Year: 2009

If A-Rod tipped pitches, he should be banned

Nick Cafardo’s blasé take on the latest Alex Rodriguez controversy has me scratching my head.

In her forthcoming book on A-Rod, Selena Roberts alleges that, when he was with the Texas Rangers, he would sometimes deliberately tip pitches to opposing hitters. It’s nice to know that David Ortiz would “beat the crap out of him” if he were the pitcher and the allegations were true. But why are we not talking about an immediate investigation, followed by a possible lifetime ban?

Cafardo writes in today’s Boston Globe:

This is New York, a city and a team built to handle controversy. So A-Rod took steroids in high school, the book alleges … so A-Rod went to strip clubs … so A-Rod allegedly tipped pitches to opposing hitters … so A-Rod had the Texas clubhouse guy put toothpaste on his toothbrush every day.

Beyond the entertainment value, who cares?

Who cares? Other than the apparent absence of a gambling angle, what A-Rod is alleged to have done is akin to throwing games.

Roberts is no hack — it was she who flushed out the first round of A-Rod allegations, which turned out to be true. Yet no one seems to be all that upset about the possibility that Rose — er, Rodriguez — was stabbing his Texas teammates and fans in the back.

WTKK statement on Jay Severin

This now appears on the Web site of WTKK Radio (96.9 FM):

WTKK and Greater Media value an open and vigorous dialogue, but we also adhere to basic principles of civility, common decency and respect for all cultures. We believe Jay’s suspension is the best way to uphold both of these corporate policies. WTKK Management met with Jay Severin and his agent today. He will remain on suspension until further notice.

V.B., who took the afternoon shift today, said he was “filling in for Jay.” Sounds like Severin may be back. And if management means what it says, it also sounds like Severin will be helming a very different show.

“Beat the Press” Web site goes public

Please have a look at the new Web site for “Beat the Press,” the media-roundtable program that’s broadcast on Fridays at 7 p.m. on WGBH-TV (Channel 2). You can watch video clips, read the blog, post comments and suggest show topics.

The site went public on Friday, and here is the welcome post from chief blogger Ralph Ranalli. Hope you enjoy it.

It depends on what the meaning of “30 days” is

Maybe this is moot, given that Boston Globe spokesman Robert Powers now says the company won’t file the paperwork necessary to start a 60-day process aimed at closing the paper. But the question arose earlier today as to whether management had really threatened to close the paper in 30 days if it didn’t win $20 million in union concessions.

That’s certainly the way many people interpreted it. When I opened our front door early this morning, it was with the expectation that the Globe might not be there. Late last week, when the first deadline passed, Adam Gaffin of Universal Hub went so far as to post a photo of the Globe on his walkway to prove the paper was still around. And as recently as Saturday, the Globe itself put it this way:

Last night’s announcement extends a grueling month of negotiations and uncertainty that began in early April when the Times Co. called together leaders of the paper’s 13 unions and told them it would shutter the Globe unless it gained $20 million in concessions by May 1.

The deadline was then extended two days after an accounting error was revealed.

Earlier today a colleague told me it was always understood that the Times Co. wouldn’t actually close the Globe after 30 days, but, rather, would merely begin the process of closing it. I think that’s Clintonesque. The Times Co., by all appearances, was ready to pay the price of ignoring the federally mandated 60-day shutdown period. If union leaders had known from the beginning that they really had 90 days, they wouldn’t have entered into frantic negotiations last week and over the weekend.

In any case, the latest statement from Powers makes it appear that all sides may be very close to a final agreement — or that management thinks it’s hit upon a plan to accomplish its goals without the consent of the Boston Newspaper Guild, the one union that is still holding out. I certainly hope this is just about over. It’s unfair to Globe staffers, and to the community, to have to go through all of this again in two months.

What could management have in mind? The Boston Phoenix’s Adam Reilly has some pretty interesting material suggesting that the lifetime contracts could be voided “[i]n the event of a dramatic and apparently irreversible downturn in the Globe’s business.” That event now appears to be upon us. Call it the nuclear option — management-employee relations would never be the same.

Finally, former Globe columnist David Warsh has a fascinating look back at how and why the Taylor family decided to sell to the New York Times Co. in 1993, as well as an analysis of subsequent events.

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.

David Ortiz and baseball mortality

Tony Massarotti asks the question that’s on everyone’s mind: Is the end at hand for David Ortiz? I think it’s still too early to tell. It may be that he can’t catch up with a good fastball because his mechanics are screwed up; it’s not necessarily age and injuries.

But if he’s not hitting by Memorial Day, then it may be time to face the likelihood that he’s through. What a shame that would be. Still, I think the Sox could survive Ortiz’s departure. What they can’t survive is a prolonged slump by Josh Beckett, Jon Lester or both.

The numbers tell the story

Jay Severin has been disappeared from the WTKK home page, though you can still find his blog if you know where to look.

The Boston Herald’s Jessica Heslam has the numbers, and they tell a gruesome story. During the first quarter of 2009, Severin dropped to 14th place among 25- to 54-year-old listeners, the most demographically important group. Severin’s WRKO rival, Howie Carr, was in sixth place. Severin had a 3.6 share; Carr, 5.2.

Heslam notes that Severin’s plunge came as radio stations switched to a new method of measuring audience. What’s unclear is whether the old system was artificially inflating Severin’s numbers; the new system is artifically hurting him; or people are just sick of listening to his race-baiting rants.

I love this:

Sources within Greater Media, which owns the station, have told the Herald that management has been dissatisfied with the “hateful” tone his show has taken. One source said Severin had been warned in the past.

So when was this magical period when Severin’s show was not “hateful”? No doubt Greater Media executives thought Severin sounded a whole lot less hateful when he was beating Carr every day. I’m sure one thing they really hate is paying a reported $1 million-plus a year to a host who’s coming in 14th in the ratings.

After a Globe deal, then what?

It could have been predicted, though it was looking pretty shaky over the past few days. But barring any last-minute snags, it looks like the New York Times Co. will have its $20 million in union concessions from Boston Globe employees by the (new) deadline of midnight on Sunday (Globe coverage here; Boston Herald coverage here).

Which raises a serious question. Given that the Times Co. will likely be able to declare victory, what will be its next step? After all, the Globe is reportedly on track to lose $85 million this year — or $65 million, presumably, once the concessions are in place.

There’s been a lot of speculation by media observers, including me, that the month-long standoff was a prelude to some dramatic action, including throwing the Globe into bankrupty, letting a judge restructure the paper and then selling it to a local owner. But I don’t see how that can happen if the unions give management what it wants.

Can the Times Co. afford simply to wait out the recession? I hope so. I guess we’ll find out soon enough.