Tag: Boston Globe

Re-Kindling the Globe (II)

Recently I threw some numbers around regarding the possibility that the Boston Globe could give away the Amazon Kindle to its home subscribers and shut down its presses.

Today, Media Nation reader M.G. points to this Time magazine story about a new, bigger Kindle that’s in the works and that might be ideal for displaying newspaper and magazine content. Yesterday, the New York Times reported on other e-readers that are being developed.

The challenge, needless to say, is to come up with an experience so compelling that people will be willing to pay for it rather than click around the free Web edition. For it to work, you need a critical mass who really want to read the paper, as opposed to spending 10 minutes grazing the headlines during their lunch hour.

It depends on what the meaning of “30 days” is

Maybe this is moot, given that Boston Globe spokesman Robert Powers now says the company won’t file the paperwork necessary to start a 60-day process aimed at closing the paper. But the question arose earlier today as to whether management had really threatened to close the paper in 30 days if it didn’t win $20 million in union concessions.

That’s certainly the way many people interpreted it. When I opened our front door early this morning, it was with the expectation that the Globe might not be there. Late last week, when the first deadline passed, Adam Gaffin of Universal Hub went so far as to post a photo of the Globe on his walkway to prove the paper was still around. And as recently as Saturday, the Globe itself put it this way:

Last night’s announcement extends a grueling month of negotiations and uncertainty that began in early April when the Times Co. called together leaders of the paper’s 13 unions and told them it would shutter the Globe unless it gained $20 million in concessions by May 1.

The deadline was then extended two days after an accounting error was revealed.

Earlier today a colleague told me it was always understood that the Times Co. wouldn’t actually close the Globe after 30 days, but, rather, would merely begin the process of closing it. I think that’s Clintonesque. The Times Co., by all appearances, was ready to pay the price of ignoring the federally mandated 60-day shutdown period. If union leaders had known from the beginning that they really had 90 days, they wouldn’t have entered into frantic negotiations last week and over the weekend.

In any case, the latest statement from Powers makes it appear that all sides may be very close to a final agreement — or that management thinks it’s hit upon a plan to accomplish its goals without the consent of the Boston Newspaper Guild, the one union that is still holding out. I certainly hope this is just about over. It’s unfair to Globe staffers, and to the community, to have to go through all of this again in two months.

What could management have in mind? The Boston Phoenix’s Adam Reilly has some pretty interesting material suggesting that the lifetime contracts could be voided “[i]n the event of a dramatic and apparently irreversible downturn in the Globe’s business.” That event now appears to be upon us. Call it the nuclear option — management-employee relations would never be the same.

Finally, former Globe columnist David Warsh has a fascinating look back at how and why the Taylor family decided to sell to the New York Times Co. in 1993, as well as an analysis of subsequent events.

A threat or an extension? Or both?

If I’m reading the morning papers correctly, then we learned two new things as the New York Times Co.’s 30-day (32-day?) deadline for the Boston Globe’s unions expired last night. (The Globe’s story is here; the Boston Herald’s here.)

First, the 30-day deadline has become a 90-day deadline. The Times Co. had threatened to shut the Globe today if its demands weren’t met. Instead, it has said it will file the legally required paperwork to close the paper in 60 days. Color this any way you like, but it looks to me as though Arthur Sulzberger Jr. (in photo) and company just tacked on two months, something they had previously indicated they would not do. Howard Kurtz reports in the Washington Post:

The move could amount to a negotiating ploy to extract further concessions from the Globe’s unions, since the notice does not require the Times Co. to close the paper after 60 days. The deadline, however, would put the unions under fierce pressure to produce additional savings, and the Boston Newspaper Guild promptly called the step a “bullying” tactic by the company.

OK, but wasn’t yesterday’s Globe supposed to be the final edition if management didn’t get what it wanted? This looks like more of a retreat than a “bullying” tactic. If the company’s rhetoric was to be believed, then it was going to stop publishing immediately and sort out the legalities later. That didn’t happen. Thus it looks like we get to go through this all over again in late June.

Second, perhaps management didn’t make a new demand, but it certainly clarified one of its demands. We’ve all been reporting that the company was seeking $20 million in union concessions, and that lifetime job guarantees for more than 400 employees somehow figured into that.

Now we know that the company is making two separate demands: $20 million in concessions, and an end to lifetime job guarantees. That presages much deeper cuts — which, unfortunately, makes sense, since the Globe is reportedly on track to lose $85 million this year.

The idea of lifetime job guarantees seems unsustainable at a time when the newspaper business is getting much, much smaller. Yes, I am a junior faculty member working toward tenure, which is often described as a lifetime job guarantee. But my understanding is that it’s easier to get rid of a tenured professor than it is a union member in the Globe’s so-called Book of Life. It could be that the only way to eliminate them is to throw the Globe into bankruptcy and let a judge void those provisions.

The New York Times today runs just a short story on the Globe negotiations, sticking to a pattern of undercovering what’s happening here. We talked about the lack of Times coverage (among other things) on “Beat the Press” last Friday. (The segment also features a wide-ranging interview with Globe editor Marty Baron, who tries makes up for the silence emanating from New York. Baron, in his subtle way, says some surprisingly tough things about Times Co. management.)

The Globe is the largest, most significant paper in the United States to face closure, yet it’s gotten less national attention than the shutdown of Denver’s Rocky Mountain News, the number-two paper in a smaller media market. You’ve got to think the Times’ ability to set the news agenda has a lot to do with that.

Finally, a word about Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr, the working stiff from Wellesley, who yesterday wrote yet another piece making fun of the Globe. I am a conflicted Howie fan. There are few columnists or talk-show hosts as talented and entertaining as Carr. But his juvenile-delinquent act has gotten tiresome.

For Carr to pretend that the Herald’s relative financial health is somehow evidence that the Herald has “won” is ludicrous. Weekday circulation of the Herald’s print edition is half that of the Globe’s, and the Herald is barely a factor on Sundays. According to Compete.com, the Globe’s Web site, Boston.com, drew nearly 5.5 million unique visitors in March, compared to nearly 1.1 million for BostonHerald.com.

Adam Gaffin has further thoughts about Howie.

The Herald’s coverage of the Globe’s troubles has been first-rate. Every morning, I rush to check BostonHerald.com to see what’s new. Carr’s sneering screeds only detract from that.

Photo of Arthur Sulzberger Jr. (cc) by JD Lasica and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

After a Globe deal, then what?

It could have been predicted, though it was looking pretty shaky over the past few days. But barring any last-minute snags, it looks like the New York Times Co. will have its $20 million in union concessions from Boston Globe employees by the (new) deadline of midnight on Sunday (Globe coverage here; Boston Herald coverage here).

Which raises a serious question. Given that the Times Co. will likely be able to declare victory, what will be its next step? After all, the Globe is reportedly on track to lose $85 million this year — or $65 million, presumably, once the concessions are in place.

There’s been a lot of speculation by media observers, including me, that the month-long standoff was a prelude to some dramatic action, including throwing the Globe into bankrupty, letting a judge restructure the paper and then selling it to a local owner. But I don’t see how that can happen if the unions give management what it wants.

Can the Times Co. afford simply to wait out the recession? I hope so. I guess we’ll find out soon enough.

A $4.5 million whoopsie

I’ve been out of the loop all day, volunteering as a marshal at Northeastern’s commencement. Right now I’m hanging out at WGBH-TV (Channel 2), waiting to tape “Beat the Press.” And I am astounded at the news out of the Boston Globe, where apparently the unions will be forced to come up with another $4.5 million in concessions because of an accounting error on the part of management.

The New York Times Co. has threatened to close the Globe if the unions don’t agree to $20 million in givebacks by today.

“Management has done the impossible: they’ve reunited the Boston Newspaper Guild,” an anonymous source tells the Boston Phoenix’s Adam Reilly. Needless to say, this doesn’t bode well. For a crisis to be averted, it was essential for the unions to come to terms at least somewhat amicably. Now it’s not even clear that Globe staffers believe management claims that the paper is on track to lose $85 million this year.

“The Legend of Young Arthur continues to grow,” writes the Outraged Liberal, referring to New York Times Co. chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. Unfortunately, you can’t make this stuff up.

The latest on the Globe

Not sure why I can’t find this on Boston.com, so I’ll give you the link to Joe Strupp’s report in Editor & Publisher that management and union officials may be making progress at the Boston Globe.

Also New England Cable News has an interesting report (above) in which former Globe reporter Peter Howe interviews former Globe reporter Kimberly Blanton. Nothing startlingly new, but good insights from two people who clearly know their way around 135 Morrissey Boulevard.

Finally, you must have seen this elsewhere already, but John Henry denies he has any interest in buying the Globe.

A one-two punch from the Phoenix

With negotiations at the Boston Globe now down to the wire, the Boston Phoenix weighs in with a major takeout by media reporter Adam Reilly and an editorial.

Reilly’s got lots of nice details, including a great quote from an anonymous (of course) Globe staffer about editor Marty Baron: “His hands are tied. I think he’s fucking heartbroken that he can’t do more.” Adam also has some insights into the ongoing tensions between the union leadership and the newsroom.

The editorial ponders the possibility of life without the Globe — an unlikely prospect, perhaps, but one that’s not completely out of the question given what’s happened during the past month. Know this: someone at the Phoenix really, really doesn’t like the Boston Herald.

It’s all over but the waiting

Not much to say about the ongoing drama at the Boston Globe, and I don’t imagine there will be until some actual news is announced. It’s now pretty clear that this is going to go down to midnight on Thursday, something I hadn’t expected when the New York Times Co. first issued its demand for $20 million in concessions from the Globe unions.

Reuters gives a boost to the John Henry angle, first reported by the Boston Herald. I’m intrigued. I don’t really see any synergistic possibilities between the Red Sox and the Globe (it hasn’t exactly worked out to this point, has it?), but Henry’s obviously a very smart guy. If he thinks he can make a go of it, then that’s pretty encouraging.

Coincidentally (or not), the Globe’s Names column today has some fun with a frothy feature in the new Boston Magazine on Henry’s romance with a much younger woman.

Meanwhile, the Herald reports on tensions between the newsroom and the union leadership. The best quote is from Globe reporter Scott Allen, who tells the Herald, “The union says we need to control leaks. It strikes some of us as Nixonian.”

Lynch’s non-signing statement

Meaghan Maher, press secretary to U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch, has sent along the following statement as to why Lynch didn’t sign the Massachusetts congressional delegation’s letter to New York Times Co. chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. asking him not to shut down the Boston Globe:

Congressman Lynch felt that, while he respects the decision of others who decided otherwise, given his own position, it was inappropriate and a conflict of interest for him to sign onto this letter.