Tag: Boston Globe

Sulzberger speaks

Even as a third prospective buyer has emerged for the Boston Globe — and even as the New York Times Co. has finally acknowledged that the Globe is for sale, something that’s been clear for months — the company’s top two executives have broken their silence to say, well, not so fast.

In a story and interview in today’s Globe, chief executive Arthur Sulzberger Jr. (photo) and president Janet Robinson express the hope that the paper is back on the road to health, adding that they won’t sell unless they can find the right deal — both financially and with regard to “the impact of a potential sale on the community,” as Sulzberger puts it.

They also defend their record as stewards of the Globe since 1993, when the Times Co. purchased the paper for $1.1 billion. (The paper is thought to be worth barely a fraction of that today, though that’s also true of the newspaper business in general.) “I think this company has supported the Globe during a very, very difficult financial period. It has supported its journalism, it has supported its business-side operations,” Robinson says.

Sulzberger gets off the best line. Asked whether company officials regret having bought the Globe, he replies, “How far back should we go? Maybe we regret in 1896 that we bought the New York Times.”

My nickel’s worth: I think the Times Co. was a reasonably good steward until about a year ago, when the company’s own troubles, and fears about the fate of its flagship, the Times, led it to start treating the Globe — and Boston — with contempt.

There have, of course, been deep cuts, including the first layoffs in the Globe’s history earlier this year. But the Globe is hardly alone among large regional newspapers in losing its foreign bureaus and in scaling back most of its national ambitions. It remains just about the only paper in its weight class to have a fully functioning Washington bureau.

Still, the lack of communication on the part of the company — most definitely including Sulzberger and Robinson — during the months-long crisis over union concessions led to a sense that management was not willing to share in the sacrifices being asked of its employees. The $20 million in concessions, including $10 million by the Newspaper Guild, the paper’s largest union, were truly draconian, even if they were necessary.

The question, at this point, is how much credibility the Times Co. has left with the community. The best answer is to put out a good paper every day, and the Globe has risen to that challenge. Still, I have to believe that a new start under a new owner would be the best outcome, provided the owner wants to get into the business for the right reasons.

Like everyone else, I’m intrigued by the notion that Partners HealthCare chairman Jack Connors and Boston Celtics co-owner Stephen Pagliuca might lead the Globe into some sort of non-profit ownership arrangement, which Jay Fitzgerald explained in the Boston Herald earlier this week. But Connors is a walking conflict of interest. No one knows if he could separate his own interests from those of the Globe’s journalistic mission.

In other news, the Boston Phoenix’s Adam Reilly has obtained a memo from the Guild reporting that publisher Steve Ainsley has told union official that the paper is heading in the right direction.

And the Herald’s Christine McConville reports that Ainsley told the Guild that the paper will soon start charging for access to the paper’s Web site, Boston.com, confirming earlier remarks editor Marty Baron made in an appearance on “Greater Boston.”

Follow the bouncing sports talkers

So why did the Boston Globe and WEEI Radio (AM 850) reach an agreement that will allow Globe sportswriters to appear on the station for the first time in years, as the Boston Phoenix’s Adam Reilly reported yesterday?

According to the Boston Herald’s Gayle Fee and Laura Raposa, Globe sportswriter Tony Massarotti is about to jump ship to WBZ-FM (98.5 FM), the CBS-owned all-sports station that will begin competing with WEEI this fall. Massarotti was a constant on ‘EEI when he was with the Herald.

Bringing the Globe-‘EEI war to a peaceful conclusion would presumably open the way for (a) Massarotti to return to that station or, more likely, (b) beef up ‘EEI as it seeks to compete with a new afternoon show on WBZ-FM that would be co-hosted by Massarotti and Mike Felger, though it’s not entirely clear what is going on.

Weirdly enough, Globe sports-media columnist Chad Finn tweets that Globe writers will be allowed to phone in, but not be in the studio, for WEEI’s highly rated morning and afternoon drive programs, “Dennis & Callahan” and “The Big Show,” although an exception will be made if a Globie has a chance to co-host “D&C.” (Via Boston Sports Media.)

In looking over this item, it appears I may have only added to the confusion. My work here is done. You’re welcome.

The Globe and non-profit journalism

One of the groups seeking to buy the Boston Globe from the New York Times Co. is considering a non-profit ownership arrangement, according to a report by the Globe’s Beth Healy.

The group — headed by Partners HealthCare chairman Jack Connors and Boston Celtics co-owner Stephen Pagliuca — has “proposed a ‘civic approach’ that would involve a nonprofit foundation to help fund and run the news operation,” writes Healy, citing an unnamed source.

The other bidder is a group headed by Stephen Taylor, a prominent member of the family that sold the Globe to the New York Times Co. in 1993.

What Healy does not specify (and perhaps Connors and Pagliuca themselves haven’t decided at this point) is whether we’re talking about a pure non-profit or a hybrid model.

A hybrid involves setting up a non-profit organization as owner and operator of a for-profit newspaper, an arrangement that has succeeded for the St. Petersburg Times (owned by the Poynter Institute) and, locally, by the New Hampshire Union Leader (the majority owner is the Nackey S. Loeb School of Communications).

Under the hybrid model, a newspaper still has to turn a profit, and the St. Pete Times and the Union Leader have not been immune from cuts. But non-profit owners are generally willing to tolerate far smaller profit margins than large, publicly traded corporations, whose executives have to worry about quarterly reports and the expectations of Wall Street.

The pure non-profit model got its biggest boost earlier this year in a New York Times op-ed piece by Yale investment executives David Swensen and Michael Schmidt. Turning newspapers into endowed institutions, they argued, would insulate them from the economic pressures that are destroying the business. (U.S. Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., has filed legislation that would help turn that vision into a reality, though it’s not clear why a change in the law would be necessary.)

As I’ve written before, though, there is a huge problem with the pure non-profit model: in order to take advantage of the the tax incentives that would make it work, the newspaper’s executives would have to stop endorsing political candidates and engaging in other forms of purely political speech. That may work for public radio and public television (after all, the government has been regulating the airwaves since the 1920s), but it would be anathema to a newspaper’s mission.

Another aspect of the Connors-Pagliuca bid that’s unclear is what role the two men see for themselves if they’re not going to be owners in the traditional sense. It all sounds very public-spirited, but I can’t imagine they’re going to invest their time and money without reserving a very large say over how the Globe is run.

Two years ago I explored various ownership options for the Globe in an article for CommonWealth Magazine. You can read it here.

The Times Co. has clearly lost interest in owning the Globe. Check out Adam Reilly’s latest, in which he notes that the company can’t even bring itself to acknowledge publicly that it’s trying to sell the paper, even though it’s, you know, trying to sell the paper.

The sooner this can get done, the better.

Globe may charge for some online content

Boston Globe editor Marty Baron tells “Greater Boston” that the Globe may start charging for some online content. No surprise. It’s pretty clear that the Globe and a number of other papers are going to try paid-content experiments of one sort or another. I don’t think they’re likely to work, but that’s another matter.

Whatever the Globe tries, it should make sure that there are no extra charges for its best customers — its print subscribers. And it should stay away from charging for its daily newspaper content. In other words, create a new product that people who don’t currently subscribe to the Globe would be willing to pay for.

Not easily done, I realize.

Update: Just watched the segment. Baron says the Globe is looking into charging for “premium” or “specialized” content of some sort. Not sure what that means, but directionally it sounds like the right move.

After the deluge

Now that the Boston Newspaper Guild has decisively approved a $10 million package of wage and benefit cuts, it seems like anyone who’s been following this closely should be able to offer some thoughts on what’s next for the Boston Globe.

For the time being, though, everything that can be said has already been said several times over. It’s a sign of how long this has dragged on that Romenesko offers just the bare bones, and that the trade magazine Editor & Publisher goes with an AP story. A huge story has gotten smaller with the passage of time.

The Guild cuts, along with another $10 million agreed to by the Globe’s other unions, are going to be a bitter pill to swallow. Management never fostered a sense of shared sacrifice, which is why a similar package was narrowly defeated last month. Still, simply as a reader, I hope yesterday’s vote allows the paper to move forward rather than obsess over the Globe’s uncertain present.

More than anything, we should all hope that the vote leads to a quick sale by the New York Times Co. to local owners who will do what they can to preserve the Globe as a leading regional institution. I would argue that the Times Co. was a reasonably good steward until the last year or so. But it all got very ugly very quickly.

This relationship can’t end soon enough, provided the right buyers can be found.

Baron, too

Boston Globe editor Marty Baron just sent this e-mail to his troops:

To the staff:

I know how stressful the past several months have been for all of you. Still, despite the pressures and the tension, you have never wavered in your commitment to deliver journalism of the highest caliber.

I want to say thank you.

Thank you for the depth of your dedication. Thank you for your consummate professionalism, even in times of discord and difficulty. And thank you for demonstrating every day that the work of this organization holds powerful and enduring value in our community.

Marty

Guild approves Globe concessions

The Boston Newspaper Guild has approved a $10 million package of concessions at the Boston Globe. A newsroom source just zapped me the following company-wide e-mail sent by publisher Steve Ainsley.

Dear Colleagues:

I am pleased the Guild membership voted to ratify their new contract. I appreciate the personal sacrifices all Guild members are making, and I thank each one for their commitment to this institution.

The ratification strengthens the stability of The Boston Globe and Boston.com.

Since we now have settled contracts with all our major unions, let me take this opportunity to thank every Globe employee, union and non-union, for the sacrifices you have made to meet the unprecedented challenges we faced at the beginning of the year.

Additionally, thank you for performing to such a high level of accomplishment under such pressure.

Your efforts and sacrifices are making a difference.

— Steve

According to Reuters, the vote was an overwhelming 366 to 179. The Boston Herald offers some additional background.

Could the Guild vote “no” again?

“Beat the Press” blogger Ralph Ranalli, a former Boston Globe staffer and a Guild official back when he was at the Boston Herald, does not rule out another “no” vote as members of the Boston Newspaper Guild decide today on $10 million in concessions negotiated with the New York Times Co. Ranalli writes:

The Times telegraphed its intentions by openly seeking buyers for the Globe before the hugely-important contract with its largest union was settled. The lame duck owner, deep in debt, couldn’t make it any plainer that it’s in asset-dump mode….

With their position potentially strengthening, the questions facing each Guild member going forward today are: “Is it worth hanging on?” and “How long can I?” The answers may well determine the outcome of today’s vote.

We’ll know tonight.