Media Nation

I love my Mac, but it doesn’t love me. I just got my iBook G3 back from Apple following its sixth repair in three years. And guess what? It’s working again, but I can no longer adjust the brightness on the screen. My three-year extended warranty expires Wednesday. I should get it back to the shop, but I don’t want to give it up again. Such are the frustrations of a longtime Mac lover.

Lately I’ve been thinking the unthinkable: The next time I upgrade — say, in six months or so — I might actually take another look at Windows. Never mind the hardware problems — I’m frustrated at the number of sites I keep running into whose multimedia features only work with Windows (MSNBC.com, for instance), or that make the experience for Mac users so painful that it’s not worth the effort (NECN.com).

How is it that WBZ-TV (Channel 4), to name just one example, can get it right? I have no trouble watching old friend Jon Keller on my iBook. For that matter, there are plenty of Mac-friendly multimedia sites, from NYTimes.com to Youtube.com. It can be done, and apparently it’s not even hard.

But as someone who’s supposed to keep up on the intersection between journalism and new media, I find it pretty frustrating when I run into a section of AOL.com or Yahoo that is restricted to Windows users.

Nor would the switch be all that difficult. I almost did it a half-dozen years ago and gave up in frustration over incompatible software. Now, though, it would be trivial. Almost every program I use these comes in two (or more) flavors, Windows and Mac: Microsoft Office, Firefox, Ecto for blog-posting, Mozilla for Web design, and, of course, Apple’s own iTunes. About the only program I use regularly that doesn’t have an exact Windows equivalent is iPhoto — and I know Adobe makes some cool consumer-level stuff for Windows customers.

Are Apple’s new MacBooks sexy? Oh, yes they are. But I’m really beginning to wonder.

I’ve written an essay for Slate on the TLC reality series “Little People, Big World.” The show is about a dwarf couple, Matt and Amy Roloff, and their four kids. Please have a look.

Let’s say Pat Purcell sells Community Newspaper Co. and keeps the Boston Herald. According to Steve Bailey’s sources, the deal for CNC plus The Patriot Ledger of Quincy and The Enterprise of Brockton could bring $370 million to $400 million. That’s a lot of money.

Now, Purcell doesn’t own The Ledger or The Enterprise. But I’m guessing that most of that money would go to Purcell, given that CNC comprises about 100 papers in communities that are, for the most part, more affluent than those served by The Ledger or The Enterprise. So it sounds like Purcell stands to make a very nice profit, given that he paid a reported $150 million for CNC about five years ago.

So what’s next? Keep an eye on this column by Greg Gatlin, which appeared in the Herald on Thursday. In it, Gatlin calls for a loosening of FCC regulations that currently prohibit one person or corporation from owning a radio or TV station and a daily newspaper in the same market. Such a loosening almost happened two years ago, but Congress and the courts put the kibbosh on the FCC’s deregulatory frenzy. Now that the furor has died down, the FCC might try again.

At one time Purcell was talking about some sort of deal with Brad Bleidt, the former owner of WBIX Radio (AM 1060), now playing keyboards in a prison rock band. And certainly it doesn’t hurt the Herald that many of its marquee personalities are on the radio: Gerry Callahan, Steve Buckley, Mike Felger, Margery Eagan, Howie Carr, Cosmo Macero and the Tracksters. (Am I missing anyone?) At the same time, though, it must gall Purcell that he has no control over any of this.

This is the kind of synergy that could work. I doubt too many folks who read Purcell’s Wellesley Townsman want the neighbors to notice that they’ve got a Herald on their front doorstep. On the other hand, an aggressive urban tabloid and an in-your-face radio operation make perfect sense. And Purcell may soon have the money to make it happen.

The most earth-shattering change in the Boston Phoenix’s 40-year history was announced yesterday: Barry Morris, president of the company from its earliest days, said he’ll retire soon. He’ll be succeeded by Brad Mindich, currently the executive vice president and the son of founder, publisher and chairman Stephen Mindich. Mark Jurkowitz has all the details, including comments from Morris and the text of a company-wide e-mail sent out by Brad Mindich.

Barry is absolutely driven, and is widely credited with transforming the Phoenix into the revenue machine it’s been for most of its existence. That, in turn, has allowed the Phoenix to engage in the sort of high-level journalism that has made it one of the three most important print outlets in the city, along with the Globe and the Herald. It’s nice to see that he’s retiring at an age — 61 — at which he’s still got many good years ahead of him. According to Brad’s e-mail, the phrase “Gone Fishin’ ” is literally true in Barry’s case.

Meanwhile, the Phoenix (disclosure: I’m still a contributing writer) is, like all newspapers, undergoing a significant transformation, as editorial and business-side folks try to figure out how to get ready for the looming post-print era. Earlier this year the paper went through a change in design and format. The same is true of the Web site, which is expanding with blogs and interactive features.

But it’s not going to be the same without Barry.

A lot of people were talking about this yesterday, and the Boston Globe’s Steve Bailey nailed it down sufficiently to put it into print (scroll down) today: Pat Purcell will sell his 100 or so suburban papers in Eastern Massachusetts and hang on to the Boston Herald. The deal would presumably get Purcell out of the heavy debt he took on to buy the local papers from Fidelity Capital a few years ago.

Still, Purcell — who tried to hire Bailey a couple of years ago — cautions that there’s nothing to announce. So who knows?

This suggests that the good news online for the New York Times Co. has mostly to do with its About.com subsidiary.

From a Web site called MediaBuyerPlanner.com:

New York Times Co. newspapers’ online ad revenues, including those for the New York Times, Boston Globe, and Sarasota Herald-Tribune, surged in February — up 23 percent from a year ago …

You can’t tell from this how well the Globe’s Boston.com site is doing. But this is additional confirmation that the online incarnation of the Globe is doing fine — or would be, if overall revenues were enough to offset the decline of the print edition.

And, of course, the Globe is not alone. Earlier this week, the New York Times reported that, at the San Jose Mercury News, revenue from help-wanted ads has plummeted over the past five years from $118 million annually to $18 million. Why buy an ad when there’s Craigslist?

The Craigslist effect probably isn’t quite as devastating at the Globe as it has been at the Mercury News. But no doubt it’s bad enough.

I have class in six minutes, so I’ll keep this brief. But it looks like things might be coming to a head at both of Boston’s troubled dailies.

Mark Jurkowitz of the Boston Phoenix reports on a “palpable buzz” that Pat Purcell’s efforts to sell the Boston Herald and his Community Newspaper subsidiary may lead to a major announcement at any moment. Yes, I know this is cryptic, and it’s unclear whether Purcell will actually bug out or simply line up new investors. But it does appear that the uncertainty that hovers over One Herald Square may finally lift.

Meanwhile, the news at the Boston Globe just keeps getting worse. The Boston Business Journal yesterday reported that a 12 percent plunge in advertising revenues at the Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette is doing serious damage to the New York Times Co.’s bottom line.

The Herald weighs in with a two-fer on the Globe’s woes today, with Jay Fitzgerald handling the news side and Brett Arends offering analysis.

The Globe appears to be silent on these developments.

Jay Fitzgerald reports in today’s Boston Herald that New York Times Co. chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. is paying a visit to his company’s troubled Boston Globe subsidiary next week. Globe spokesman Al Larkin describes the visit as routine, but Fitzgerald’s sources tell him that the Globe may be preparing for another round of job reductions, including those of some high-ranking managers.

And please check out the comments to my Monday post on the Globe’s ongoing revenue woes. I’ve been expanding on my argument that you can’t talk about declining circulation unless you also take into account the fact that Web readership of the Globe (and other papers) is soaring. That doesn’t mean the Globe couldn’t be better — it just means that the readership situation isn’t as dire as the plummeting print circulation figures would indicate.

That said, one Media Nation reader yesterday reminded me of something I haven’t given enough (or any) attention to: the fact that some proportion of people who read the Globe online are also subscribers to the print edition. In my mind, I’ve been counting those people twice. No question that that fuzzy math undercuts my argument to some degree.

Mark Jurkowitz reports that the Boston Globe might actually have lost money during January and February of this year. Granted, the Globe and its sister paper, the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, created some unusual one-time grief for themselves thanks to that credit-card mess-up. But this is a long way from the Knight Ridder-style laments that newspapers, though profitable, just aren’t profitable enough for Wall Street.

It’s important to remember that the Globe and other daily newspapers are not, for the most part, losing readers — at least not in any great numbers. Rather, readers are migrating to those papers’ Web sites. I freely confess that this item, which I wrote last October, oversimplifies matters. The point, though, is that newspapers are losing advertising to bank and department-store consolidation and to free-classified sites like Craigslist and Monster.com, even as readership is holding up pretty well.

But can papers keep those readers when they continue to hack away at the journalism? Not forever. That’s the dilemma.