Democracy and the Senate (II)

The notion that the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald represent ideologically opposite editorial positions is overblown. The Herald and its editorial-page editor, Rachelle Cohen, aren't really all that conservative. And the Globe, whose editorial page recently transitioned from longtime editor Renée Loth to former Washington-bureau chief Peter Canellos, is just contrarian enough on issues like charter schools to keep liberals agitated.

An exception is today. The Globe offers its full-throated endorsement to Sen. Ted Kennedy's proposal that would allow Gov. Deval Patrick to name an interim senator in the event of a vacancy. The interim would serve until a special election could be held five months later. With Kennedy's battle against brain cancer apparently entering its final stages, the matter has taken on special urgency.

In supporting Kennedy's proposal, the Globe criticizes the Legislature for having taken the gubernatorial appointment away five years ago, when it appeared that Sen. John Kerry might be elected president and Democratic leaders at the Statehouse did not want then-governor Mitt Romney, a Republican, to name Kerry's successor. The Globe calls the 2004 law "a partisan bill."

Which, of course, it was. And which leads the Herald to invoke that same 2004 action as a reason to reject Kennedy's current proposal, in an editorial headlined "Hypocrisy factor."

Yet Kennedy is not proposing that the 2004 be repealed. Instead, he's suggesting a slight tweak that would benefit the state, which otherwise would go without a vote in the Senate for five months. (I'll note without comment that Massachusetts went without two full-time senators during Kerry's presidential campaign and, now, through long stretches of Kennedy's illness.)

Kennedy's idea is to choose a person who would make a personal pledge not to run in the special election. The Herald observes that Romney had proposed a similar provision only to get shot down. But that's no reason not to adopt a good idea now. And I'll go one better. Assuming there isn't some constitutional reason not to do it, why not write the no-run requirement directly into the Kennedy proposal and give it the force of law?

Obviously that's not going to satisfy Herald columnist Howie Carr, who portrays Kennedy's move as one last grand gesture of deathbed hackery — and makes much of the fact that Kennedy's letter to state leaders, reportedly sent on Tuesday, is dated July 2 (a catch made yesterday by friend of Media Nation Beth Wellington). Carr takes the mysterious timing of the letter as a sign that Kennedy's time is almost up, and he may be right.

But so what? This strikes me as a can't-lose idea. The benefit of the 2004 law would remain intact — Kennedy's successor would be chosen at the ballot box, not by the governor. Meanwhile, the state would continue to have representation in the Senate.

Which is why I'm especially intrigued by Globe columnist Scot Lehigh's suggestion that former governor Michael Dukakis fill the role as interim senator. (Disclosure: Dukakis is a colleague of mine at Northeastern, although only to the extent that we exchange hand waves.)

Media Nation commenter Amused thinks Dukakis "comes with too much baggage, a lot of it unjustifiable." I disagree. Dukakis' three terms as governor did not end well, but, outside the exceedingly small universe of talk radio, he is mainly seen as competent and honest. And, as Lehigh notes, Dukakis knows health-care policy. It's a great idea.

A final note. Also in the Herald, once and future Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom quotes from a 2004 Boston Phoenix editorial supporting the bill that took away the gubernatorial appointment. I may well have had a hand in writing that editorial — I recognize some of the clichés as being all mine.

But the editorial specifically objected to the idea of a governor filling the remainder of a senator's term if his seat became vacant. In Kerry's case, that would have been two years. By contrast, what we're talking about now is having an interim, temporary senator appointed as soon as there's a vacancy, followed by a special election five months later. That's quite a difference.

Follow the bouncing sports talkers

So why did the Boston Globe and WEEI Radio (AM 850) reach an agreement that will allow Globe sportswriters to appear on the station for the first time in years, as the Boston Phoenix's Adam Reilly reported yesterday?

According to the Boston Herald's Gayle Fee and Laura Raposa, Globe sportswriter Tony Massarotti is about to jump ship to WBZ-FM (98.5 FM), the CBS-owned all-sports station that will begin competing with WEEI this fall. Massarotti was a constant on 'EEI when he was with the Herald.

Bringing the Globe-'EEI war to a peaceful conclusion would presumably open the way for (a) Massarotti to return to that station or, more likely, (b) beef up 'EEI as it seeks to compete with a new afternoon show on WBZ-FM that would be co-hosted by Massarotti and Mike Felger, though it's not entirely clear what is going on.

Weirdly enough, Globe sports-media columnist Chad Finn tweets that Globe writers will be allowed to phone in, but not be in the studio, for WEEI's highly rated morning and afternoon drive programs, "Dennis & Callahan" and "The Big Show," although an exception will be made if a Globie has a chance to co-host "D&C." (Via Boston Sports Media.)

In looking over this item, it appears I may have only added to the confusion. My work here is done. You're welcome.

Liveblogging the Sotomayor hearings

Fans of former Boston Herald political reporter/blogger Kimberly Atkins will be interested to know that she's liveblogging the Sonia Sotomayor hearings for her current employer, Lawyers USA. Atkins, a lawyer, is a staff reporter for the publication.

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.

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.

A half-century of bad blood

Earlier today the Boston Globe posted a 1982 article about the day that Rupert Murdoch saved the Boston Herald. Interestingly, the story, by David Wessel, now economics editor for Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, gets into precisely why some old-timers at the Herald, like Joe Fitzgerald, remain angry at the Globe more than 26 years later.

As you will see, in the midst of Murdoch's efforts to buy what was then the Herald American from Hearst, Globe publisher William Taylor sent a telegram to unions at the Herald informing them that any concessions they granted to Murdoch would have to be granted to the Globe as well. The move was seen at the time as an attempt by the Globe to nix the deal and hasten the Herald American to its grave, though Taylor denied that was his intent.

Murdoch threatened to file a lawsuit against the Globe charging the paper with violating antitrust laws, but was also quoted as saying: "I might have done the same thing in their circumstance."

For those interested in tracing the feud back even farther, let's not forget that the Herald American was formed as a result of the Globe's journalistic and extra-journalistic efforts to persuade the Federal Communications Commission to strip the Boston Herald Traveler of its television and radio licenses, which the Herald held despite the FCC's ban on cross-ownership.

The FCC ruled against the Herald Traveler in 1972, and the paper was acquired by Hearst's Record American.

And while we're at it, let's go back to the 1950s, following the death of the once-dominant Boston Post. As recounted in the late J. Anthony Lukas' masterpiece, "Common Ground," then-Herald publisher Robert "Beanie" Choate suggested a merger with the Globe. When Globe publisher Davis Taylor turned him down, Choate reportedly told him: "You fellows are stubborn. Worse than that, you're arrogant. You better listen to us or we'll teach you a lesson. I'm going to get Channel 5, and with my television revenues I'll put you out of business."

Choate got his license — apparently with the help of Joseph Kennedy, whose son Ted, ironically, tried to put the Herald out of business in 1988 by forcing Murdoch to give up either the Herald or Channel 25. Murdoch chose to keep the Herald and sell Channel 25, although several years later he sold the Herald to longtime protégé Pat Purcell and repurchased Channel 25.

So there you have it: a half-century of bad blood between the Globe and the Herald.

A threat or an extension? Or both?

If I'm reading the morning papers correctly, then we learned two new things as the New York Times Co.'s 30-day (32-day?) deadline for the Boston Globe's unions expired last night. (The Globe's story is here; the Boston Herald's here.)

First, the 30-day deadline has become a 90-day deadline. The Times Co. had threatened to shut the Globe today if its demands weren't met. Instead, it has said it will file the legally required paperwork to close the paper in 60 days. Color this any way you like, but it looks to me as though Arthur Sulzberger Jr. (in photo) and company just tacked on two months, something they had previously indicated they would not do. Howard Kurtz reports in the Washington Post:

The move could amount to a negotiating ploy to extract further concessions from the Globe's unions, since the notice does not require the Times Co. to close the paper after 60 days. The deadline, however, would put the unions under fierce pressure to produce additional savings, and the Boston Newspaper Guild promptly called the step a "bullying" tactic by the company.

OK, but wasn't yesterday's Globe supposed to be the final edition if management didn't get what it wanted? This looks like more of a retreat than a "bullying" tactic. If the company's rhetoric was to be believed, then it was going to stop publishing immediately and sort out the legalities later. That didn't happen. Thus it looks like we get to go through this all over again in late June.

Second, perhaps management didn't make a new demand, but it certainly clarified one of its demands. We've all been reporting that the company was seeking $20 million in union concessions, and that lifetime job guarantees for more than 400 employees somehow figured into that.

Now we know that the company is making two separate demands: $20 million in concessions, and an end to lifetime job guarantees. That presages much deeper cuts — which, unfortunately, makes sense, since the Globe is reportedly on track to lose $85 million this year.

The idea of lifetime job guarantees seems unsustainable at a time when the newspaper business is getting much, much smaller. Yes, I am a junior faculty member working toward tenure, which is often described as a lifetime job guarantee. But my understanding is that it's easier to get rid of a tenured professor than it is a union member in the Globe's so-called Book of Life. It could be that the only way to eliminate them is to throw the Globe into bankruptcy and let a judge void those provisions.

The New York Times today runs just a short story on the Globe negotiations, sticking to a pattern of undercovering what's happening here. We talked about the lack of Times coverage (among other things) on "Beat the Press" last Friday. (The segment also features a wide-ranging interview with Globe editor Marty Baron, who tries makes up for the silence emanating from New York. Baron, in his subtle way, says some surprisingly tough things about Times Co. management.)

The Globe is the largest, most significant paper in the United States to face closure, yet it's gotten less national attention than the shutdown of Denver's Rocky Mountain News, the number-two paper in a smaller media market. You've got to think the Times' ability to set the news agenda has a lot to do with that.

Finally, a word about Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr, the working stiff from Wellesley, who yesterday wrote yet another piece making fun of the Globe. I am a conflicted Howie fan. There are few columnists or talk-show hosts as talented and entertaining as Carr. But his juvenile-delinquent act has gotten tiresome.

For Carr to pretend that the Herald's relative financial health is somehow evidence that the Herald has "won" is ludicrous. Weekday circulation of the Herald's print edition is half that of the Globe's, and the Herald is barely a factor on Sundays. According to Compete.com, the Globe's Web site, Boston.com, drew nearly 5.5 million unique visitors in March, compared to nearly 1.1 million for BostonHerald.com.

Adam Gaffin has further thoughts about Howie.

The Herald's coverage of the Globe's troubles has been first-rate. Every morning, I rush to check BostonHerald.com to see what's new. Carr's sneering screeds only detract from that.

Photo of Arthur Sulzberger Jr. (cc) by JD Lasica and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

A one-two punch from the Phoenix

With negotiations at the Boston Globe now down to the wire, the Boston Phoenix weighs in with a major takeout by media reporter Adam Reilly and an editorial.

Reilly's got lots of nice details, including a great quote from an anonymous (of course) Globe staffer about editor Marty Baron: "His hands are tied. I think he's fucking heartbroken that he can't do more." Adam also has some insights into the ongoing tensions between the union leadership and the newsroom.

The editorial ponders the possibility of life without the Globe — an unlikely prospect, perhaps, but one that's not completely out of the question given what's happened during the past month. Know this: someone at the Phoenix really, really doesn't like the Boston Herald.

Herald, GateHouse circulation down, too

The Boston Globe has the figures I was missing. According to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, the Boston Herald's weekday circulation is down 17.4 percent, to 150,688, and its Sunday readership has dropped 9.6 percent, to 95,392.

The Patriot Ledger of Quincy and the Enterprise of Brockton, both GateHouse papers, lost readers as well, but not by as great a percentage.

Globe, Herald target each other

Boston Globe reporter Keith O'Brien today weighs in with a story about the financial problems being faced by the Boston Herald and GateHouse Media, which owns some 100 community papers in Eastern Massachusetts.

GateHouse's problems are considerable and well-known. The Herald, though, is a bit of a mystery, as publisher Pat Purcell tends to play his cards close to the vest. What we know is that the paper and its reporting staff have gotten tiny, but that Purcell appears to have hit upon a formula for survival.

O'Brien, after chronicling shrinkage in the Herald's staff and circulation, offers a quote from Sunday editor Tom Mashberg: "How are things now? It's tough. We once had a newsroom filled with reporters and a commercial department filled with commercial staff. And it has definitely shrunk."

Mashberg, upset that none of the positive comments he says he made got into O'Brien's story, has fired back with an e-mail to the Globe, which I offer here in its entirety, with Mashberg's permission:

To Globe Editors:

Tom Mashberg from the Herald here. I'm pretty disappointed at the way the reporter slanted this story. We spoke at length about how the Herald was performing miracles to survive and turn a profit in a terrible climate. When I asked him what he was going to use from me, he sent me this email:

"Here's what I will be attributing to you: The total staff figures you sent me yesterday. Is that OK?

"And I will be quoting you regarding how the Herald has dealt with the cuts. And about how the Globe should have seen these changes coming. The quote at the end of our interview yesterday when you said it was puzzling that the Times allowed this to play out like this at the Globe.

"This could change, of course. Still haven't filed my story. So e-mail or call if you have any questions."

No one expects a puff piece, especially between competing newspapers. But it looks like the editors got hold of this and turned it into a hatchet job. I guess that explains a lot about where the Globe is headed. Sad.

If O'Brien or anyone else at the Globe would like to respond, I will post it immediately.

Meanwhile, Herald media reporter Jessica Heslam today reports that veteran media-watcher Michael Wolff believes neither Rupert Murdoch (about whom he wrote a book) nor New York Daily News publisher (and former Boston real-estate mogul) Mort Zuckerman has any interest in buying the Globe.

Heslam includes this toxic quote from Wolff: "I don't think that anybody's going to buy the Boston Globe. The Boston Globe is now an unbuyable property. It loses too much money and it has too many union obligations. No one will want it now. They might have wanted it. They did want it two years ago. Not now."

Left unsaid is that (1) Murdoch can't buy the Globe, since the Federal Communications Commission bans anyone from owning a television station (WFXT-TV, Channel 25) and a daily newspaper in the same market; and (2) Murdoch and Purcell are business partners.

Finally, the second of Herald columnist Howie Carr's sneering pieces about the Globe's missteps over the years prompts an observation. Carr actually found a way to poke fun at the 1998 departure of Globe columnist Patricia Smith, who was caught fabricating, without making any mention of the other, far better known Globe columnist who lost his job that summer: Mike Barnicle, caught making things up and plagiarizing by — among others — the Herald.

Anyone who listens to Carr's talk show on WRKO Radio (AM 680) knows how much he detests Barnicle. But, after all, Purcell hired Barnicle to write a column a few years ago, and though it didn't work out, Barnicle still pops up occasionally in the Herald. Since Carr can't write what he'd really like to write, perhaps he should go cover a press conference or something.

Herald's Mashberg has advice for the Globe

Former Boston Herald union official Tom Mashberg has some advice for union folks at the Boston Globe, based on his experience with the Herald's own brutal downsizing:

[F]rom 2005 through 2007, we struggled as a team to make the terms work. There was pain — many people abandoned beloved careers in print, and many devoted trade- and craft-union employees saw their work disappear entirely. But the same goal was shared by union members and the front office: Provide decent buyouts for the departing, spread the pain of pay cuts across all ranks of labor and management, and act in good faith.

One major difference to which Mashberg (who's now the Herald's Sunday editor as well as a former Globe staff member) alludes: Herald owner Pat Purcell universally wins high marks for being open with his employees.

I haven't always been a fan of the way Purcell has run the Herald (though he certainly deserves credit for keeping it alive). But the secrecy-obsessed New York Times Co. could learn much from the way Purcell has kept the lines of communication humming.

A low whine from the Naked City (II)

Alan Mutter, one of the best newspaper analysts in the blogosphere, shares Adam Reilly's and my skepticism about Douglas McIntyre's list of doomed newspapers. Mutter calls McIntyre "a friend," but adds that there is "no hard data or deep analysis to support his findings." He continues:

Although some of the papers one day may succumb to anemic readership and revenues, there is not enough information or analysis underlying the scary list to support the proposition that the publications are more or less doomed than any of 10, 20 or 30 other papers that might have been named, instead.

What Mutter's got to say about Boston is especially interesting:

Even though weak economies are hardest on the No. 2 papers in two-newspaper towns, Doug predicts the demise of the print edition of the Boston Globe while saying nothing of the apparently fragile financial status of the far smaller Boston Herald.

Over at the Phoenix, Reilly responds to the Inside Track's criticism.

Update: Paul McMorrow nails it.

A low whine from the Naked City

Is this what the Boston Herald calls a correction?

The Herald's Inside Track chides the Phoenix's Adam Reilly and Media Nation today for questioning a blog post by financial analyst Douglas McIntyre placing the Boston Globe on a list of 10 newspapers that may go out of business or go online-only by the end of the year.

What's really amusing, though, is the way the Track quietly corrects an error made earlier this week on Jessica Heslam's Messenger Blog. The error — which had Time magazine predicting the Globe's demise — remains uncorrected.

As Media Nation was the first to report, Time, like several other media outlets, was merely running the feed from McIntyre's 24/7 Wall St. blog on its Web site. Naturally, the Track takes Reilly and me to task for not doing any "reporting," which it conveniently defines as not calling the Globe in order to get a "no comment."

Finally, the Track manages the neat trick of lampooning Reilly's and my skepticism over McIntyre's claim that the Globe is worth only $20 million while simultaneously acknowledging that the paper's real estate and other assets are probably worth more than $100 million.

The plain fact is that the most recent analysis anyone has seen is one put out by Barclays Capital analyst Craig Huber, who estimates the paper's value at $192.8 million.

The newspaper business is in unimaginably bad shape, and the Globe is as vulnerable as any paper. If being cautiously optimistic about the future of the Globe makes me hopelessly naive, then I offer my deepest apologies.

Then again, I'm also one of the few media-watchers I know who predicts that the Herald will also survive. I suppose I could be wrong about that, too.

More: WBZ Radio (AM 1030) still has a Tuesday report up on its Web site wrongly attributing McIntyre's item to Time magazine. Come on, folks. This isn't that hard.

Herald to shed 20 jobs

While everyone is focused on the looming 50-person cut in the Boston Globe's newsroom, the Boston Herald yesterday quietly announced that it would soon shed 20 jobs.

Lisa van der Pool reports in the Boston Business Journal that the cuts won't come exclusively from the Herald's newsroom: publisher Pat Purcell says the reductions will involve "editorial and commercial" employees at both the paper and its Web site.

As at the Globe, the Herald will look for volunteers first.

The Herald-Ottaway connection

Rupert Murdoch's decision to put Boston Herald publisher Pat Purcell in charge of his Ottaway community-newspaper division is paying some dividends for the Herald.

Today the Herald collaborates with Ottaway's Cape Cod Times on a story about six Falmouth students who face child-pornography charges for allegedly text-messaging a nude photograph of a 13-year-old girl.

Interestingly, the Cape Cod Times version appears to have no Herald involvement. But the Times is running some Herald content, including the "Inside Track."

For the Herald, this isn't nearly as good as it was back when Purcell owned Community Newspaper Co., which is now part of GateHouse Media. For a few years, the Herald could draw on more than 100 papers in Eastern Massachusetts covering nearly all of Boston's suburbs.

The only Massachusetts papers Ottaway owns, by contrast, are well south of Boston: the Cape Cod Times, the New Bedford Standard-Times and a handful of weeklies that cover the same territory.

Still, the Ottaway connection gives the understaffed Herald a bit more reach than it had before.

Somewhat short of outrageous

As they are wont to do, the editors of the Boston Herald today offer populist outrage on page one: "BIG SCREENS IN THE BIG HOUSE!" The subhead: "CONS SCORE NEW TVs FOR SUPER BOWL ... HOW 'BOUT YOU?"

Trouble is, the story, by Jessica Van Sack, contains too much truth to sustain the outrage. It turns out that the state Department of Correction spent nearly $77,000 on 117 flat-screen televisions with "canteen money," which she describes thusly:

Canteen money is raised by prisoner purchases of items such as toiletries and food, the proceeds of which go into a fund to benefit inmates. At any given time the account can contain up to $800,000, [DOC spokeswoman Diane] Wiffin said. Purchases of more than $1,000 require approval by top DOC officials.

In other words, the TVs were bought with the prisoners' own money.

The best use of those funds? Probably not. As Van Sack notes, even Leslie Walker, director of Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services, was perplexed, noting that many prisoners already have their own TVs in their cells.

But the image conjured up by the Herald's treatment — that of "hard-core killers, rapists and thieves" watching the Super Bowl on high-end TVs bought with your hard-earned tax money — just doesn't hold up.

Obama for sale

The newspaper business may be hurting, but Barack Obama — whether he realizes it or not — is doing what he can to help.

The latest paper to cash in on Obama's popularity is the Boston Herald. According to a newsroom source, the paper has published an ad-free, 32-page color magazine called "Boston Celebrates President Obama," which will cost $2.99 when it hits newsstands tomorrow. Overseen by city editor Jennifer Miller, the magazine will include contributions by everyone from Keith Lockhart to Tom and Ray Magliozzi, the hosts of NPR's "Car Talk."

The Boston Globe, meanwhile, printed 65,000 copies of an eight-page extra on Tuesday afternoon, following Obama's swearing-in. The Los Angeles Times and several other papers did the same, and those that didn't printed more copies of today's paper than usual.

The New York Times is being unusually aggressive. I managed to scarf a couple of copies on Election Day, visions of eventual eBay riches dancing in my head. Yet the Times is still selling copies of that day's paper, and has now added today's edition, along with a lapel pin and a photo. So much for the three copies I scored in Danvers Square at 5:30 this morning.

Maybe I should invest in those Obama coins that Montel Williams is pushing? Uh, I think not.

Peering through the blue murk

The Boston Herald today tries to knock down yesterday's Boston Globe story reporting that as many as 200 Boston police officers could be laid off because of the recession-driven budget meltdown. But it's difficult to know exactly what is going on.

For instance, the Herald's Jessica Van Sack writes that an aide to "enraged" (isn't it ever thus?) Boston Mayor Tom Menino said, "It won't be 200 police officers." Well, what about 150? Not exactly reassuring.

For that matter, the online headline over Van Sack's story goes quite a bit farther than her own carefully worded story: "Riled mayor Thomas M. Menino: Reports of cop layoffs untrue." The cover line, "Menino vows to spare cops from budget ax," strikes me as unsupported by Van Sack's reporting as well.

Given the murk, it's worth looking at what named sources have said. The Globe's Donovan Slack and Maria Cramer yesterday cited "two officials" in their report that "as many as 200" officers could lose their jobs. It's hard to know what to make of that, given that we don't know who the "two officials" are.

But they also quote Menino spokeswoman Dot Joyce as saying, "There is nothing official at this point, and it is way too premature to determine the impact on any department, including the Boston Police Department." And Police Commissioner Ed Davis weighs in with this: "Everyone knows that if your budget is 90 percent personnel and you sustain deep cuts, then personnel would be on the table. At this point in time, it's not something that I can comment on, because I don't know what those numbers are going to be."

I take Joyce's and Davis' comments as essentially confirming the idea that the two officials with whom the Globe spoke are knowledgeable, and that they are indeed throwing around the 200 number as a worst-case scenario, if nothing else.

Now let's take a look at what's on the record in Van Sack's Herald story today. Thomas Nee, president of the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association, tells her, "The mayor has assured me that while there are problems, there are no planned layoffs." OK. But I don't think anyone said there were at this point.

Joyce and Davis also pop up in the Herald story, and what they have to say is telling as well. Davis: "Somebody put this out to try to raise fear." No doubt about it — it smacks of a political tactic. But does that mean it's not true?

Joyce's quote to the Herald is even more equivocal: "Any numbers are irresponsible to put out at this time, seeing as we have no idea what's gonna happen with the state. There's lots of employees at the Police Department. The mayor has made it clear that protecting the service to residents as much as possible is his first priority."

Finally, the Globe's Cramer today quotes an e-mail Davis sent out within his department following yesterday's story: "At this time I want to be clear that no decision has been made to proceed with layoffs. Any suggestion to the contrary is premature." That doesn't contradict the Globe's report that as many as 200 officers could lose their jobs, either.

So what is going on? It's hard to say, but here's one likely possibility. Two officials knowledgeable about discussions taking place at City Hall leaked to the Globe the possibility that as many as 200 police officers might face layoffs. More than anything, the leak was aimed at scaring Gov. Deval Patrick into ensuring sufficient local aid so that such cuts don't have to be made.

Menino is angry — that's a given. What we don't know is if 1) he is genuinely angry because he didn't want the layoff numbers to be leaked, at least not yet; 2) he is genuinely angry because the Globe's emphasis on layoffs, rather than on Patrick's options, puts more pressure on City Hall than he had intended; or 3) he is pretending to be angry but is actually pleased that he succeeded in floating this frightening trial balloon.

Because officials appear to be dialing back, that gives the Herald the opportunity to claim that the Globe got it wrong. The problem is that what officials are actually saying, on the record, does not contradict the notion that as many as 200 officers could be laid off if more money can't be found.

Monday morning odds and ends

I don't plan to do much blogging this week, but I do want to call your attention to a few items:

• Chuck Tanowitz and Adam Reilly have both written sharp analyses of GateHouse Media's lawsuit against the New York Times Co. I think Reilly is on the mark with his observation that the Globe, through its Boston.com Your Town sites, is going beyond mere linking and is trying to establish itself as a substitute for GateHouse's Wicked Local sites, while using GateHouse's content.
  
• Joe Dwinell of the Boston Herald has also weighed in with a good item [link now fixed] on the suit. I do disagree with his characterization of this as "David vs. Goliath." Both GateHouse and the Times Co. are large, publicly traded media companies that are fighting for their financial lives. Call this Wounded Goliath I vs. Wounded Goliath II.
• Sean Polay, a top Internet guy for Rupert Murdoch's Ottaway Newspapers (including the Cape Cod Times and the Standard-Times of New Bedford), says he wouldn't mind at all if Boston.com linked to Ottaway content. Interesting, given that Herald publisher Pat Purcell recently accepted Murdoch's offer to run the Ottaway papers.
  

Finally, a source has provided me with a copy of Barclays' most recent report on the New York Times Co., the one that placed the value of the Globe at a mind-bogglingly low $20 million. I have posted it (PDF), so you can have a look for yourself. Perhaps a few gimlet-eyed Media Nation readers can find some gold.

I'm dubious. As you will see, Barclays values the Globe at somewhere between $12 million and $20 million — lower than the value of the "Worchester Papers," which it places at somewhere between $15 million and $25 million. That can't be right.

And, come on — the "Worchester Papers"? Does someone at Barclays think the Worcester Telegram & Gazette are two different papers?

What happens to the Globe and NESN?

No doubt many folks at the Boston Globe are breathing a sigh of relief at the news that its corporate parent, the New York Times Co., plans to unload its 17.5 percent stake in the Red Sox. The conflicts of interest have been many — not over game stories, but over various Red Sox business ventures the Globe has had to cover over the years.

But hold on. I thought the main reason the Times Co. made this investment was because of the Sox' 80 percent ownership of New England Sports Network. Globe sportswriters have been all over NESN, and some — especially Bob Ryan — have been quite good.

I imagine NESN would still want Globe people on the air. But doesn't this mean the end of Globe exclusivity? I suppose NESN and the Globe could sign some sort of agreement, but that's not the same as ownership.

Among other things, it strikes me that Sean McAdam, formerly of the Providence Journal and now of the Boston Herald, is an accomplished on-air performer, and would fit right in at NESN.

More: Adam Reilly wonders the same thing that I did when I first read the story: Is the Globe really worth just $20 million? I think it's a typo. This suggests the Globe is worth $120 million. Of course, that's shocking enough, given that the Times Co. bought the Globe for $1.1 billion back in 1993.