More possible cuts at the Globe

The Boston Globe may get rid of City Weekly and the twice-weekly Northwest section, according to Michelle Hillman of the Boston Business Journal. She writes that the Globe would “absorb the coverage into other sections of the paper” if managers decide to go ahead with the move.

What does that mean? A fair reading of it is that the Globe is telling us it’s only trying to save on paper and production costs, and that there will be no loss of coverage if the two sections are folded. I guess we’ll find out. (Via Universal Hub.)

The two most successful papers in the U.S. Really.

Let’s take a time-out from the news apocalypse to acknowledge the two most successful newspapers in the United States: the New York Times and the Boston Globe.

What? Isn’t the financially ailing Times selling part of itself off to a shady Mexican billionaire? Isn’t the Globe, owned by the Times Co., losing a reported $1 million a week and eliminating 50 editorial positions?

Yes and yes. This week, though, the Nieman Journalism Lab pulled together a year’s worth of Web site figures — compiled by Nielsen and reported monthly by Editor & Publisher — and found that the Times’ and the Globe’s Web sites are far and away the most successful in their respective weight classes.

Among national papers, the Times has built such a huge lead over its rivals that there’s really no comparison. Look at the chart. With nearly 19.5 million unique visitors every month, the Times’ online readership is nearly double that of its closest competitor, USA Today.

The Globe’s Web site, Boston.com, ranked number six in the country, with 5.2 million unique visitors a month. If you consider the Los Angeles Times to be a national paper, then the Globe is by far the largest regional online newspaper.

One other thing. In December, visitors to the New York Times Web site spent an average of 33 minutes poking around. At the Globe, it was nearly 17 minutes. In other words, a substantial number of people are actually reading the paper on line, not just dipping in quickly from a search engine.

To be sure, there are some extenuating circumstances. According to the Nieman analysis, the Times’ average monthly uniques were driven up by the resignation of Eliot Spitzer as New York’s governor last March. The Globe benefited from Red Sox coverage during their September playoff drive. In fact, the Globe benefits from the Red Sox year-round, as Sox fans from around the country check in on a daily basis.

Still, this is further proof that what ails the newspaper business right now isn’t a lack of readers — it’s the collapse of the old business model, compounded by recession and debt.

If there’s any good news here, it’s that there are enough people who want what newspapers are giving them that there may be some way of figuring out the revenue dilemma.

Taking a pass on the Ted Kennedy series

No, I’m not reading the Boston Globe’s Ted Kennedy series, either. As a 50-something political junkie, I don’t need yet another overview of Kennedy’s life and career, no matter how comprehensive and well-executed it is. And I’ll assume it’s quite good.

For me, the more interesting question is this: Who’s the intended audience? Clearly the timing is based on Kennedy’s terminal illness. Kennedy has been much in the news, and there are probably a lot of younger people out there who don’t know that much about him.

Can the Globe lure the under-30s in with an effort like this? I suspect it’s a tough sell, although anyone who doesn’t know much about Kennedy ought to spend some time with the Globe series.

Not to be morbid, but the Globe has also positioned itself well for Kennedy’s death, both with its online multimedia package and an accompanying book, “Last Lion,” edited by Washington bureau chief Peter Canellos.

But I agree with Mr. Outraged Liberal: Right now, the series isn’t generating any buzz at all.

Another assault on free speech

Is there a trend afoot to enforce archaic anti-free speech laws and to ignore a century’s worth of court decisions expanding the meaning of the First Amendment?

You’ve got to wonder. First we have last week’s ruling by a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Boston undermining truth as an absolute defense in a libel suit. The ruling was based on a 1902 Massachusetts law that one would have thought would be ruled unconstitutional on its face.

Now, in Pennsylvania, state authorities have told a filmmaker that he can’t call his business I Choose Hell Productions because of a state law banning names that “constitute blasphemy, profane cursing or swearing or that profane the Lord’s name.” The filmmaker, with the help of the ACLU, has filed suit in federal district court.

It is well-established constitutional law that the 14th Amendment bars states from restricting rights more severely than the U.S. Constitution allows. I tell my students that Massachusetts laws against blasphemy were rendered unenforceable after the U.S. Supreme Court, in Gitlow v. New York (1925), made it clear that the First Amendment applied to the states. (All hail Wikipedia, which nicely explains the significance of Gitlow.)

We’ll see if the federal court in Pennsylvania agrees.

Racist stupidity at the New York Post

Sean Delonas’ cartoon in today’s New York Post may not be racist in intent, but it is racist in effect. How anyone — Delonas and his editors — could be unaware of the way African-Americans have historically been compared to apes in order to diminish them is beyond me.

Eric Deggans offers some insights for the St. Petersburg Times, and was especially good earlier today on NPR’s “All Things Considered.” And Romenesko rounds up coverage.

Update: Jon Keller agrees.

A question about Michael Graham’s arrest

I am determined not to get caught up in WTKK Radio (96.9 FM) talk-show host Michael Graham‘s loud, high-pitched crusade against the Registry of Motor Vehicles. Graham, as you may have heard, was arrested last week and charged with running a red light and driving after the revocation of his license.

But let me ask a question. Graham says the issue is the Registry’s policy of not notifying drivers when their licenses have been revoked. Everything I’ve seen, though, including Jessica Heslam’s latest in the Boston Herald, suggests that Graham was notified. Graham himself comes off as ambivalent, writing on his blog this past Saturday:

–According to my insurance company, I was contacted by the RMV in October 2008–almost three years after leaving VA–about Virginia threatening to cancel my drivers license in 2008 (huh?) unless I proved I had insurance on my car in 2006 (huh?), and MA was going to suspend my license here, too. (Huh what huh?)

–According to my insurance company, I gave them the VA DMV’s fax number, contact information and my VA drivers license number in October of 2008, and they forwarded my information to Virginia.

–I never heard another word about any of this until I was handcuffed and read my rights yesterday morning.

By Graham’s own account, it sounds like he was notified, took some steps to clear up the matter and then failed to follow up and make sure everything was all right.

Or maybe: Graham also writes, “What you didn’t read in the Herald, however, were the notes from my insurance company showing that they had responded to that letter in October and giving the Virginia DMV the information requested. You also didn’t see the portion of my personal RMV file showing that more than a week AFTER that supposed revocation notice, the RMV gave me a brand-new driver’s license.”

So Graham presented a new driver’s license to the Framingham police, who ran a check on it and found it had been revoked? I guess.

Soon to be ex-senator Burris (II)

Check out this statement from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office, as reported by Talking Points Memo: “Senator Reid supports Senator Burris’ decision to cooperate with all appropriate officials who may review this matter, including state agencies and the Senate Ethics Committee.” Whoa.

Here’s why Roland Burris is a goner. Shortly after Rod Blagojevich appointed him, Reid adamantly insisted that Burris would never be seated. On Jan. 4, for instance, Reid appeared on “Meet the Press” and essentially said the Senate would not accept anyone appointed by Blagojevich, whom he called “obviously a corrupt individual.”

Reid backed down because he had to, and because Burris appeared to be ethical. It wasn’t pretty. And now Burris has made Reid look like a fool for a second time.

If Burris won’t resign, I say the Senate will expel him, with Reid leading the charge. Good riddance.