A spokesman for Platinum Equity, the lead group in the purchase of the San Diego Union Tribune, clarified the role of S-B owner David Black in the deal after a Canadian newspaper reported Black was the buyer of the San Diego newspaper.

According to the Business Examiner in Black’s B.C. backyard:

“If the question is, ‘Is Black Press buying the Union Tribune?’ the answer is ‘no.'” Barnhill told the Business Examiner. In fact, the deal has been negotiated but not as yet completed. When it is, the owner will be an “affiliate” of Platinum Equity created specifically to own the paper.

The company will not be a free-standing investment vehicle or fund, but will be purchased out of Platinum’s general funds. Platinum, said Barnhill, had $2.7 billion in assets.

“David Black will not have a controlling interest in the company,” he added. “He will continue to be a critical member of our team.” That is, Black is part of a management team advising on the purchase now and the operations of the company later.

Black also added a couple of interesting observations on the future of newspapers.

For dailies in general, Black believes there is at least a future of 30-40 years. “That’s the lifespan of the people who still rely on newspapers for their news.” For his weeklies, he is confident as well because there is no option for local advertisers. The Internet, as yet, has made no inroads. “They don’t have same overhead as the dailies; they don’t have the big newsroom. And they can cherry pick their publication days, sticking to the big shopping days.”

Blogger and reporter Joan Conrow (KauaiEclectic) is taking issue with S-B political writer Richard Borreca’s Sunday column on the Superferry and Hawaii’s business climate.

I don’t like to criticize Richard because he’s a good reporter and can be an insightful commentator. This column, though, isn’t up to his standards. Contrast it to Lee Cataluna’s take on the same subject.

Conrow first points out that Borreca seriously misquotes her to make his own political point. That’s for starters.

And he misses the mark in his choice of other examples. Monsanto? Although the company cut its 30 jobs on Kauai, it has been growing and investing in Hawaii over several years, including its purchase of 2,300 acres on Oahu just two years ago. And those Kauai jobs aren’t necessarily lost, as employees can apply for positions elsewhere in Hawaii.

The Advertiser’s story on Monsanto’s Kauai announcement gives no hints that it resulted from anti-business attitudes. Neither did the Star-Bulletin’s shorter story.

And, of course, it isn’t just an alleged anti-business climate that has dogged Monsanto. Although Borreca belittles those questioning open field GMO testing, federal courts have taken the issue quite seriously.

Other factors, like the worst economic slump in a century? It doesn’t even show up on Richard’s radar. Did the Superferry have a business plan capable of eventual success as an interisland ferry? At best, the jury is out.

The company’s rather puzzling lack of due diligence in jumping into the rough seas between the islands? The impact of a federally protected whale sanctuary? None of those factors fit into Borreca’s narrow view of the issues.

And what about thriving businesses being featured on the Star-Bulletin’s own pages? Target? Some businesses can apparently do fine in Hawaii by playing by the rules and following the law without trying to cut corners and force officials to give them a blank check.

Oh, well. This isn’t likely to be the end of the Superferry debate, although it could very well be the end of the Hawaii Superferry.

Thanks to Brad Parson’s Hawaii Superferry Unofficial Blog for continuing updates, corrections, etc.

Hey, I wonder how many people are grumbling about Rep. Angus McKelvey’s scheduling of public hearings at downright inconvenient hours. Tomorrow he’s convening his Committee on Economic Revitalization, Business & Military Affairs at 7 a.m. And it’s not the first time McKelvey’s had ordered his committee into such an early session.

Early commenters say he might be backed into the early hours by other committees, in which case it’s really a leadership problem in assuring enough time for each committee to do the public’s work.

But the very early a.m. agenda seems to me a violation of at least the spirit of the state’s open meeting laws and the Legislature’s own rules which have increasingly provided for public access. A 7 a.m. hearing is, for practical purposes, not a public session as it is very difficult for members of the public to attend. It displays, whether intended or not, a subtle disregard for the public.

I’m sure those directly impacted by the committee’s deliberations are reluctant to press the issue, but someone should be challenging this kind of scheduling.