Herald-ing local dailies’ woes

These are not the best of times for either of Boston’s daily newspapers. Three stories in today’s Boston Herald tell the tale:

– Following Monday’s announcement that the New York Times Co. will reduce its workforce – a move that will cost the Boston Globe 35 newsroom positions – the Herald’s Jay Fitzgerald reports that Globe union members are mad as hell. Not surprisingly, union president Dan Totten reserves some venom for James “King” Kilts, the mogul who sold locally owned Gillette down the river to Procter & Gamble. Kilts was named to the Times Co. board several months ago.

– The Herald’s Greg Gatlin indulges (link now fixed, thanks to Media Nation reader SMM) in some speculation about the future of Globe publisher Richard Gilman. Gatlin also dredges up a hardy perennial: the notion that the paper will cut costs by running material from the New York Times.

There are really two issues here. The first is that the Globe might use Times stories instead of material it currently buys from the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and elsewhere. That might enable the Globe to save money, but it wouldn’t necessarily represent a downsizing of the paper’s ambitions.

The second, more serious issue is whether the Globe might substitute Times coverage for some of its own reporting on national and world affairs. This would be the big one, and would cement even further the idea that the Globe is just a satellite of the Times.

My guess: the first might happen on at least a selective basis (the Globe has occasionally published Times photos for the past few years), but the second won’t, at least not yet. What the pessimists overlook is that the Globe is one of the Times Co.’s most valuable properties. Speculation to the contrary, Times Co. executives do not want to persuade readers to drop the Globe and take the Times instead, because they want the Globe to be financially successful.

On the other hand, speculation that the Times Co. will seek to squeeze the Globe as much as possible without actually driving readers away strikes me as being right on target. Unfortunately.

– Lest we forget, the Herald itself went through an incredibly painful round cost-cutting earlier this year, slashing its newsroom by about 40 employees, or 25 percent. And publisher Pat Purcell is still pushing to bolster his revenues by any means necessary. Today, in a non-bylined piece, the paper tries to put the best face on the fact that tabloid is starting to run page-one ads. The forced-cutesy lead:

HERALD: Future trivia question: Which advertiser was the first to land an ad on the Boston Herald’s front page? Answer: Sovereign Bank.

The story notes that such papers as the Times and USA Today have run page-one ads.

The Herald ad – a red strip across the bottom teasing a bigger ad on page three – is fairly unobtrusive. Nor do I think it takes away from the paper’s image or credibility. I’d go so far as to say it’s acceptable for paper as economically challenged as the Herald. But publishing ads on the front still falls into the category of Things You Don’t Really Want to Do.