Category: Uncategorized

The formerly independent Bay State Banner

In their wonderful little book on media ethics, “The Elements of Journalism,” Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel identify independence as such a touchstone that it comprises two of their nine points:

4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power.

Today the Bay State Banner ceases to be an independent newspaper. By accepting Boston Mayor Tom Menino’s offer of a $200,000 government-administered loan, publisher Melvin Miller has compromised his 44-year-old weekly, which covers Greater Boston’s African-American community.

Miller tells the Boston Globe that he’ll still criticize Menino if he thinks it’s warranted. But that’s not the issue. Now, even if he blasts Menino, readers will have a right to wonder what calculations went into that — indeed, whether the Banner was being critical of the mayor just to prove that it could.

The Banner loan is neither unprecedented nor is it the end of the world. Several decades ago the late David Brickman, owner of the Malden Evening News, accepted government redevelopment money in order to build a new headquarters as part of an effort to rehabilitate Malden Square. The News continued to be a valuable local resource for many years to come. But there was a lot of criticism even at the time.

The general, inviolable rule is that government and journalism can’t mix because journalism is meant to be an independent check on government. That’s why recent suggestions to bail out the struggling newspaper business have largely been met with hoots of derision.

Miller may be right when he says accepting the loan is preferable to letting his paper go out of business. The Banner may continue as an important community outlet. I hope it does. But something was lost when Miller said “yes” to Menino.

More: John Carroll has similar thoughts.

Globe publisher calls union analysis “flawed”

Boston Globe publisher Steve Ainsley is back with a lengthy e-mail to employees disputing yesterday’s e-mail by Boston Newspaper Guild insurance consultant Bonnie Hanisch. Media Nation obtained a copy earlier this morning.

I realize these internal communications are becoming increasingly arcane. I present them solely in the interest of placing them in the public domain.

On Monday, the Guild will vote on the latest $10 million package in concessions negotiated by union leadership with the New York Times Co. The text of Ainsley’s e-mail follows:

Dear Colleagues:

Yesterday an email was distributed by BNG leadership providing Guild members with an analysis of the health care costs under the current conditions vs. under the tentative agreement that you will be voting on this coming Monday, July 20.

We feel that this analysis is flawed, and very misleading. We hope all Guild members have a chance to read the following information before Monday. If there are further questions, please let us know. You deserve accurate information about such an important issue.

Q&A Health Care Costs

Q. The Guild’s health care consultant has sent some recent e-mails purporting to show what the new payroll deductions would be effective July 24th. Is this accurate?

A. In a word, no. Health insurance rates will not change effective 7/24/09 under any circumstance. Health insurance rates are set jointly by Union and Globe management Health Fund trustees. In order to change rates the trustees must meet and agree on a new rate structure. This has not happened and will not happen by July 24th. The rates listed by the Union consultant have not been agreed to by the trustees.

Q. Will there be higher health insurance rates if the contract is ratified?

A. The Globe recognizes that if the tentative agreement is ratified with the necessary reduction in quid pro quo payments, this may result in either some additional payroll contributions required by plan participants or a restructuring of the plan to reduce its cost or, more likely, some combination of the two. How much of either may be necessary is unclear at this point. The Globe has suggested to the Union that as part of the rate-setting process that the trustees work together with the plan provider, Harvard Pilgrim, on ways to mitigate the increase through plan design or other changes in cost we can negotiate with Harvard Pilgrim. That has not happened yet. There is a substantial reserve in the Fund which will allow the trustees some time to negotiate with Harvard Pilgrim. We have successfully done this with a number of our other unions and with the Guild, in the past, as well. Projecting rates now, prior to necessary trustee action, is pure speculation.

Q. Is it also correct as the Union states, that if the contract is not ratified that health insurance rates will be lower?

A. Just as trustees must approve an increase in rates, their approval is required to lower rates. The trustees have not agreed to lower rates. If the contract is not ratified, the current rates will stay in effect until such time as they are changed by the trustees. The trustees have a fiduciary duty to ensure that rates are set appropriately. There is currently no information to suggest that drastic reduction in rates, as is suggested by the Union’s consultant, is financially sound or justified. The reserve exists in order to assure bills to health providers are paid without interruption and employees’ health insurance premiums remain as consistent as possible. The right amount to keep in reserves is decided by the trustees.

Q. What is the role of the Union’s health care consultant?

A. The Union’s health care consultant is a paid advisor to the Union and to the Union trustees on health care issues. The Globe has its own health care consultant who performs a similar role for the Globe. The consultants are not members of the joint board of trustees. As a result, the Union’s health care consultant has no authority to set rates or to implement changes unless and until the trustees as a group approve of any such rates or changes.

Q. Has the Union endorsed the new contract?

A. The Union Executive Committee agreed in negotiations that with the changes the Globe made to its prior final offer, the Committee would “endorse and recommend ratification” to the membership. The Union President signed a side letter which said that expressly, and the individual members of the Committee all signed the tentative Supplemental Agreement….

A final note, we very much hope that the tentative agreement with the Guild is approved on Monday, so we can move past the current imposed wage reduction.

Absent a positive ratification vote, the current wage reduction will continue and the Globe will focus its attention entirely on negotiations in the fall to replace the existing Guild contract which expires fully on December 31, 2009. The Globe, of course, would seek all the changes it needs in all cost and flexibility areas in that new agreement.

Hopefully, after Monday, we all can move forward with the stability of a settled contract through the end of 2010.

We urge everyone to vote.

— Steve

Guild e-mail paints dark picture

The Boston Newspaper Guild’s insurance consultant, Bonnie Hanisch, has sent an e-mail to Guild members at the Boston Globe showing that they could bring home slightly more money if they approve a package of concessions totaling $10 million when they vote on July 20. (Media Nation obtained a copy earlier today.)

The cost, though, is high: a brutal reduction in health-insurance and retirement benefits. In fact, the consultant’s math is based on an assumption that the average Guild member would choose to reduce her or his 401(k) contribution from 10 percent of salary to 4 percent if the package is rejected, as a similar package was on June 8. Hold the 401(k) contributions steady, and employees would actually make less money with a “yes” vote than with a “no” vote.

So why would anyone vote yes? If the concessions are approved, salaries will be cut by 9 percent (including eight unpaid days off). If they are rejected, the 23 percent pay cut implemented after the “no” vote remains in place.

The e-mail has led to some speculation that the Guild is quietly pushing for another “no” vote, the Phoenix’s Adam Reilly reports. Poynter Institute business analyst Rick Edmonds describes the situation facing Guild members as “a choice between a punch in the gut now or being slapped upside the head later,” with a “yes” vote merely deferring some of the pain.

Yesterday I had a chance to talk with a few Globe staff members about the vote and whether they think the concessions will be approved this time around. The rough consensus: yes, but there is deep anger at the New York Times Co. over its highhandedness and lack of straightforwardness in communicating with Globe employees.

Look for the vote to be close once again.

The full text of Hanisch’s e-mail follows:

The Executive Committee, along with the Governing Board, has asked that I reiterate some of the questions that came up this weekend, along with an example of how you could mitigate the 23% if the contract is not ratified.

First, our medical plan renews on May 1st of each year. Our premiums increased from Harvard Pilgrim by approximately $500,000. At that time, there was an estimated $300,000 in the Taft Hartley Health Fund, and we were expecting an additional $200,000 of new health fund quids that had been negotiated in the last bargaining negotiations. Hence, there was no rate change/contribution changes to the employees.

On April 7th, we began the $10 million concession meetings with the company. Ultimately, part of the concessions was approximately $1.3 million in health care quids that had been negotiated over the past 20 years.

What this means to you — whether the contract is ratified or not, your health insurance contribution rates will increase next May 1, 2010. Based on our estimates, if the contract is ratified, we need $2.5 million of employee contributions. If the contract is not ratified, we need $1 million of employee contributions. (Health care increases are based on the medical claims of this group and those that are participating. These estimates are based on the same health care costs, and an estimated 5% increase.)

If the contract is not ratified, here is an example of how to reduce your costs:

If Ratified
Average Salary: $58,000
Family Health Insurance: -$ 5,492
401K Deductions (Average person in BNG is 10%): -$5,800
Taxes (FICA, FUTA, SUTA, Fed; est. 30%): -$14,012
8 Furlough/Unpaid Days: -$2,231
TOTAL: $30,463*

If Not Ratified
Average Salary: $44,660 (23% reduction)
Family Health Insurance: -$1,170
401K Deductions (change to 4%): -$1,786
Taxes: -$12,511
Zero Furlough/Unpaid Days: $0
TOTAL: $29,193

Difference of $1,270 or $24.42 per week.

If the contract is not ratified, you keep the $1.3 million of quids; you keep the pension plan; you keep the retiree health insurance; you keep the 401(k) match, etc.

If anyone has any questions, please feel free to contact me at xxx.

Thank you.

Bonnie M. Hanisch, CEBS
President
Boston Insurance Group

*As alert Media Nation commenter Tony points out, Hanisch’s math is a bit off — the number should be $30,465.

A banner day for the Banner?

The Bay State Banner may survive. According to the Boston Globe’s Meghan Irons, Harvard Law School professor Charles Ogletree (photo) says he has lined up a dozen investors to save the weekly newspaper, which serves Greater Boston’s African-American community. Ogletree says the Banner, founded 44 years ago by Melvin Miller, who’s still the publisher, could resume publication next week.

Meanwhile, the Phoenix’s Adam Reilly takes a closer look at the Banner and finds it to be “uneven.” But though Reilly pays lip service to the notion that the Banner is a community paper rather than the African-American equivalent of the Globe or the Boston Herald, I think he gets a little too hung up on the Banner’s shortcomings in comparison to major media outlets.

The real point of comparison ought to be with neighborhood papers like the Jamaica Plain Gazette, the South End News and the Dorchester Reporter, as well as ethnic papers like El Planeta, the Boston Irish Reporter and the Boston Haitian Reporter.

I don’t want to make it sound like I’m intimately familiar with what those papers publish every week; far from it. But I do know that neighborhood papers are where you go for church and school announcements, news about local businesses and the like, which you rarely see in either of the city’s dailies. Whenever I’ve picked up a Banner, that’s what has stood out.

Of course, a weekly newspaper isn’t the only way of covering a neighborhood or an ethnic community. New England Ethnic News, for instance, offers an online compendium of the city’s ethnic newspapers, including the Banner.

In addition, a couple of years ago, there was a serious proposal to launch a Web-based news service for Roxbury, with content to be provided by citizen journalists who’d be recruited for the task. Perhaps the smartest idea was to tie the Web site to a local-access cable program.

It never got off the ground, which was a shame. But if the Banner revival falls short — or even if it doesn’t — we’re likely to see some online experiments in reaching out to Boston’s neighborhoods.

Photo of Ogletree (cc) by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

Commenting on comments with Keller

WBZ-TV (Channel 4) political analyst Jon Keller will be interviewing Doug Bailey and me about Bailey’s column in today’s Boston Globe, in which he argues that newspaper comments are worthless. (They are if you’re going to do them the way the Globe and the Boston Herald do them. But we’ll talk.)

The segment should pop up on the 11 p.m. news.

And by the way, has anyone yet figured out the identity of the anonymous blogger whom Bailey attacked?

Thursday update: Here’s the link to Keller’s story.

Dissecting the death of WBCN

Danny Schechter, the “News Dissector” whose progressive approach to the news was such a key part of WBCN’s early years, has weighed in on CBS’s decision to pull the plug. He writes:

The station’s legacy and importance — the reason it built a national reputation and worldwide respect — was deliberately buried in the need to meet quarterly revenue projections and serve its corporate masters. Their goal was to compete with commercial drek by becoming commercial drek. And they did.

And where did it take them? To the radio graveyard. Shame.

Interestingly enough, Schechter says he had recently been approached about doing commentaries for WBCN’s Web site — something that may yet come to pass, given that CBS is reportedly thinking about keeping the station semi-alive online.