Author: Dan Kennedy

FBI: Power was not in Weather Underground

I’m planning to write a much longer post tomorrow. But since Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media is attacking me today, I thought I would provide a sneak preview.

Both Kincaid and WTKK talk-show host Michael Graham have pointed to an FBI Web page identifying convicted murderer Katherine Ann Power as a member of the Weather Underground as proof that I’m wrong — OK, worse than wrong — in arguing otherwise (as I do here and here). Power and four accomplices killed Boston police officer Walter Schroeder in a 1970 bank robbery.

Well, here’s that FBI page again. Oh, look! The photo of Power has been removed. Let’s scroll down to the bottom of the screen, shall we? Here’s what it says:

Photo of Katherine Ann Power was removed because she was inaccurately associated with the Weather Underground.

As Graham himself so elegantly put it to one of the commenters on his blog recently: “I’m supposed to take your word for it that Powers [sic] didn’t consider herself a member of the Weather Underground…and NOT the FBI? You know–the people who actually investigated the crime?”

Michael, I’m taking the FBI’s word for it. How about you?

Kincaid responds: “Dear Professor: So what was inaccurate about it? This doesn’t explain anything. In order to clear this up, I strongly suggest that you explain who at the FBI you contacted, and who in the Bureau made this change on your behalf. What’s more, please tell me how this last-minute change refutes anything former FBI official Revell told me, or what was contained in the Senate report? How does it refute Romerstein’s comments? And what about the Park Station bombing case? You have a lot more explaining (and correcting) to do. You’re not out of the woods by any stretch. Sorry, but I won’t let you off the hook. Cliff Kincaid.”

Well, Cliff, you’ve got me. Regular readers of Media Nation know what great pull and clout I have with the FBI. I was hoping you wouldn’t find out.

Kinsley’s sour take on newspapers

Michael Kinsley is in a sour mood today as he ponders the future of newspapers. Shorter Kinsley: Let ’em die. Slightly longer Kinsley: Non-profit, foundation-supported newspapers are a bad idea because if the marketplace won’t support them, then they have no right to exist.

Personally, I’m not wild about the idea of non-profit newspapers. For one thing, you have to give up some of your First Amendment rights. For another, there’s a danger that such papers, insulated from the pressures of the marketplace, will become too disconnected from their readers.

I prefer the St. Petersburg Times model: a for-profit newspaper owned by a non-profit organization — the Poynter Institute, in the Times’ case. The financial advantages aren’t as great as true non-profit status, but at least the editors don’t have to check with the IRS every time they want to weigh in on a political matter.

But gee, Mike, let a thousand experiments bloom. I’d like to see someone give non-profit newspapering a try. Maybe we can start with the Boston Globe.

And let me point out that public radio stations are pretty much all owned by non-profit foundations, and they are anything but disconnected from their listeners. Simply by having to solicit the bulk of their money from listeners, public radio station executives are perhaps more connected to their communities than many newspaper publishers and editors.

Finally: Kinsley is so far off in his observation that newspapers are dying because no one wants to read them that it’s hard to know where to begin. Do I really have to point out that newspaper readership is reasonably healthy when you add print and online readers together?

Just because it’s become a cliché to say that the business model is broken doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

The numbers make no sense

Jay Fitzgerald and I are both shaking our heads over the same thing: the New York Times Co.’s claim that the Boston Globe is on track to lose $85 million this year. By one measure, he notes, you’d have to lay off 1,200 of the paper’s 1,400 employees to close the gap. Does this make any sense? How is this even remotely possible?

Last December, when Tribune Co. declared bankruptcy under the weight of $13 billion in corporate debt, it was reported that its newspapers — which include the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune — were actually profitable, or would be if it weren’t for Sam Zell’s depredations.

What’s going on with the Times Co. and the Globe is the reverse. Not that the Times Co. is without debt. The issue, though, is not corporate debt, but actual operating losses in Boston.

According to a chart in yesterday’s Globe — I’m sure it’s in the Times Co.’s annual report, but why look it up when it’s right in front of me? — the revenues for the company’s New England Media Group (the Globe, the Worcester Telegram & Gazette and Boston.com) fell from $700 million in 2004 to $524 million in 2008.

The Globe accounts for the vast majority of those revenues. I fail to understand how a paper pulling in that kind of money — with a weekday circulation of about 325,000, a Sunday circulation of 500,000 or so, and more than 5 million unique Web visitors a month — can’t find a way to break even.

I’m not a financial guy, but to me, it just makes no sense.

John Ellis predicts bankruptcy for the Globe

John Ellis, who knows his stuff, believes the best option for the Boston Globe is a prepackaged bankruptcy.

A Bush cousin and venture capitalist who used to write a column for the Globe, Ellis writes that he recently worked with a group that was considering buying the paper — and that they all walked away after concluding that the situation was “hopeless.”

“No one will buy it unless the unfunded liabilities are made to go away and the union contracts are voided,” writes Ellis, who pegs those liabilites at $100 million. “That isn’t an opinion, it’s a fact.”

No one is saying that things aren’t very bad at the Globe. When you look at the numbers, you come to the inescapable conclusion that the $20 million in cuts the New York Times Co. is demanding will only tide them over for a few months.

Still, Ellis isn’t predicting that the Globe will fold. That’s important to keep in mind. When I say that I’m cautiously optimistic — and I am — I’m not suggesting that we readers are going to live happily ever after.

The Globe that emerges from all this will be substantially smaller than even the shrunken paper we’ve become accustomed to. It may have a different owner. The print edition may be cut back to three or four days a week (but not eliminated, given that print ads are still the revenue-generators). But it will, I think, still be in business.

Gallows humor: Before I could post this item to Facebook, the anti-spam robot instructed me to type “assuage Times.”

The Globe’s oddly timed ad campaign

So much for a decent interval. Just hours after the Boston Globe blew out its front page with the news that the New York Times Co. will shut the paper down if it can’t come up with $20 million in savings, the Globe has unveiled a print and television promotional campaign built around the theme of “One Story.”

A source passes this along, from the Globe’s internal Web site:

Globe launches new brand campaign

On Sunday the Globe will launch a new brand campaign that reinforces the value of the Globe’s journalism among our core readers. A TV commercial showcases the Globe’s award-winning photography while focusing on the compelling stories found in the Globe. The spots (60 sec. & 30 sec.) will initially run on NESN during the highly rated Red Sox games. More than 24 print ads were created to run in the Globe and Metro. On-line ads will run on Boston.com. The campaign also has a Web page with all the creative where readers or advertisers can find more information. The entire campaign was conceived and executed internally by our marketing and creative services teams.

Globe executives have got to keep moving forward, so in principle I’ve got no problem with this. But the timing is exceedingly odd, given the very public face-off now taking place between management and the unions.

Even better, the Globe has posted an angry story about reaction to the Times Co.’s ultimatum. One Story, you might say.

Apocalypse now? Or maybe later?

Newspaper analyst and blogger Alan Mutter argues that the New York Times Co.’s $20 million demand isn’t that big a deal, and that the Boston Globe may have hurt its prospects by playing up the story beyond its importance. He writes:

The story not only was vastly overplayed but also may serve to unnecessarily damage the newspaper’s already weakened business. The editors, who evidently let emotion overcome their news judgment, should have known better.

To which new-media advocate Jeff Jarvis replies: “Was this a negotiating move? Of course. But it’s a credible threat.”

Trying to make sense of the numbers

Jay Fitzgerald makes some excellent points about the Boston Globe’s projected losses even after another $20 million cuts are extracted from the paper. But I’m not sure that we know whether the remaining $65 million gap to which he refers includes the cuts that were completed last Monday. It may not be quite that bad. Or it could be worse. Who knows?