Media Nation has moved!

You should be automatically redirected in 6 seconds. If not, visit
http://www.dankennedy.net
and update your bookmarks.

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

What $10 million will buy

It wouldn't be fair to call this a direct connection. But follow the bouncing money.

The New York Times today runs a profile of Lisa Maria Falcone, a socialite who just gave $10 million to the High Line, an elevated railway in New York that's been turned into a garden. Falcone's husband, Philip Falcone, is the founder of Harbinger Capital, which owns 20 percent of the New York Times Co. The Times Co. is demanding that the Boston Newspaper Guild, the Boston Globe's largest union, deliver $10 million in concessions.

To be clear, the Falcones are not legally, fiscally or ethically responsible for either the Globe or the problems the Times Co. is having in running it. But there's a parallel here that's too striking to let go unmentioned.

Labels: , ,

More on the Newton North controversy

Newton blogger Chuck Tanowitz shares some thoughts on the battle between city officials and the Newton Tab over access to the Newton North construction site.

Labels: ,

Monday, June 29, 2009

Meet the Tab's new editor

It's Newton Mayor David Cohen, who tells the Newton Tab's Dan Atkinson that photos are "not essential" for reporting on progress at the Newton North High School construction site.

Earlier: "Meet the Tab's new photographer."

Labels: ,

National news, local impact

Several weeks ago I spend half a Monday hanging out with Paul Bass (left), a veteran journalist who is the founder and editor of the New Haven Independent, a non-profit community news site.

Decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court come down on Mondays, and Bass was on tenterhooks waiting to see if the court would rule on Ricci v. DeStefano, the affirmative-action case involving New Haven firefighters.

It didn't happen then, but it did today, and the Independent has a meaty, link-rich post on what the five-to-four decision in favor of white firefighters means both to the city and to the nomination of Judge Sonya Sotomayor, whose opinion was overruled.

The established daily, the New Haven Register, offers an extensive package of coverage as well.

Ironically, I'm writing this post from the office of the Batavian, an online-only newspaper in Batavia, N.Y., which, like the Independent, I'm reporting on for my book-in-progress.

Photo (cc) 2009 by Dan Kennedy.

Labels:

Sunday, June 28, 2009

On the road again

I just arrived in Batavia, N.Y., where I'll be for the next few days. I'm doing some reporting for my book project on the Batavian, an online-only newspaper published by Howard Owens, the former director of digital publishing for GateHouse Media.

Owens and I are meeting tomorrow morning at the Pok-A-Dot. I'm also meeting with Tom Turnbull, publisher of Batavia's Daily News, as well as a few community folks before heading back on Wednesday.

Internet access at the Holiday Inn where I'm staying seems pretty slow, so I'm not sure how that's going to work out. In any case, expect blogging to be light.

Labels: , ,

Friday, June 26, 2009

GlobeReader makes a quiet debut

With little fanfare, the Boston Globe has unveiled a "preview" edition of GlobeReader, an attempt to produce an online newspaper that offers a better experience than the Web version. GlobeReader is slick and highly readable. Save for subtle differences in the fonts that are used, it looks exactly like Times Reader 2.0, which the New York Times unveiled last month. Both are built on the Adobe Air platform, which allows developers to build applications outside the context of the Web.

Unlike Times Reader, which you can subscribe to as a standalone product for $14.95 a month, GlobeReader is free but available only to print subscribers. You do not, however, have to be a seven-day subscriber — a Thursday-through-Sunday or Sunday-only subscription is sufficient.

That's probably a smart move. Knowledgeable people have told me that more than half of the Globe's advertising revenue comes from the Sunday paper. Still, Globe spokesman Bob Powers says that could change.

As for what we can expect once GlobeReader has moved beyond the "preview" stage, Powers writes:
We've chosen the term preview edition to reflect that GlobeReader is a brand new product for us, and to a large degree the industry, which we will continually improve based upon reader feedback. We want to make sure the customers help shape future editions. We are also opening GlobeReader Preview Edition only to subscribers because we do want to hear from our most loyal readers.

We also expect to add features such as crosswords, 'news in video', a 'latest news' update, and 'email to a friend' in the upcoming weeks/months, as they become available.

[F]or formatting reasons we are not including features such as comics, TV grids, weather, and sports box scores. We will look to add these features to a large degree based on reader's priorities.
A friend who works at the Globe told me recently that GlobeReader is actually a bigger technical challenge than Times Reader because of some peculiarities in the way the Globe is assembled. So I'd give it some settling-down time.

So what's the business strategy? It seems to me that it's a hedge against people canceling home delivery of the Globe altogether, especially now that prices have gone up quite a bit. The Globe benefits if people at least hold on to Sunday delivery; it may also benefit from not having to pay the printing and distribution costs of the considerably less lucrative Monday-through-Saturday editions.

It's an interesting strategy and, combined with other delivery platforms, such as the $9.99-a-month Kindle edition, may help chart a path out of the current mess in which the newspaper business finds itself. Such projects are not going to be nearly enough, but they could help.

Labels: , , ,

Meet the Tab's new photographer

The Newton Tab reports that Alderman Ken Parker took a photo of the Newton North High School construction site with his iPhone and sent it along to the Tab. Parker says he didn't do it surreptitiously, either. Amazing. Earlier item here.

Labels: ,

Credit where it isn't due

An odd assessment by the Chicago Tribune:
Gossip site TMZ.com, owned by Time Warner, was out in front with Jackson news and digital-era pipelines spread the word, as has happened before with other major celebrity news stories. But it was old media stalwarts that did the heavy lifting, with giants such as The Associated Press and the Web site of the L.A. Times, sister paper of the Chicago Tribune, reporting the fastest, most credible information on the emergency call for paramedics and ultimately his death.
In other words, TMZ broke the story. Got it? (Channeling Chris Krewson.)

Labels:

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Michael Jackson

Here's a piece I wrote for the Boston Phoenix during Michael Jackson's 2005 trial for child molestation. His death, at 50, was hardly unexpected — I think he's probably been on the Next to Die list longer than Keith Richards, since Keef managed to crawl off of it at some point.

Jackson may be the greatest wasted talent since Elvis Presley, who could have packed it in after his Sun recordings in the early to mid-1950s. Jackson recorded his finest album, "Off the Wall," 30 years ago. His audience-pleasing triumph, "Thriller," came in 1982.

It has literally been all downhill since then — a sickening amalgam of molestation charges, plastic surgery, fake (or at least very weird) marriages and financial setbacks.

His was a sad life. But given the likelihood that he did enormous harm to some of the kids who worshipped him, my sympathy is limited. He was a terrific artist, washed up before his 25th birthday.

Labels:

A president too much with us?

In my latest for the Guardian, I ponder the possibility that President Obama, with his health-care forum on ABC News as the latest example, may have just about reached the media-oversaturation point.

Labels: ,

Press barred from public tour of public school

You wouldn't think that when public officials tour a public school, anyone would be brazen enough to bar a news organization by claiming it's a "private event on private property." But that's exactly what happened on Wednesday, according to the Newton Tab, which had assigned a reporter and a photographer to cover a tour of the $200 million Newton North High School construction site.

The Tab's Dan Atkinson reports that Mayor David Cohen, a number of aldermen and members of the school's design-review committee took the tour, but that Dimeo Construction wouldn't allow the press to tag along — even though the event had been posted as being open to the public.

"It's an essentially private event on private property," Cohen spokesman Jeremy Solomon is quoted as saying. "It doesn't entitle the media to attend." Solomon added: "Elected officials deserve the courtesy to ask any questions without being concerned about how they're portrayed in the Tab."

The Newton North project — the most expensive public school in the history of the state, if not the known universe — has long been controversial. The Boston Globe's Newton Wiki reports that the current price tag of nearly $200 million has almost doubled since 2003, when Cohen first proposed it. Newton voters approved it in a 2007 referendum.

Based on the facts as reported by the Tab, it's unclear as to whether officials violated the Massachusetts open-meeting law, which, among other things, forbids private governmental meetings when there is a quorum present. Atkinson writes that "at least" nine aldermen took the tour — well short of a quorum, given that Newton has 24 aldermen. But if a quorum of design-review committee members was present, what took place might be considered an illegal meeting.

More important, what happened to the Tab on Wednesday was not just an affront to the press, but to the proposition that the public's business should be conducted in public. As Tab publisher Greg Reibman said, "[I]t's not the Tab that is being punished. It's the taxpayers who are spending nearly $200 million on this project and they deserve to know how their dollars are being spent."

More: Great catch by Michael Pahre, who notes that there is an "on-site inspection" exception to the open-meeting law. So, in all likelihood, no violation of the law took place. "That said," Pahre writes, "the Newton officials were boneheaded in announcing this as a tour that is open to the public if they don't want the press to attend."

Still more: The Tab says that its reporter was allowed to take a tour today. But still no photos (or photographer), please.

Labels: ,

Times Co. honchos "correct" the record

This is already floating around the intertubes. But since Media Nation obtained its own copy earlier this morning, I will post it here in full — a company-wide e-mail from New York Times Co. chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and president Janet Robinson. Enjoy.
June 25, 2009

To Our Colleagues,

The month of May came and went and, contrary to the prediction of one writer, we did not stop printing The New York Times. But given all the speculation and incorrect information that has been reported about our Company, we think it is important to create a regular letter written so that you get the facts directly from us — on the record. In the first of what we expect will be frequent e-mails, we'd like to talk about recent events at The Boston Globe. Future letters will discuss financial transactions, advertising, circulation, costs and the digital challenges we face as well as other issues as they arise.

All of you know, only too well, that this has been a difficult time for the economy, the industry and our Company. The recession has amplified the downward secular trends in our business and caused steep declines in advertising revenue, particularly in the recruitment, real estate and automotive categories.

The Globe was one of the first metropolitan newspapers to be deeply affected by the secular and cyclical forces that are now roiling the entire media industry. Revenues at the New England Media Group (which includes the Globe, Boston.com, the Worcester Telegram & Gazette and its Web site) have declined from $700 million in 2004 to $524 million last year.

In the fall of 2008, the Globe and Boston.com developed a strategic plan to deal with their operating loss, which earlier this year was projected to be roughly $85 million in 2009. The plan has several components to increase revenues and lower costs. Here are the strategic steps we have taken:
  • We have just completed the consolidation of printing facilities in Boston, which is expected to save $18 million a year.
  • In the last month, we significantly raised prices on newsstand and home-delivered copies of the paper.
  • The compensation of the Globe's managers and other nonunion employees were significantly reduced in 2009/2010 through a salary reduction and elimination of their annual incentive plan.
  • The Globe's labor contracts are being restructured in order to save $20 million in annual operating costs — essential to our turnaround plan. We had reached agreements with seven unions that provided slightly more than $10 million in savings. Yesterday we reached an agreement, which is subject to ratification, with the Boston Newspaper Guild, which would provide us with another $10 million in expense reductions.
There will be still more to come but with these steps the Globe is on a path to a more secure financial future. We are deeply grateful to all of our colleagues in Boston for the hard work and sacrifices they have made to put the Globe on a stronger financial footing. In future letters, you'll hear from us about other things we are doing to strengthen our Company and prepare us for the future. These are tough times and we recognize that all of you are working very hard to make tomorrow better than today.

Thank you, we deeply appreciate it.

Arthur & Janet
An observation: What "incorrect information" are Sulzberger and Robinson referring to? I see nothing remarkable in here — nothing new, no correcting of errors. The Times wouldn't run a letter accusing it of inaccuracies without specifying what they are. So what are Sulzberger and Robinson talking about?

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

"This is genocide. This is Hitler."

Terrible news from Iran. (Warning: extremely graphic and disturbing photo.)

Labels:

Calling torture torture

Alicia Shepard is as sharp a media observer as they come. A longtime writer for the American Journalism Review and the author of "Woodward and Bernstein: Life in the Shadow of Watergate," she is a serious and respected voice.

That said, I'm scratching my head over how wrong Shepard gets it on NPR's refusal to use the term "torture" to describe the "enhanced interrogation techniques" practiced during the Bush years. Shepard, now NPR's ombudsman, writes:
I recognize that it's frustrating for some listeners to have NPR not use the word torture to describe certain practices that seem barbaric. But the role of a news organization is not to choose sides in this or any debate. People have different definitions of torture and different feelings about what constitutes torture. NPR's job is to give listeners all perspectives, and present the news as detailed as possible and put it in context.
Let's forget "certain practices" and focus on just one: waterboarding, long recognized as torture. In November 2007, Sen. John McCain pointed out that the United States executed Japanese officers after World War II for waterboarding American prisoners of war.

And when McCain was challenged, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Web site PolitiFact.com investigated McCain's assertion. Its conclusion: McCain was right — a number of Japanese officers were hanged, and others were sentenced to long prison terms, because they had engaged in waterboarding.

Shepard writes that rather than describing waterboarding as torture, it makes more sense just to say what happened: "To me, it makes more sense to describe the techniques and skip the characterization.... A basic rule of vivid writing is: 'Show, Don't Tell.'"

All right. Perhaps NPR can eschew the T-word and instead describe waterboarding as "an interrogation technique once considered so heinous by the United States that it hanged Japanese officers for doing it to Americans."

Labels: , , ,

Another good day for Mitt Romney

Now that South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's national ambitions are a thing of the past — left behind on the extreme southern stretch of the Appalachian Trail — it's interesting to think about the number of up-and-coming Republican stars who've been taken off the board in the past year. Five (including Sanford) come quickly to mind.

Two — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal — were damaged by their own party, pushed in front of the public long before they were ready. Hype-versus-reality questions aside, Palin and Jindal were routinely described as rising stars until, suddenly, they weren't.

Jindal can certainly recover from his poor performance in delivering the Republican response to President Obama's national address last February. All he has to do is not act like a dork the next time. But the arc of Palin's post-running-mate political career has already been determined: hero to the right wing of her party; pariah to everyone else.

Sanford's finished. So is Nevada Sen. John Ensign, although at least his sexual indiscretions do not include a secretive flight to Argentina. I must confess I'd barely heard of Ensign before learning that (1) he'd been unfaithful in his marriage and (2) he was a possible presidential candidate.

Finally, there is former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, chosen by Obama as his ambassador to China. Huntsman hasn't been tainted (except possibly in the eyes of a few partisan Republicans), but he's not going to challenge Obama in 2012.

As Rich Lowry observes at National Review (via Talking Points Memo), Mitt Romney may be the last candidate standing by the time the '12 campaign rolls around in earnest.

Labels: , , , ,

Share your thoughts on Obama's presser

Friend of Media Nation Jon Keller has written a post at Beatthepress.org in which he endorses Dana Milbank's account in the Washington Post of President Obama's "prepackaged entertainment" at Tuesday's White House news conference.

As you may already know, Obama called on Nico Pitney of the Huffington Post, saying, "I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?"

I don't want to provide too much set-up before turning this over to you, but here is what Pitney wrote for HuffPo about what happened. Pitney says that though he was invited to prepare a question based what Iranians had been talking about online, no one at the White House knew what he was going to ask; and that though he was, indeed, escorted into the briefing room, he had been told ahead of time that there was no guarantee he'd be called on.

Now, I have two questions for you, which I want you to answer only after reading Keller, Milbank and Pitney.

1. If you relied solely on Milbank's account, would it be your understanding that Obama knew what Pitney's question would be?

2. Since, according to Pitney, Obama neither knew the question nor had promised to call on him, did either the president or his press operation do anything wrong, unethical or even disrespectful to the other reporters in the room?

Labels: , , , , ,

Economic turmoil and the Globe's future

The tentative deal between the New York Times Co. and the Boston Newspaper Guild over wage and benefit cuts at the Boston Globe (here, here and here) comes in the midst of unprecedented economic turmoil.

Oddly enough, that may be a positive sign for the future of the Globe, because it demonstrates that the newspaper industry's problems can't be attributed solely to the Internet.

Take a look at today's Globe. The state's landmark universal-health-insurance program is being cut, and state treasurer Tim Cahill is calling for even deeper cuts. Homeless families are crowding motels. Harvard University is laying people off. The Twin Rivers casino in Rhode Island is heading for bankruptcy. (Take note, Gov. Patrick.) Housing prices continue to drop. Local merchants are hoping to rescue the bankrupt Faneuil Hall Marketplace. And on and on it goes.

In a perverse sense, though, these are all good signs for the Globe. In recent months we've heard a lot about the hopeless situation faced by major metropolitan newspapers. Much of their readership has moved online, but advertising hasn't. And though charging readers for online content would surely be a boon, there are many good reasons to think people won't pay.

But underlying the pessimism has been an unspoken assumption that current downward trends in print readership and ad revenue will continue until they converge at zero. That's not going to happen. Somewhere there's a stabilization point. Boston Herald publisher Pat Purcell has proven that it's possible to get small enough to break even or earn a small profit. Surely the Globe can do the same. With a readership and ad base considerably larger than the Herald's, the Globe also should be able to preserve most of its core mission, which is to cover the city and the region as aggressively and thoroughly as possible.

One person who should be feeling very good today is Guild president Dan Totten. As New York Times media reporter Richard Pérez-Peña reported on Monday, Totten has been criticized, rightly so, for keeping his members in the dark. And following the narrow defeat of the first deal a few weeks ago — a defeat that Totten encouraged — the phrase you most often heard about Totten was "in over his head."

Today, though, Totten can rightfully be said to have gotten a better deal for his members. Yes, it still adds up to a $10 million giveback, and it still means the end of lifetime job guarantees for nearly 200 Guild members. But the total pay cut is lower (about 8 percent when a mandatory furlough is figured in, as opposed to about 10 percent in the first deal), which members will presumably find more palatable, even though cuts in benefits are deeper.

Neither side blinked. But Totten's instinct that it was worth the pain of forcing management back to the bargaining table proved to be right.

Finally, the Globe's report today includes some crucial numbers that have been missing from most of the coverage — that Globe reporters earn between $40,000 and $70,000 under the current contract. So let's consider the impact of these various proposals on, say, a youngish reporter with a bit of experience, making $50,000.
  • Under the proposal that the Guild rejected, her salary would drop to $45,000.
  • Under the 23 percent pay cut that management unilaterally imposed after the "no" vote, she'd be making $38,500.
  • And under the 8 percent total cut now being proposed, she'd make $46,000.
The agreement will be put to a vote on July 20, and though predictions can be futile, it's hard to imagine that it won't pass. I also wouldn't be surprised if there's a deal to buy the paper very shortly thereafter.

Overall, a very good day for the Globe, for its employees and for Boston.

More: The new deal is an improvement if you think that one of the messages coming out of the "no" vote was that folks would rather take a smaller pay cut even if it meant a larger cut in benefits. I should have acknowledged that that's likely to be a controversial proposition. The Phoenix's Adam Reilly is soliciting comments on that very point.

Photo (cc) by blyte1 and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

A new daily newspaper

A nutty idea? Not necessarily. GateHouse Media has begun a summer-only, Tuesday-through-Saturday freebie called the Cape Cod Day.

More: Walter Brooks of Cape Cod Today analyzes the competition between the Day and Rupert Murdoch's Cape Cod Times.

Labels: ,

Deep cuts at Boston magazine

Yesterday we learned from Jon Keller at "Beat the Press" and Adam Reilly of the Boston Phoenix that James Burnett was out as editor of Boston magazine.

Today comes word that that was just the beginning. Jessica Heslam of the Boston Herald and Johnny Diaz of the Boston Globe report that a total of six people were let go. According to Heslam, that prompted a seventh to quit.

Among those laid off were Paul Flannery, Boston's online editor. Under Flannery's leadership, the magazine's Boston Daily blog at one time was a must-read — a smart and bitchy take on local politics and media.

But blogger Amy Derjue's job was cut last year (she's now spokeswoman for Boston City Councilor Mike Ross), which, as it turns out, was the beginning of the end. Combined with other cutbacks, cobwebs began to gather. Looks like the last post was on May 22.

Best wishes to the city's newest job-seekers.

Labels: ,

Monday, June 22, 2009

An employee-ownership option for the Globe

Could members of the Boston Newspaper Guild wind up as co-owners of the Boston Globe? A Media Nation reader sends along this link from the Financial Times. The story, posted last Thursday, doesn't seem to have gotten a lot of pick-up.

But according to an anonymous source, one of the potential buyers, Boston Celtics co-owner Stephen Pagliuca, is reportedly willing to work out some sort of deal with the Guild that would result in employees owning a share of the paper. As the Financial Times notes:
Working with the Boston Newspaper Guild could help remove one of the biggest obstacles to a deal — negotiating a reduction in operating cost that could prove prohibitively expensive to return ownership to local control.
Such an arrangement would be similar to the one recently struck in Maine involving the Portland Press Herald and several smaller papers. Employees now own 15 percent of the company.

Boston Newspaper Guild president Dan Totten released an optimistic statement late this afternoon: "The Boston Newspaper Guild continues to have productive discussions with the New York Times Company and Globe management. We feel we are close to reaching an agreement that we can bring to Guild members for a vote."

A vote has been scheduled for July 20.

Labels: , ,

The death and life of Neda Agha-Soltan

Los Angeles Times reporter Borzou Daragahi has an in-depth story on Neda Agha-Soltan, the Iranian woman whose death, captured on video (warning in case you haven't seen it yet: extremely graphic and disturbing), has become a symbol of the post-election uprising.

Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that Iranian goons attacked and arrested people who tried to attend a memorial service for Soltan.

Labels:

Pérez-Peña responds

New York Times media reporter Richard Pérez-Peña has responded to my post of earlier today:
I enjoy your work, and obviously I'm biased, but I thought your critique of my piece was a little odd and beside the point. The point of citing those examples was that there was a lack of communication on even the basics. I think you agree with that.

I really don't understand why you bring up the dollar figures, since I can't quite figure out what (if anything) you're claiming is the "questionable assertion." You wrote, "there doesn't seem to be much doubt that management has, in fact, been telling Globe employees that the paper lost $50 million last year," as if I had cast doubt on that. I hadn't. As far as I know, no one disputes that this is the number the company has cited. But it wasn't cited to "Globe employees." It was to union leaders, in private meetings, and maybe to a Globe reporter (I don't know), but not to employees at large or to the public.

You note that the company publicly owned up to the $85 million figure for this year. But did you know that for three weeks, the company would not acknowledge that figure, either, even after it had been reported everywhere? An executive said it at the April 23 shareholders' meeting (a slip, apparently), which I believe triggered the required SEC filing.

The point wasn't whether these were the numbers being used; everyone knew that they were, and I never wrote anything to the contrary. The point was that the company wouldn't state them publicly.

I confess that I wasn't aware of Mathis' June 4 e-mail to the Phoenix, but it doesn't undermine the point. The e-mail does not explicitly acknowledge that the company had threatened the unions with closure of The Globe if they did not make serious concessions. As far as I know, there hasn't been such an acknowledgment. I know first-hand that when asked to confirm it, the company declined. The e-mail says "closure is a very real path for the company to take" — a hell of a statement, I admit — but without explaining how or why that path might be taken. Also, that shut-down threat was first made in early April; the e-mail came two months later.
My comment: I stand by what I wrote. But, yes, I absolutely agree with Pérez-Peña's assertion that there has been "a lack of communication on even the basics."

Labels: , ,

Parsing the Times' latest Globe story

With the New York Times Co. and the Boston Newspaper Guild scheduled to resume negotiations today over $10 million in union givebacks at the Boston Globe, the Times' Richard Pérez-Peña weighs in with some insights.

His lede, focusing on the Guild's alleged failure to keep its members apprised of what's been going on for the past year, is telling, and helps explain why talks between the two sides went off the rails this spring. Even political reporter Brian Mooney, who was outspoken in his support for a "no" vote several weeks ago, says, "It wouldn't have been that hard to make this go a lot better. There's plenty of blame to go around."

Yet there are three questionable assertions in Pérez-Peña's story. One isn't that important, but two are. Those assertions pop up in one sentence about halfway through the story:
Throughout the long process, the company has publicly said little about the situation, and to this day it has not confirmed last year's loss, or acknowledged that it had threatened to close the paper.
I'll deal with the threat to close the paper first. From the moment on April 3 that news outlets began reporting that the Times Co. was threatening to close the Globe unless the paper's dozen or so unions could come up with $20 million worth of concessions, it was a little unclear precisely where that shutdown threat was coming from.

I'm not going to try to trace it back to the beginning, though, because I don't have to. Times Co. spokeswoman Catherine Mathis confirmed it, in an on-the-record e-mail to the Phoenix's Adam Reilly, on June 4. Reilly had asked Mathis why, in the weeks leading up to the "no" vote, talk about a possible shutdown had seemingly stopped, and whether management had in fact taken that option off the table.

Mathis responded: "Closure is a very real path for the Company to take." So there you have it: a declarative sentence in which a top Times Co. official, speaking on the record, asserts that the company might shut the Globe if it fails to obtain the concessions it has demanded.

As for the Globe's losses, Pérez-Peña specifically refers to "last year," when, it has been reported, the Globe lost an estimated $50 million. As with the closure threat, it is hard to find a statement in which that $50 million figure has been directly attributed to an identifiable Times Co. official — or, in most cases, attributed to anyone at all. Maybe one exists, but I couldn't find it.

Still, there doesn't seem to be much doubt that management has, in fact, been telling Globe employees that the paper lost $50 million last year. For instance, consider this, from an April 9 Globe story by Robert Gavin:
Without the union concessions and other cutbacks, the Globe is projected to lose $85 million this year, following a loss of about $50 million last year, according to an employee briefed on union discussions.
But it seems to me that the more important figure is the $85 million. Here, too, the company itself has been less than forthcoming — so much so that a few people warned me early on that I should be clear that the origin of that number was suspect.

Fortuitously enough, though, the $85 million figure shows up in the Times Co.'s most recent quarterly report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, filed on May 7. Here's the language:
Before savings from changes to the union agreements or other cost-cutting initiatives or the effects of any revenue initiatives, we projected that 2009 operating losses at the Globe and Boston.com would be approximately $85 million.
Finally there is the small matter of Pérez-Peña's claim that "[t]he Globe's troubles did not explode into full view until April 3, when its Web site, Boston.com, posted an article reporting that the Times Company had threatened to shut the place down unless unions agreed within 30 days to major concessions on wages."

Maybe it depends on your definition of "full view." But, in fact, WBUR Radio (90.9 FM) broke the story on its Web site on April 3, followed a very short time later by the Phoenix's Reilly, who reported both the $20 million giveback demand and the closure threat.

It's impossible to ascribe motive when doing this type of analysis. And I suppose these discrepancies don't add up to a whole lot. But, inevitably, when the Times covers the Globe, every sentence and phrase is going to be scrutinized.

Labels: , ,

Friday, June 19, 2009

Herald reporter charged in alleged assault

Boston Herald reporter O'Ryan Johnson has been charged with assault and battery following an altercation with a 74-year-old man in a Groveland laundromat, the Eagle-Tribune reports.

The story is leading Romenesko at the moment.

More: It turns out that Johnson was part of an Eagle-Tribune team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2003. The Tribune story mentions that Johnson is an alumnus but omits the Pulitzer. Odd oversight.

Johnson's byline appears on only one of the Pulitzer-winning stories, but it was the first -- an account of a tragic accident that claimed the lives of four boys who fell through the ice on the Merrimack River.

Labels: ,

More ideas on saving the Globe

At the Nieman Journalism Lab, Martin Langeveld has some smart ideas for saving the Boston Globe. The one idea over which I disagree with him strongly is that the Globe should move away from a daily print edition. Langeveld writes:
My prediction is that, ironic as it may seem, Pat Purcell's Boston Herald will be left as the only daily paper in Boston, and that the Globe will evolve into something different. That doesn't mean the Herald wins, because in the long run, daily print is just not a sustainable business model anywhere. Or almost anywhere, if we want to hedge that bet a little.
Hard to disagree, but it all comes down to how you define "the long run." Newspapers still make most of their money from print. Yes, Boston.com is the Globe's most important news vehicle, but the print edition is still where the money is, and will be for some time to come.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Walter Cronkite is said to be gravely ill

Legendary anchorman Walter Cronkite is gravely ill, according to TVNewser columnist Gail Shister, citing "multiple CBS News sources."

Cronkite, 92, wasn't the first anchorman, but in many ways he invented the role. You can see the images just by thinking about them: Cronkite overcome with emotion after announcing the death of John Kennedy; the space flights; coming out against the Vietnam War; paving the way for the Israeli-Egyptian rapprochement by interviewing Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin even before President Jimmy Carter could get involved.

Cronkite, with his famous nightly sign-off ("And that's the way it is"), was the embodiment of something close to a national cultural consensus, which doesn't remotely exist today. Of course, there was much that was phony about that. But there was nothing phony about Cronkite. He was the real thing.

Photo of Cronkite in 1973 by Vin Crosbie and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

Labels:

Comcast replaces NECN's Kravetz

Comcast has finally completed its long-in-the-making takeover of New England Cable News — and the first thing it's done is part ways with president and general manager Charlie Kravetz. According to the Boston Herald's Jessica Heslam, Kravetz will be replaced by Bill Bridgen, executive vice president and general manager of Comcast SportsNet New England.

Johnny Diaz's Boston Globe story is here. And here's the official word.

I know nothing about Bridgen. I do know Kravetz, and he's a first-rate newsman with a lifetime of experience. I don't see how this can be good news, although it's certainly possible that it was voluntary.

Labels:

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

More on the Tiananmen analogy

It's hard not to worry that the crisis in Iran will end in a Tiananmen Square-style massacre. Here is the Boston Phoenix editorial page:
Hope, even under a brutal medieval-minded regime, can be a political aphrodisiac. But hope alone, as the Chinese students who sought reform in Tiananmen Square 20 years ago found out, is no match for armed forces. Whether the death toll in Iran will come to equal that of the Tiananmen massacre and its aftermath remains to be seen.
Juan Cole has similar thoughts.

Labels:

Greenway on Iran

Sharp analysis of the crisis in Iran by former Boston Globe columnist H.D.S. Greenway, now writing for GlobalPost. He begins:
Protests in the streets, angry crowds in numbers not seen since the revolution in 1979, have some people wondering if Iran is on the verge of revolution. But it's more likely, if the street protests get out of hand, there will be a China-style Tiananmen, with voices crying for reform silenced by gun fire.
Greenway also gives President Obama high marks for not saying anything that would help Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "play the Great Satan card."

We're debating whether Obama has said enough here. It was also the subject of a Jeff Jacoby column in today's Globe.

Labels:

"Cluetrain," 10 years on

Weinberger (left) and Searls

Last night I had a chance to see David Weinberger and Doc Searls, two of the co-authors of "The Cluetrain Manifesto," speak at Harvard Law School. The conversation was moderated by law-school professor Jonathan Zittrain, co-founder of the school's Berkman Center for Internet and Society.

The sound was not great, so I missed a lot. VisiCalc founder Dan Bricklin, credited with the invention of the spreadsheet, finally became frustrated enough that he got out of his seat and ran around with a little handheld microphone. But I did get a chance to score a signed (by Searls) copy of "Cluetrain," which has been reissued on the occasion of its 10th anniversary.

I read "Cluetrain" online a couple of years ago as research for this. I anticipate getting a lot more out of it this time around, now that I have a print edition. A computer screen is still no way to read a book.

Labels: ,

Cautious optimism over new Globe talks

"Beat the Press" blogger-in-chief Ralph Ranalli writes that Boston Globe staffers are now "cautiously optimistic" that the New York Times Co. and the Boston Newspaper Guild will come to an agreement in renewed talks, which resume next week.

And Ranalli asks an excellent question: How can the Times Co. stick to the 23 percent pay cut — based on its contention that the two sides are at an impasse — when management and the Guild are actively engaged in bargaining sessions?

Labels: , ,

Obama's rope-a-dope

I've been as frustrated as anyone that President Obama hasn't spoken out more forcefully about what's taking place in Iran. But I've also heard a contrary view — that if he is seen as giving support to the reformist candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, he risks whipping up anti-American sentiment in favor of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Here's a fascinating excerpt from an Arab-American blog being highlighted by Global Voices Online. I have no idea who the writer is, but what he or she says makes a lot of sense:
Whether or not Mousavi had the election stolen from him, it seems clear the ruling class has made a calculating move. Anti-American sentiment is one of the strongest cards those wretched clerics hold. By merely softening the tone Tehran hears from Washington, Obama has weakened their hand considerably. But re-instating Ahmadinejad ensures that US-Iranian relations will continue down a rocky road. What happens next is crucial. If Obama takes a firm position as a result of what’s happening, the mullahs may emerge victorious.
Writing for the Independent, Robert Fisk says there are hopeful signs that the Iranian security forces' support for Ahmadinejad may be fading. That would be an enormously important development.

Labels:

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

For the Globe, an amicable divorce?

In my latest for the Guardian, I attempt to make sense out of the past week's developments regarding the Boston Globe — and to urge an amicable divorce between the Globe and the New York Times Co.

Labels: , ,

Obama and openness

Bill Dedman of MSNBC.com reports that the Obama administration is following George W. Bush's policy of refusing to release the logs identifying visitors to the White House — despite two rulings that such records are public.

Good story, though Dedman doesn't say whether Bush's policy was a reversal or a continuation of what previous presidents had done. I hope he'll clarify.

Update: Dedman writes that "the story makes clear that only in limited cases have these records been released. And that apparently only the Bush and Obama administrations have stood up in federal court to argue that White House visitor logs are not public record."

Labels: ,

Howie Carr, working-class hero

I know we're not supposed to take Howie Carr seriously when he writes about the Boston Globe. But check out his Boston Herald column today. "Danny Donuts" is Dan Totten, president of the Boston Newspaper Guild. Carr writes:
Let's face it, the Globe is on the ropes because it's crammed to the rafters with writers who can't write, reporters who can't report, and editors who can't edit, because Danny Donuts and his cohorts couldn't sell an ad to save their inherited, tastefully weathered summer homes on Nantucket.
Now here is Jason Schwartz, describing Totten's background in a Boston Magazine profile:
Totten first got active in the union in 2002, and it was a natural fit. His father was a member of the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association for more than 35 years, his sister was a union representative for the Boston school system, and his grandmother had been a steward for the hotel and telephone workers union "back in a time," Totten says, "when it wasn't very popular or easy for a woman to hold such a position."
We also learn from Schwartz that Totten is a graduate of the former Boston State College, surely one of the forgotten Ivies, and earned his MBA at Anna Maria College in Paxton, widely regarded as the Wharton School of Central Massachusetts.

Carr, meanwhile, lives in Wellesley and makes some three-quarters of a million dollars from his talk show on WRKO Radio (AM 680), as well as a presumed six-figure income from the Herald. He's also a graduate of Deerfield Academy and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill — a real working-class hero.

For Howie to characterize a self-made man like Totten as overprivileged is laughable, bordering on the offensive.

Labels: , ,

Monday, June 15, 2009

"Look at this brave Iranian lioness"


Globe Voices Online has posted an update on what bloggers are saying and doing in Iran. There's some pretty stunning material, including a video of a young woman kicking a member of the security forces.

Meanwhile, Simon Tisdall writes in the Guardian of unconfirmed reports that Hashemi Rafsanjani, the controversial mentor to the reformist presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, may be in the holy city of Qom, measuring how much support he might have from the Assembly of Experts in a bid to topple the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei.

Labels:

Best New England books

Boston.com has posted an interactive list of the 100 best New England books evah. My nominee — Nicholas Howe's "Not Without Peril," a compilation of a century's worth of fatalities in New Hampshire's White Mountains — checks in at number 85.

Clarification: I didn't mean to suggest that I think "Not Without Peril" is the best New England book. Rather, I proposed it to Boston.com a few months ago as one of the top 100. Boston.com's choice of "Moby Dick" at number one is all right by me.

I also see that Boston.com has ranked "Not Without Peril" at number 90, not 85. I think I was looking at the "most read" category earlier.

Finally, I just finished Nathaniel Philbrick's "Mayflower" (number 36) last week. A worthy choice, though slightly overrated, in my view. Too many impenetrable accounts of battles, not enough narrative sweep. But well worth reading.

Labels:

Scenes from the Iranian protests

Boston.com's "The Big Picture" comes through once again.

Labels:

Analyzing fraud claims in Iran (II)

Maybe Ahmadinejad won after all. This analysis in Politico is pretty persuasive to my non-expert eyes.

More: A stunning commentary from the Guardian arguing that Ahmadinejad won.

Labels:

Media Nation comments policy

Thank you to everyone who weighed in with thoughts regarding a comments policy for Media Nation. I received some excellent advice. For now, I've decided to tighten up on comments just a little bit. It's easier to start slowly and then ratchet things up if needed.

The only real difference is that I plan to become more pro-active in deleting comments that I think are inappropriate. In the past, the subjectivity inherent in deciding which comments would live and which would die had led me to approve almost everything.

I'm not going to worry about that anymore, even though I'm fully aware that my tolerance level tends to vary from day to day.

I am going to try to keep this as short and easy to follow as possible.

1. The use of real names is strongly encouraged. If you use your real name, first and last, then you will be taken more seriously by everyone here. Real names are not required. But if you choose anonymity, you should ask yourself whether it's truly necessary (i.e., for work-related reasons) or if, instead, you are using anonymity so that you can express opinions you wouldn't want to see attached to your name.

2. The purpose of comments is to encourage civil discourse. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. Posts accompanied by hostile or offensive user names or avatars will be deleted. If you wouldn't say it to someone's face, then don't say it here.

3. Comments on this site are unmoderated. Offensive comments are not subject to a pre-approval process, but may be removed after they have been posted. If you believe you have been attacked, rather than responding to the attacker, send a private e-mail to da {dot} kennedy {at} neu {dot} edu. If I agree, I'll remove the offending comment.

3. Comments on this site are moderated. Comments are posted to a queue, and will not appear on Media Nation until I have approved them. This is the policy I had in place until a couple of years ago, and, on reflection, I think it worked well. If you believe I should not have allowed a comment to be posted, send a private e-mail to da {dot} kennedy {at} neu {dot} edu. I've been known to change my mind. (Policy updated on Aug. 13, 2009.)

4. Media Nation shall be held harmless. Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Internet-based interactive services — including Media Nation — are not responsible for material posted by third-party contributors.

Photo (cc) by Amy Kasameyer and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

Labels:

Another potential big day for the Globe

Depending on how things go, this could be a very big day for the future of the Boston Globe and its employees. The Newspaper Guild is sending in its national president, Bernie Lunzer, to try to work out an alternative deal with New York Times Co. management. (Boston Herald coverage here; Globe coverage here.)

It's easy to say the Times Co. is going to stick with the 23 percent pay cut it imposed last week, but there are reasons to think that management would be amenable to negotiations. Management's chief aim is to extract $10 million in concessions from the Guild, and to do it in a manner that paves the way for selling the paper.

The 23 percent pay cut accomplishes the first goal but not the second, since the Times Co. is now dealing with building full of seething employees. And about 190 Guild members still have lifetime employment guarantees, which will make it more difficult for a new owner to do the sort of drastic restructuring that's needed.

It wouldn't surprise me if the two sides reach an agreement that looks quite a bit like the one that was narrowly rejected last week: a pay cut of around 10 percent; cuts to retirement and other benefits; and an end to the lifetime job guarantees. If Times Co. executives have any sense at all — a debatable proposition at this point — then they will sweeten the pot a little bit so that Guild members can feel that they actually got something out of last week's "no" vote. As long as it adds up to $10 million, then it really doesn't matter.

New York Times columnist David Carr today, meanwhile, checks in with a group of outside analysts to try to put a price tag on the Globe. It proves to be a futile exercise, as the prices range anywhere from $250 million to the Times Co.'s actually having to pay a new owner as much as $25 million to make the Globe go away. Nor does the longer online version add much.

The takeaway quote comes from the venerable analyst John Morton, who writes to Carr:
Should a private buyer be found I suspect that any Globe employees still employed after the deal goes through will recall the contract they have just rejected as paradise compared with what a new owner will impose in cost-cutting.
Times Co. executives have behaved badly enough through this crisis that it's easy to forget the larger truth: the newspaper business is coming apart at the seams, and what's happening at the Globe is no different from what's happening to major metropolitan dailies across the country. Morton's assessment is a reminder of that reality.

Labels: , ,

Analyzing fraud claims in Iran

Did Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad steal his re-election victory? Hard to know without verifiable evidence. After all, it's not difficult to believe that supporters of the opposition reform candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, who are said to be educated, middle-class and urban, were outnumbered.

Two pieces I came across yesterday, though, offer some pretty compelling evidence that Ahmadinejad really did steal the election. The first, a Q&A from the Guardian, pulls together a number of different strands. Though not well-sourced, if they prove to be true, they add up to a powerful indictment:
  • Normally, it takes three days to finish counting the ballots in Iran. This time, Ahmadinejad's victory was announced in two hours.
  • Mousavi supporters say the Iranian interior ministry told Mousavi not long after the polls had closed that it appeared he'd won by a substantial margin.
  • According to the official results, Mousavi even lost to Ahmadinejad among members of his own ethnic group, with Ahmadinejad capturing 57 percent of the vote in Mousavi's home base.
The second piece, a blog post by Middle East expert Juan Cole, argues that an Ahmadinejad victory makes no logical sense given voting trends over the past decade. Though Ahmadinejad won election in 2005, Cole observes that reformist forces boycotted that election. This time, they turned out in droves.

Meanwhile, the Guardian is now reporting that the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ordered an investigation into claims of voter fraud. If you assume that Ahmadinejad's re-election was exactly what Khamenei wanted — and Khamenei's statements yesterday certainly indicated that — then this looks like a crack in the facade.

Maybe Khamenei and the people around him fear that Ahmadinejad overreached, and that if they don't do something, they'll all be in danger. We can only hope.

Elsewhere, the Boston-based international news service GlobalPost is putting up regular dispatches in a special section called "The Ground Truth in Tehran."

Global Voices Online, which rounds up blogger commentary, has a section on the Iranian elections, though nothing new since Saturday.

Labels:

"On the Waterfront"

The 2009 remake, now showing at the Boston Convention Center. Boston Herald reporter Jay Fitzgerald explains.

Labels:

Saturday, June 13, 2009

The future of anonymous comments

From time to time I've considered instituting a real-names policy for Media Nation commenters. Take a look at this exchange and you'll see why.

I know I would end up with many fewer commenters than I have now. Some folks who use regular pseudonyms add value, and I know there's a good chance I would lose them.

But, too often, Media Nation — like most other Internet forums — has become a place where people come to say things behind a mask of anonymity that they would never say if they had to attach their names.

Thoughts?

Labels: ,

Friday, June 12, 2009

Pin the tail on the potential owner

Who will buy the Boston Globe? Silly season may have already arrived. The Globe today attempts to knock down the Boston Herald's claim yesterday that an investment group with ties to Thomas O'Neill III is interested, while at the same time identifying three other potential buyers.

The Herald, meanwhile, reports that Red Sox principal owner John Henry has told his Twitter followers he's not interested; his name has been floating around for a while. (Sorry, but I don't know Henry's Twitter address.) Nothing new from Jack Welch, who has restricted his tweeting to sports the last couple of days.

Let me return to the Globe's claim that the Herald got it wrong with respect to Intercontinental Real Estate Corp., whose board of advisers includes Tom O'Neill and former Bank of Boston head Ira Stepanian. The Globe's Keith O'Brien and Beth Healy, with help from Casey Ross, write:
[A] person connected to the Intercontinental Real Estate Corp. refuted a report that the real estate investment and management firm is interested in buying the Globe. This person, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about the matter, said the report in the Boston Herald was not accurate.
Now, let's go back to the Herald story, written by Christine McConville with assists from Jay Fitzgerald and Jessica Heslam. Here's the key graf:
"Intercontinental is interested in any good investment that offers superior returns for our investors, as well as opportunities for job preservation, and even job growth, for our union investors," said a top executive for Boston-based Intercontinental, which manages real estate and some $2.5 billion in investment funds, including union pensions. "The Globe fits our profile."
Neither the Herald nor the Globe offers us an on-the-record source from Intercontinental, so it's hard to know what to make of all this. But the specificity of the Herald quote suggests that there's at least something to it. Most likely the Herald and the Globe stories are both accurate, but only one of them is true.

The possible buyers identified by the Globe — former Globe executive Stephen Taylor, a member of the paper's former ruling family, as well as Boston advertising executive Jack Connors and Boston Celtics co-owner Stephen Pagliuca — are all familiar names. It's hard to know how serious any of them are. My guess is that when a buyer is announced, we'll all be shocked. This is good coffee-machine conversation, but probably no one outside of New York Times Co. management really knows what's going on.

In other Globe-related news, editorial-page editor Renée Loth is retiring to write a freelance column for the paper. She'll be replaced by Washington bureau chief Peter Canellos, who'll also oversee the Sunday Ideas section. The current Ideas editor, Gareth Cook, will remain in that post.

Bringing Canellos home in any capacity is a smart move. His specific job title is less important than getting him back inside the building, where he will no doubt be a key player in any and all reinvention initiatives. He also has a good relationship with Cook, a Pulitzer Prize-winning science reporter.

Both Canellos and Cook are Boston Phoenix alumni, though Canellos had moved on before my arrival there. Cook and I worked together in the mid-'90s.

Finally, former Globe media consultant Lou Phelps has posted a commentary at Cape Cod Today in which she takes the Boston Newspaper Guild to task for being "unwilling to publicly acknowledge the core issues of the business model of The Boston Globe, and the changing newspaper industry that The New York Times company must face."

Phelps' main argument is that technology should allow a newsroom to operate with many fewer journalists than was the case before cell phones and the Internet.

Her take is interesting, but she should have acknowledged that the Globe has already done a lot of cutting — from 550 full-time newsroom positions in 2000 to about 330 today. I hope she'll check in and let us know how much lower she thinks the Globe can go.

And wow — Phelps is easy on the Guild compared to Cape Cod Today editor Walter Brooks. Duck!

Photo (cc) by cmiper and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, June 11, 2009

How Tip's kid might save the Globe

Some years ago I wrote a review/essay for the Boston Phoenix about Jack Farrell's massive Tip O'Neill biography. The headline: "How Tip saved the Globe." (Pay no attention to the today's date stamp; it's an old piece.)

Farrell wrote about services rendered by the future House speaker in the Globe's years-long quest to persuade the FCC to strip the Boston Herald Traveler of its broadcasting licenses. That finally happened in the early 1970s, ensuring the Globe's dominance and dooming the Herald to second-banana status.

Today the Herald reports that Intercontinental Real Estate Corp. is interested in buying the Globe from the New York Times Co. And look who's on the Intercontinental advisory board: Thomas P. O'Neill III. (Thanks to Northeastern School of Journalism director Steve Burgard for passing along that not-so-little tidbit.)

According to the Herald's Christine McConville, talks have been going on for weeks. So here's something to ponder: O'Neill's public-relations firm, O'Neill and Associates, has been handling communications for the Boston Newspaper Guild. Another fun fact: most of those communications have come from former Boston Herald business editor Cosmo Macero Jr., now with O'Neill.

Make of that what you will. And yes, Boston is a very small town.

Labels: ,

A primer in getting to "no"

In this week's Boston Phoenix, Adam Reilly observes that New York Times Co. executives mangled things with the Boston Globe and the Newspaper Guild so thoroughly that you're left wondering if a "no" vote was what they wanted all along.

I've been wondering the same thing, though for the life of me I can't see how this benefits the Sulzbergers. Now that they've made it official that they want to sell the Globe, the last thing they need is an unfair-labor case before the National Labor Relations Board, which could drag on for months.

Over at the Beat the Press blog, former Globe staffer Ralph Ranalli explains how Globe publisher Steve Ainsley and Times Co. management snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Labels: , , ,

Jack Shafer's Rx for the Globe

Writing in Slate, Jack Shafer picks up on the ideas of Philip Meyer, whose argues in his book "The Vanishing Newspaper," and in a more recent piece in the American Journalism Review, that newspapers should cater to the elite, well-educated audiences that are already their last dedicated readers.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Close to home

Eighth-graders from Danvers as well as Swampscott were inside the Holocaust Museum in Washington earlier today when a white supremacist pulled out a gun, began shooting and killed a security officer. The Salem News and the Danvers Herald both report that none of the students were injured.

Two years ago, our daughter was on that annual trip and I was a chaperone. I'd been to the museum several years before that to do research for "Little People," my book on dwarfism. What happened today was a horrifying event.

We've now had three terrorist murders in the United States in the past few weeks — abortion doctor George Tiller, assassinated by a prolife extremist; Army recruiter William Long, gunned down by an apparent Muslim convert enraged by U.S. policy; and now this. What is going on?

Labels:

Jack Welch ("Jack Welch"*?) on the Globe

A Boston Globe insider led me to this Twitter page, purportedly by retired General Electric chief executive Jack Welch, who was interested in buying the Globe back when the New York Times Co. wasn't selling. Check this message out:
So ironic to see NYT act so brutish toward labor. Certainly would be crucifying any Company with labor practices like theirs.
Not quite getting the point? Here's a Welch (or "Welch") update:
My New York Times labor tweet a few min ago refers to their BRUTISH dark age labor relations with their Boston Globe employees
There is nothing obviously fake about the Welch Twitter page. It's mostly about sports, and the site links to his book. Times business columnist Joe Nocera recently wrote that Welch has a Twitter account, though Nocera didn't supply the address. I think this is Welch, although I'm open to evidence that it isn't.

Which raises an obvious question. Is Welch still interested in buying the Globe? If so, is this a ploy to reach out to employees?

Granted, I'm not sure what the logic would be. It's management he needs to reach out to.

*Update: Dave Hersam nails it. It really is Welch.

Update II: The Boston Newspaper Guild has now sent out an e-mail publicizing Welch's tweets.

Update III: Welch is certainly not my idea of a white knight for the Globe. Click here and here.

Photo (cc) by Josh Greenstein and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

Labels: , , ,

Talking about the Globe at the Mirror Awards

Alas, my work in the Guardian came up short for the second year in a row in the Syracuse University Mirror Awards, as I lost out yesterday to Clive Thompson of Wired.com in the category of online media commentary.

There was plenty of buzz about the Boston Globe at the luncheon, held in the not-very-spacious confines of New York's Harmonie Club. Several New York Times people I spoke with, including media columnist David Carr, were speculating about why the Newspaper Guild voted "no" and what might happen next.

We also heard from Arianna Huffington, founder of the Huffington Post, whose receipt of a lifetime achievement award was controversial given her perceived role in harming the news business.

She got off the best line of the day, saying (this is a close paraphrase; I should have taken notes, but I couldn't extend my elbows sufficiently), It's not true that I single-handedly destroyed the newspaper business. I had help from Craigslist. Ho, ho.

Labels: , , ,

Buy high, sell low

There's an ugly symmetry to the news that the New York Times Co. is soliciting bids for the Boston Globe.

Having paid $1.1 billion for the Globe in 1993, half the market capitalization of the entire Times Co., the Sulzberger family may now find there is virtually no interest in what once once its second-most-prized asset after the Times itself.

After the Boston Newspaper Guild narrowly rejected a proposal to cut salaries by about 10 percent and eliminate about 190 lifetime job guarantees, the Times Co., as expected, imposed a 23 percent pay cut. And the Guild, as expected, has appealed to the National Labor Relations Board.

What's unclear today is the status of the lifetime job guarantees, widely thought to be a major stumbling block to any effort to sell the paper. Today's Globe story, by Keith O'Brien, isn't quite as explicit as I'd like it to be, but the gist seems to be that the guarantees remain in effect at the Guild — at least for the time being — and the paper's other unions have given them up.

In the Boston Herald, Jay Fitzgerald and O'Ryan Johnson interview Poynter Institute business analyst Rick Edmonds, who wrote an excellent post the other day suggesting that the Globe was closer to break-even than is generally assumed.

Edmonds tells the Herald that the lifetime guarantees and the ongoing labor crisis remain major stumbling blocks to a sale: "Having these different things going on makes it considerably harder, if not impossible, to sell this newspaper."

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Our terrorism manufacturing policy

In my latest for the Guardian, I write about the New York Times and the myth of Guantánamo recidivism.

Labels: , ,

Monday, June 8, 2009

The Globe is not losing $85 million

So says Poynter Institute business analyst Rick Edmonds.

In a revealing post — made all the more interesting following the Boston Newspaper Guild's narrow defeat of a package designed to save the New York Times Co. about $10 million — Edmonds reports that Times Co. spokeswoman Catherine Mathis has clarified some of the murk. (Via David Folkenflik.)

Edmonds writes that the $85 million operating loss the Globe is said to be ringing up in 2009 actually "includes depreciation, amortization and special charges." His best guess: the Globe is on track to lose about $20 million this year, and the concessions demanded by the Times Co. would roughly cover that.

Of course, following today's Guild vote (the deal lost by a heart-stopping margin of 277-265) management only has $10 million in hand, in the form of concessions agreed to by unions other than the Guild. Management has threatened to impose a 23 percent pay cut, which the Guild, in turn, says it will appeal to the National Labor Relations Board.

It's impossible to know what's going to happen next, at least not tonight. But one thing that ought to be acknowledged is that the folks at 135 Morrissey Blvd. have continued to put out a very good newspaper despite months of uncertainty, even chaos, with respect to the Globe's future. I'm sure that will continue.

Update: The Globe itself made some of the same points on April 24, though Edmonds' main argument — that the paper's true operating loss this year is likely to be $20 million — doesn't quite emerge.

Labels: , ,

Differing takes on today's Globe vote

Interesting difference in emphasis in the New York Times' and the Boston Globe's coverage of today's vote by the Boston Newspaper Guild.

The Times story, by Richard Pérez-Peña, quotes three Globe employees, all reporters, all of whom say they're voting "no" — Scott Allen, Brian Mooney and Beth Daley. The story also notes that Guild president Dan Totten's less-than-enthusiastic public comments have been "widely interpreted as urging rejection."

The Globe story, by Rob Gavin, works into the lede the news that the paper's delivery-truck drivers approved $2.5 million in concessions on Sunday. Gavin, like Pérez-Peña, also quotes three reporters, but with a different emphasis — Mooney (no), Erin Ailworth (yes) and Scott Helman (maybe).

The picture you come away from in reading the Times is that the deal — which would cut pay by about 10 percent and eliminate 190 lifetime job guarantees — is all but certain to be rejected. The Globe, by contrast, makes you think things are truly up in the air.

The Guild concessions, if approved, would add up to about $10 million, half the $20 million that the New York Times Co. is demanding. If the Guild votes "no," management has said it would impose a 23 percent pay cut, which the Guild, in turn, says it would appeal to the National Labor Relations Board.

Management has not ruled out shutting down the paper, although that threat seems to have diminished since it was first leveled more than a month ago.

We'll know tonight.

Labels: ,

Sunday, June 7, 2009

Guilding tomorrow's vote

On the eve of Monday's vote by members of the Boston Newspaper Guild, the Guild has posted a press release on its "Save the Boston Globe" campaign.

In keeping with Guild president Dan Totten's past comments, the union is not explicitly urging its members to vote one way or the other on the pact, which calls for a pay cut of roughly 10 percent and an end to lifetime job guarantees for about 190 Globe employees.

Twenty-four hours from now, we'll know a lot more than we do today.

Labels: ,

The bishop who saved Boston's newspapers

It happened a century ago, writes the Boston Globe's Michael Paulson.

Coincidentally, recent negotiations between the Boston Newspaper Guild and the New York Times Co. took place at the Sacred Heart Labor Guild in Weymouth. For what it's worth.

Labels: ,

Media Nation hits the road

I'm leaving later today for a four-day reporting trip to New Haven, New York and northern New Jersey. Blogging will be light, though I intend to follow the Boston Globe union vote on Monday as closely as I'm able.

Labels:

Kazakh government admits to blockage

The official Kazakh communications agency has admitted to blocking the blogging platform LiveJournal, according to the International Foundation of Speech Freedom Protection.

In a recent interview with the newspaper Express K, Batyr Makhanbetazhiev, executive secretary of Kazakhstan's Agency of Information and Communication, said LiveJournal had been blocked to stop the "distribution of illegal information."

The translation is hazy, so it's a little hard to follow. But free-speech activists in Kazakhstan have been campaigning against a proposed law that would crack down on the country's relatively free-wheeling online culture. For background, see this and also this.

Labels: , , ,

Counting blogs: One, two, many

Four years ago, Jay Rosen dropped in on a media-criticism class I was teaching at Northeastern University for a discussion about blogging.

One point he made I thought was particularly salient: the 97 bazillion blogs Technorati claims to be tracking are often used by critics as a way to discredit blogging. After all, how could anything so common be of much value?

Still, it's hard to quantify the number of blogs that matter to news folks — that is, blogs doing some type of journalism, even if it's just commenting intelligently on the news. When asked, I generally respond that it's certainly in the hundreds, or even the thousands, but definitely not the millions.

So I was interested to see more useful Technorati numbers appear in a New York Times story today about bloggers who quit because they quickly learn that it's hard work, or that it's no way to make money, or that they decide revealing personal details about themselves isn't such a good idea. (Not that that has anything inherently to do with blogging.) To wit:
  • Of the 133 million blogs that Technorati was following in 2008, only 7.4 million had been updated in the past four months.
  • The vast majority of traffic is generated by 50,000 to 100,000 blogs.
Those numbers make far more sense, and show that blogging is something that a small subset of dedicated amateurs (and a few professionals) take seriously. As Rosen suggested, the Golden Arches approach is a way of marginalizing rather than elucidating.

Labels: , ,

Friday, June 5, 2009

Critiquing Obama's speech in Egypt

They don't come any dumber than U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla. In a piece on local reaction to President Obama's speech in Egypt, Inhofe tells his hometown newspaper, "There has never been a documented case of torture at Guantanamo" and "I just don't know whose side he's on." (Via TPMDC.)

On the other hand, New York Times columnist David Brooks gets right to the heart of the contradictions in Obama's speech, writing:
This speech builds an idealistic facade on a realist structure. And this gets to the core Obama foreign-policy perplexity. The president wants to be an inspiring leader who rallies the masses. He also wants be a top-down realist who cuts deals in the palaces. There is a tension between these two impulses that even a sharp Chicago pol is having trouble managing.
My own reaction: underwhelmed, despite the characteristically first-rate craftsmanship and delivery. I couldn't really articulate why, but I definitely think Brooks is on to it.

Labels: ,

Deval Patrick is shocked

Gov. Deval Patrick has discovered that there is — I hope you're sitting down — offensive programming on WTKK Radio (96.9 FM), the station where he has been making monthly appearances since entering office more than two years ago.

Patrick, appearing on Jim Braude and Margery Eagan's program, said he was "embarrassed to be associated with the station" after management decided to lift the month-long suspension it had handed out to Jay Severin for his vile comments about Mexicans. (Globe; Herald.)

But as I and many others have noted, Severin's comments that day were entirely consistent with his rhetoric over the past decade. If his ratings hadn't been sliding, it's not likely he would have gotten into trouble.

Weirdly, Patrick had never expressed any misgivings about appearing on the station until Severin actually apologized. Governor, this may be the one moment when you don't need to feel embarrassed — a moment that will last until the next time Severin goes off. Enjoy it.

Labels: , , , , ,