Tag: Boston Globe

In latest circulation numbers, the difference is digital

Print circulation at the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald continues to slide, according to the latest data from the Alliance for Audited Media (formerly the Audit Bureau of Circulations).

But the Globe’s success in selling digital subscriptions has led to a healthy 8.9 percent increase in its Monday-through-Friday paid circulation and a 4.6 percent increase on Sundays. The Herald’s paid circulation, by contrast, is down 11.6 percent on weekdays and 10.8 percent on Sundays.

The numbers are based on a comparison between the six-month periods ending on March 30, 2013, and March 30, 2012. Here are the topline figures:

  • Boston Globe: Weekdays, 245,572, up from 225,482. Sundays, 382,452, up from 365,512.
  • Boston Herald: Weekdays, 95,929, down from 108,548. Sundays, 73,043, down from 81,925.

The underlying totals tell an interesting story. The Globe’s weekday print circulation dropped from 195,947 to 172,048 (down 12.2 percent), and its Sunday print edition fell from 343,194 to 309,771 (down 9.7 percent). But the number of readers who use the Globe’s paid website, BostonGlobe.com, rose from 19,313 to 60,134 on weekdays and from 19,599 to 60,301 on Sundays.

(Note: Despite the seeming precision of these figures, there may be some minor discrepancies. The 2012 totals in the just-released “Newspaper Snapshot” do not perfectly match the audit reports posted elsewhere on the AAM site.)

As I’ve explained before, the actual number of digital subscribers is about half that reported by the AAM, since its totals include print subscribers who also make regular use of BostonGlobe.com, which home-delivery customers can access for free.

The Globe totals also include readers who access the ePaper — that is, the digital replica edition, which looks exactly like the print edition. A year ago, the ePaper was just barely getting off the ground. Now it accounts for 13,390 paid weekday subscriptions and another 12,380 on Sundays.

The challenge for the Herald is that, as readers lose the print habit, the paper is not offering a compelling paid digital alternative. The Herald has free smartphone and tablet apps, and, like the Globe, it posts a paid replica edition (the Electronic Edition), which is how we do most of our Herald-reading at Media Nation.

But replica editions just aren’t that compelling. Currently the Herald’s e-edition attracts 9,810 paying customers on weekdays and 1,216 on Sundays.

BostonHerald.com remains free. In the past, publisher Pat Purcell has dropped hints that that could change. Certainly it would surprise no one if that change came sooner rather than later.

Boosting digital subscriptions. The Globe’s free website, Boston.com, began running brief summaries of Globe stories today in an attempt to boost digital subscriptions.

The move had been expected for some time, as editor Brian McGrory talked about it in an interview with Andrew Beaujon of Poynter.org in February. But the timing could prove to be interesting, since it follows the Globe’s widely praised coverage of the Boston Marathon bombings.

The paper lowered the paywall during the worst of it, which, as Seth Fiegerman reported for Mashable, resulted in an enormous increase in Web traffic. It bears watching to see how many of those readers can now be converted into paying customers.

Two more for your must-read list

Eric Moskowitz’s Boston Globe interview with the Tsarnaev brothers’ carjacking victim is just astonishing — detailed, full of suspense (even though we know the outcome) and tautly written. And the Globe’s Kevin Cullen continues to show why he has emerged as the voice of the city following the Boston Marathon bombings.

Casting some doubt on the official marathon accounts

Boston Marathon bombing memorial at the Boston Common Gazebo

For the police — and for the public — last Friday was a day of fear, rage and confusion. So it takes nothing away from the work done by law-enforcement officials to point out that things didn’t go down exactly the way they were described in real time.

Three big stories today underscore that confusion. The most significant is in the Washington Post, which reports that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was probably unarmed when police fired on the boat in Watertown where he was hiding. They quote an anonymous official as saying that an officer may have accidentally fired his gun, setting off a fusillade.

Such a “fog of war” situation, as the Post describes it, is totally understandable. And yet, if authorities lost a chance to bring in a high-value terrorism suspect alive for questioning, it would have been a serious loss.

In the Boston Globe, a team of reporters quotes law enforcement as saying that it is now believed Tsarnaev’s neck wound came from flying shrapnel rather than a self-inflicted bullet wound, which fits in with the emerging theory that he was unarmed.

And from the New York Times we learn that the boat was actually inside the search perimeter, contradicting earlier reports. Again, not to second-guess the police, but it makes you wonder what sort of search they conducted during all those hours on Friday.

Journalists should approach the official account with skepticism, not cynicism. We need to know exactly what happened last week — including, of course, whether the Boston Marathon bombings can be attributed to a breakdown in intelligence-sharing among the CIA, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies, which is the main focus of the Globe article.

Photo (cc) by AnubisAbyuss and published under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

The problem is the reliance on anonymous sources

On Wednesday afternoon, as the media were having a nervous breakdown over the bombing suspect who was/was not in custody, I received a private message over Twitter from a friend who’s a longtime newspaper reporter:

They were saying they had multiple sources. You know what the problem is, they don’t name their sources. If you had no anonymous sources, then whoever gave them the information would be on the hook. Only in extreme cases do we use anonymous sources!

Leaving aside the obvious fact that this really is an extreme case, my friend is exactly right. Every time there’s a huge breaking news story, it seems, news organizations report developments that turn out to be wrong — and that were based on anonymous law-enforcement sources.

Maybe that could be justified a generation ago, when such leaks were used to develop reliable stories. But now the pressure to publish/broadcast/tweet immediately is so overwhelming that a bombshell from an anonymous source leads not to more reporting but, rather, to an immediate, breathless update.

CNN got most of the attention on Wednesday, and, as a repeat offender, it really ought to be more careful. The Associated Press got it wrong, too, and that matters because editors generally don’t double-check the AP — they’re paying for the service, after all, and the AP is treated as an extension of their own newsrooms.

The Boston Globe, the Boston Herald and local TV and radio stations got it wrong, too. The Herald has a useful timeline on page 4 today. I couldn’t find it on the paper’s website, but I’ll add a link if someone has it.

So was the source or sources normally reliable, which is the argument we’re hearing from some of those who got burned? I think that’s the wrong question. It’s the reliance on anonymous sources that’s the problem, not whether those sources were right or wrong. That may be the way it’s always been done. But if Wednesday didn’t prove that there’s something wrong with the old model, then what will?

Washington Post media blogger Erik Wemple has a good take on what happened Wednesday, including the full text of the FBI smackdown. At Poynter, Andrew Beaujon and Mallary Jean Tenore put together a Storify that tracks how the initial news and the embarrassing walkback played out on Twitter.

Carly Carioli is now tweeting for Boston.com

More good news from the land of the former Phoenicians: Carly Carioli, the last editor of the Boston Phoenix, has been hired by Boston.com, the Boston Globe’s free website. “I’m working on new projects aimed at attracting younger readers,” he tells me.

Carly is as smart as they come and did a great job of steering the Phoenix through its last couple of years — including its final incarnation as a glossy magazine. You can (and should) follow him on Twitter at @carlycarioli.

Herald questions Globe over account of cab accident

In case you missed it, in part three of the Boston Globe’s Spotlight Team series on the Boston cab industry we learned that Globe staff member Bob Hohler got in an accident while driving a taxi in the course of his reporting:

Before his stint behind the wheel ends, the reporter will see what it means to be cheated by a taxi company and his ­passengers. And he will survive a harrowing crash — a ­not-uncommon occupational hazard — after a motorist runs a red light near Copley Square. The collision will send the reporter and his passengers to the hospital and destroy the taxicab.

Today the Boston Herald comes back with a front-page story by Matt Stout questioning the Globe’s account of the accident as well as Hohler’s hands-on reporting technique:

A Boston Globe reporter masquerading as a Hub taxi driver gave a disputed version of a two-car crash that sent him and his two passengers to the hospital in a front-page story yesterday that’s raising questions about liability and whether he misrepresented himself.

The Herald also quotes a statement from the Globe that appears to deny Hohler was under cover — it says Hohler identified himself to Boston Police and his passengers. It’s a little unclear, though, whether that was before or after the accident. [Update: The police knew ahead of time, but the cab company didn’t, though Hohler says he would have identified himself if asked.]*

Coincidentally, last week I had an opportunity to spend some time with New York University journalism professor Brooke Kroeger, who argues in her book “Undercover Reporting: The Truth about Deception” that such techniques have gotten an undeserved bad rap. Kroeger, among other things, is the biographer of Nelly Bly, the ultimate undercover reporter.

I am reasonably sure that John Carroll will weigh in on the latest Globe-Herald dust-up later today. Should make for interesting reading.

*More: Hohler talks about the experience in a Globe video.

Still more: John Carroll takes his first cut, but appears to be withholding his judgment for the time being.

More and more: Earlier today, I had the following Twitter exchange with the redoubtable Seth Mnookin:

https://twitter.com/dankennedy_nu/status/319415805542539264

Now Carroll has taken his second cut, and characterizes Mnookin and me as taking the position that the Herald’s reporting is “totally without merit.” In fact, I wouldn’t characterize it that way. I was agreeing with Mnookin as to why the Herald jumped into the fray, but I didn’t mean to imply that the tabloid was shooting nothing but blanks.

Essentially, I agree with Carroll: the Herald raised a legitimate question, but overplayed it, as is its wont.

Ex-Phoenician David Bernstein’s big Menino win

Tom Menino in 2008

My former Boston Phoenix colleague David Bernstein, now looking for work, scored a big win on Wednesday, reporting before anyone that Mayor Tom Menino would not seek re-election. With the Phoenix now history, Bernstein posted the news on his blog — first as rumor, later as confirmed fact.

Given that Menino gave major interviews Wednesday to the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald, it strikes me as exceedingly likely that a media embargo was in place — and I received additional, direct confirmation of that this morning. Which just goes to show the futility of embargoes in the Internet age. Good for Bernstein for operating outside the system, even if it’s not by his own choice. News organizations might consider rethinking their participation in such attempts at media manipulation.

Both the Globe and the Herald offer excellent coverage of the Menino era today. And how about Globe editor Brian McGrory jumping back into the fray by interviewing Menino and writing a column? McGrory was the Globe’s signature voice for years. Returning to the trenches for one day was a smart move.

More: Andrew Beaujon of Poynter has a nice Storify on how Bernstein’s scoop played out on Twitter.

Photo (cc) by Dan4th Nicholas and published under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

Boston Globe recycles a year-old AP story

The Boston Globe does some major recycling today by publishing a year-old story on the political battle over same-sex marriage. The story, by David Crary of the Associated Press, appears on page A11 of the print eReader edition* and begins:

Foes and supporters of same-sex marriage are gearing up for five costly and bruising statewide showdowns in the coming months on an issue that evenly divides Americans.

It’s an election year subplot sure to stir up heated emotions …

And yes, that would be the 2012 election year.

It turns out that Crary’s article ran on the free Boston.com site on March 8, 2012, under the headline “Bruising gay-marriage showdowns likely in 5 states.” The classics are classics for a reason, I guess.

Subplot: The story appears nowhere today at the paid BostonGlobe.com site. I had to look it up in the ePaper edition after being asked about it on Twitter by @NotSoNiceville. Isn’t BostonGlobe.com, which is a paid site, supposed to include every story in the print edition?

*Update: Eagle-eyed David Bernstein reports that the entire page A11 of the eReader edition is from March 8, 2012. So apparently this is a problem with the eReader edition only — not with the print edition, which only appears up here in Media Nation on Sundays.

Update II: From @BostonGlobePR: “Due to a production error, pages from 3/11/2012 were appended to today’s ePaper. The edition will be corrected and reprocessed.”

Update III: As commenter Bill Ritchotte noted earlier today, the Globe’s free Boston.com site posted an item from a syndication service called the Prudent Investor “reporting” that Nobel Prize-winning economist (and New York Times columnist) Paul Krugman had declared bankruptcy.

In fact, the Prudent Investor had been taken in by a satirical site called the Daily Currant. There’s a German angle as well. Mediaite has the details and Romenesko has an image of the Boston.com page before the item was taken down. For what it’s worth, I’m told Boston.com runs the Prudent Investor feed on autopilot.

Update IV (2:30 p.m.): I just received an email from Globe spokeswoman Ellen Clegg. She writes: “The post about Paul Krugman was an automatic feed on a partner website, FinancialContent.com, which Boston.com uses to provide stock and other financial data. The story did not originate with the Boston Globe or Boston.com, and we worked to get it taken down as soon as we heard about it from readers. We have asked FinancialContent.com to provide us with more information as to how this story was added into their financial news feed.”

Masthead changes announced at the Boston Globe

Boston Globe editor Brian McGrory announced several changes to the masthead earlier today. The most significant: managing editor Caleb Solomon will become managing editor for digital to “oversee our rapidly evolving websites and portable platforms,” as McGrory put it in a memo to the newsroom.

Solomon was thought by some to be in the mix as a possible successor to Marty Baron when Baron left the paper late last year to take charge of the Washington Post. The position went to McGrory instead.

With Solomon shifting to the online side, Christine Chinlund will move up from deputy managing editor for news operations to managing editor for news. McGrory writes that Chinlund was his editor when he was the Globe’s national reporter — “though I don’t think she remembers, which, admittedly, sort of hurts.”

Getting a title enhancement is Mark Morrow, deputy managing editor for Sunday and projects, who will become senior deputy managing editor.

Combined with McGrory’s recent changes at Boston.com and BostonGlobe.com, it seems pretty clear that he’s determined to make his mark even as the New York Times Co. shops the paper around to prospective buyers. It calls to mind Baron’s steady hand during the tumult of 2009, when the Times Co. threatened to close the Globe, demanded $20 million in concessions from the paper’s unions, and then put it up for sale only to pull it back.

The full text of McGrory’s memo, a copy of which was sent to Media Nation earlier today, is below.

I’m excited to share some changes in the newsroom leadership.

I’ve asked Caleb Solomon, the managing editor for the past five years, to switch his focus to our digital operation and oversee our rapidly evolving websites and portable platforms as managing editor/digital. He has enthusiastically agreed.

This is an important role, vital actually, to the way our work is read and viewed by the region and the world, and key to our future in every imaginable way. The Globe has for years been at the vanguard of the digital news revolution, first with boston.com in 1995, and then with the introduction of Bostonglobe.com and the two brands web strategy in 2011. Now we’re in the process of sorting out the sites, untangling the content, and creating stronger identities that can mutually thrive with different revenue models. Caleb will shepherd this from the newsroom perspective. He’ll be our eyes and ears in the Nieman and MIT media labs, as well as in our own, and search high and low for what works and what doesn’t. Caleb, having arrived here from the Wall Street Journal in 2003, had an extraordinarily successful run as the Globe’s business editor. We worked together when he was the deputy managing editor for enterprise, and I worked for him when he ascended to be managing editor. My admiration has grown with every passing year and job. Caleb possesses the talent to see long distances and the innate ability to get things done. To that end, he has always viewed digital as the future, evidenced when he created a digital-first philosophy in business that served as a model for the rest of the paper. As managing editor, he was the hands-on editorial force behind the advent of Bostonglobe.com, which has won every accolade under the sun, as well as our highly decorated video operation. He’s already been more indispensable than merely valuable in my short time in this role, and that will flourish in his new position.

I’ve asked Chris Chinlund, the deputy managing editor for news operations, to assume the role of managing editor/news. There’s no one I could imagine more up to this critical job, with impeccable news judgment, journalism values of the highest order, and hands-on editing skills that are on sharp display night in, night out. There’s also the matter of her experience. Investigative background? Chris was part of the Spotlight Team that exposed Whitey Bulger as an FBI informant. National politics? She covered the 1988 presidential campaign as a reporter and was the editor overseeing the 1992 race. World news? She served as foreign editor after the September 11 attacks. She’s also been a New England reporter, suburban reporter and editor, and assistant health science editor in her 30 years at the Globe. She worked a memorable stint as our final ombudsman, and was the editor of the dearly departed Focus section. She was my editor when I was a national reporter way back when, though I don’t think she remembers, which, admittedly, sort of hurts. Chris worked in my shop when I was Metro editor, we worked alongside each other when she became deputy managing editor, and she was my editor again during a second stint as a columnist. All of this gives me pretty good perspective on what we’ll be getting as she ascends to the position of managing editor, and what we’ll be getting is nothing shy of great. She’s also, as each and every person in here well knows, a world class colleague.

I’ve asked Mark Morrow, the deputy managing editor for Sunday and projects, to become a senior deputy managing editor, keeping a similar portfolio. With this new status, Mark has fresh license to interject his trademark creativity across an even broader spectrum of Globe work. As we all know and appreciate, Mark has been the senior editor on just about every distinctive Globe project for the past decade, including the fallout to our Pulitzer Prize winning Catholic Church series, the Partners Health Care Spotlight series, the Probation Department series, and most recently, the 68 Blocks narrative and the Immigration series. He has also overseen and edited two major Globe books, on Mitt Romney and Whitey Bulger, both to critical acclaim. Name it, Mark has delved deeply into it, with wordsmithing skills and perspective that are unrivaled in my time at the Globe. Add to this the fact that week after week, Mark oversees the critical Sunday paper, the showcase for some of our best work. I have already sought Mark’s wise counsel on a constant basis and tapped into his steady stream of ideas, and that will only increase in this enhanced position.

It’s a real tribute to the breadth and depth of this newsroom that journalists of this caliber are ready-made for the task ahead. I’m excited about these changes, very much so. You should be as well. They are effective immediately. Now let’s continue the great and important work of the Globe.

Brian

McNamara rips would-be Globe owner on political ads

Eileen McNamara
Eileen McNamara

Former Boston Globe legend Eileen McNamara has posted some disturbing news about Aaron Kushner, who tried to buy the Globe a few years ago and who may make another run at the paper now that the New York Times Co. has put it up for sale.

Writing for the Cognoscenti site at WBUR.org, McNamara reports that Kushner — a Boston-area native who bought the Orange County Register in 2012 — did exactly the wrong thing when two city councilors complained about an ad placed by a citizens group called Save Anaheim. The ad accused them of violating California’s open meeting law — accurately, according to McNamara. But Kushner’s response was to tell his advertising department to stop taking ads that criticize politicians by name.

(The story was first reported by Voice of Orange County, which McNamara credits.)

McNamara writes:

It is hard enough for grassroots organizations to be heard in politics in the wake of the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, which allows corporations to dump unlimited amounts of cash into the electoral process. A free and independent press is all we have to level the playing field. Save Anaheim’s protests online are little match for the bullhorn wielded by City Hall, especially if the city’s largest newspaper refuses to carry its dissenting views to a wider audience.

McNamara, a Brandeis professor who won a Pulitzer Prize back when she was a Globe columnist, says that when she reached out to Kushner for comment, he declined the opportunity. [But see update below.] So can we call that strike two? To be fair, Kushner did talk with Voice of Orange County, saying he acted not to curry favor with the councilors but because “we don’t like negative political advertisements.”

As McNamara notes, Kushner has been winning plaudits for investing in the Register rather than cutting its budget, although it remains to be seen whether his print-centric approach will pay off in the long run.

For Globe-watchers, it’s been easy to fantasize about Kushner — possibly allied with the members of the Taylor family, who used to own the paper — returning it to its status as a locally owned institution.

Well, maybe not so fast.

Update: Kushner has now posted a comment to McNamara’s item. Among other things, he says was concerned that the Save Anaheim ad could have resulted in a libel suit against the Register. Not sure that I agree, but his response is detailed, thoughtful and civil.