, 2009 @ 3:47pm
Another fine example of top-notch Citizen investigative reporting.

Kind of like looking in the mirror and not seeing anything.

As a writer, I am laughing hysterically at this article, and very glad my name isn't on the byline.

When you write about yourself(s), it a given that you should know the facts.
Report | Quote | -5 +17
Mar 3, 2009 @ 4:38pm
QuoteThe U.S. Department of Justice is investigating the sale of the Tucson Citizen...


This is nothing. This is paperwork.
Report | Quote | -3 +13
Mar 3, 2009 @ 4:42pm
This is the same Robert Broadwater, managing director of Broadwater & Associates, which is sniffing around the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

An article in the Puget Sound Business Journal indicates the same cagy behavior and suspicious cryptic language that would make even the most naive yokel grab for his wallet.

I think the bottom line is someone smells blood in the water with both the P-I and Tucson Citizen and they are looking to make a killing one way or another.

Bottom line -- at best it is a cruel hoax and at worst it is a scam -- enter the Justice Department.
Report | Quote | -1 +17
Mar 3, 2009 @ 5:01pm
Spirit of Zenger. You said
"This is the same Robert Broadwater, managing director of Broadwater & Associates, which is sniffing around the Seattle Post-Intelligencer."

The Seattle PI is an EXCELLENT paper. It gets to the nitty gritty and independently reports what is really going on.
Something does not smell right with this.
Thanks. That answered my question.
Seattle PI publishes things you read about in the comments here from time to time - corruption and other things. They do alot of investigating reporting, a bit like Don Bolles used to do.
Report | Quote | -2 +13
Mar 3, 2009 @ 5:14pm
goodnight sweet prints...
Report | Quote | -2 +9
Mar 3, 2009 @ 5:44pm
Can the Citizen really afford to be this choosey?
I do fret about "youning it up" because I fear that will make it more liberal. I have preferred the more centrist leanings of the Citizen (of course, compared to the RedStar).
On the other hand, an online only paper maybe the only viable way.
How about a provisional ownership plan, where the "paper" goes exclusively online, subject to a 2yr test period afterwhich stakes can be renogotiated or conditions (like print-only) can be rescinded or reconsidered?
P.s., I agree, the Seattle Post Intelligencer is a terrific paper.
Report | Quote | -1 +9
Mar 3, 2009 @ 6:17pm
1967 wrote:If the Citizen is putting restrictions on the sale, like requiring a printed version to protect their interest with the ADS, let their be no sympathy for their demise.

A M E N. Couldn't have put it any better...
Report | Quote | -3 +9
Mar 3, 2009 @ 7:03pm
@Charlie1 & Tiebreaker & 1967,

The Citizen isn't putting restrictions on the sale. The Citizen isn't being "choosy" either. It's Gannett Corporate (GCI) that is putting these restrictions on the sale. Neither the Citizen nor Star have a say in the sale or the restrictions (or lack thereof) on the sale. Lee Enterprises is the only one that could possibly have any say in the matter. However, I highly doubt that Lee is doing that--they've got other things to worry about.

Of course, what nobody has reported is that GCI doesn't want to sell the paper. If they did, they'd put up the stake in the JOA as well. It's very clear that they don't want to sell the paper, but nobody will go on record (or even off the record, officially) and say that. Hence there's a lot of hemming and hawing with that Robert Broadwater character.

And as for the Seattle PI, it is a class act newspaper. I have some wonderful friends up there. I wish them nothing but the best of luck.


Report | Quote | -0 +13
Mar 3, 2009 @ 9:10pm
It's plain as day people - Gannett wants to force whoever buys it to have to publish a print edition - and there's very few places in Tucson that can manufacture a print edition. Hmm, that would mean that the buyer would also have to "rent" the presses... from, oh my gosh, Gannett (and the other half of the JOA)!

If this was baseball, this would be called collusion since Lee Enterprises would have to agree to the "rental" as well, and why wouldn't they - they stand to make 50% profit on it!
Report | Quote | -0 +13
Mar 4, 2009 @ 9:39am
They will not sell. They are proving that , but keeping claws in the Star. They want to close the Citizen, and make their profit off the Star and spend no money on the Citizen Look at agreement clauses as a way to close down the Citizen clean and forever.
Report | Quote | -0 +6
Mar 4, 2009 @ 11:26am
The Citizen's only hope is turning it into a Spanish only, liberal, left newspaper.

Will they then buy daily copies? si!

Life is full of choices. All choices have consequences.
Report | Quote | -2 +1
Mar 4, 2009 @ 3:56pm
RanchandKC -- I think you're seeing things in the dark. Gannett doesn't want to sell the paper nor does it care to rent the presses (it has a better printing operation to the north).

Since it'll get half the profits for doing nothing, why would it want anything to interfere with that? As it is, Gannett is not making as much as it could because it costs more to print the Citizen than it ever makes back. So stopping operations means more dough for Gannett shareholders.

If Gannett were serious about wanting to find a buyer it would put up its share of the JOA. It just found a loophole to bring in revenue without shelling out expenses.
Report | Quote | -1 +0
Mar 4, 2009 @ 4:04pm
RULE OF REAL ESTATE LAW....DISCLOSE, DISCLOSE, DISCLOSE........
Report | Quote | -0 +0
Mar 4, 2009 @ 7:02pm
I am surprised the noted parties who are looking to place a bid have said anything since they were required to sign a non-disclosure agreement in order to obtain the confidential memorandum that gives the details of the offer, including exactly what assets are included in the sale.

Report | Quote | -0 +0
Mar 4, 2009 @ 7:59pm
Red Star wrote:
QuoteThe U.S. Department of Justice is investigating the sale of the Tucson Citizen...



They want to make sure that the potential buyer is sufficiently liberal.
Report | Quote | -0 +0
Mar 4, 2009 @ 8:20pm
I wish the potential buyers luck I don't know if I will be among them considering the lack of information available on which to base a bid on.
Report | Quote | -0 +0
Mar 4, 2009 @ 8:44pm
Gannett sucks. USA Today Sucks. Don't be fooled.

The Tucson Daily Citizen and Tucson citizens are being screwed by the greedy bastards of Gannett.
Report | Quote | -0 +0
« 1 2 »
Post Comment