Several Globe reporters tossed out a Hail Mary yesterday — or maybe it was more of a Hail Zelda, given the unusual choice to write it partly (well, one word) in Yiddish. Anyway, it was a long shot. The whole thing is here. Here are a few highlights of the reporters’ letter to New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger:
Despite all the rhetoric of the last few weeks, we believe you want to do the right thing – that, at bottom, you’re a mensch…. We’re asking you to call off the lawyers, head off a bitter fight, and come forward with a plan that would attract a bit more support from the Guild…. We believe that you don’t want us to take a 23 percent pay cut.
Upon receipt, Sulzberger no doubt said to himself, “A mensch? Oy! Vos far a mishegoss is dos?” And then ol’ Pinch or Paunch or whatever his name is pretty much flipped them the bird:
You are correct that I had hoped this would work out differently, and that a timely solution would be found for the Globe to achieve the necessary savings without Guild employees suffering a huge wage cut.Unfortunately, despite tireless efforts by Globe negotiators to do that just as they successfully did with each of the Globe’s other major unions, the Guild’s bargaining posture made that task impossible. We are now left with no alternative other than to proceed with the wage reduction…. [W]e, regrettably, will implement the wage reduction.
Despite my great concern for what’s happening at the Globe, all dealings on this subject must be with and through the Guild which, under law, is the employees’ sole and exclusive bargaining representative.
Translation: don’t ever darken my door again. You had your shot. Now it’s the lawyers’ turn.
LATE UPDATE: Proving that they are only inches away from the abyss, the New York Times had the incredibly poor judgment to allow a crew from the Daily Show into their gleaming, heavily mortgaged headquarters, and to have executive editor Bill Keller sit down with Jason Jones. The shocking results were aired last night, and Jones, naturally, made Keller look like an ass. What could the NYT have possibly been thinking? Here it is.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| End Times | ||||
|
||||
Discuss
32 Comments . Comments are closed.He's not a mensch, he's fourth generation capital
The letter from the reporters, however, was so incoherent it's hard to imagine any other likely response, even from the Voice of Ownership. Here's the letter with the bits between the lines added back in.
This is a deeply unfortunate matter that has been handled shockingly badly, in my opinion, by both sides. The NYT should get off its high horse and deal with its employees as equals (which, in fact, they are: the Globe is worthless without its people). The members of the union should recognize that the reality of the newspaper business has changed dramatically, and if they don't give the newspaper the freedom to reorganize itself completely the Globe may follow the Rocky Mountain News and other major newspapers into oblivion. In short, both parties need each other (not to mention all of us, who need and admire the Globe) and neither party gains from the current old-style intransigence.
heh - how'd you get the original?
The NYT is a harsh mistress
Maybe if the Globe actually focused on it's niche (local news), it would do alright. The Globe could realistically just be a local section and sold for less. If you really want the NYT slant, you buy the NYT. You don't try and get NYT redux via the Globe. There are already too many other sources to get national and regional news.
Hrm...
Anyone care to take guesses on what date the Globe ceases production? Could be a fun BMG game. Maybe the winner gets a prize? (autographed BMG t-shirt! LOL).
It will be nothing to celebrate.
And the Herald will likely be heading the same way soon enough. Bloggers don't break nearly enough news to substitute for the Globe. Nobody has enough time or dedication, as far as I can tell.
Bloggers are not journalists
Good reporters -- and their editors -- could write news for online sources. While the underlying technology might resemble that used for some blogs, from a user's perspective they'll be very different.
A "blog" is all about personal and opinionated dialog. It is also strongly chronological. Most blog contributors feel no need to separate themselves from whatever subject they're writing about; if anything, they do the contrary. A particular blog is more like the editorial or opinion section of a newspaper, and not at all like the front page.
Secondly, a great many bloggers have a cultural aversion to being paid for their writing. I've never understood this, but it is nevertheless true. The buzzword going around earlier this year in anticipation of the Democratic convention was "citizen journalist" -- which translates to "unpaid blogger". There are some very good reasons, such as federal tax regulations, to avoid being paid to write or publish political advocacy material. That is not the same as a "newspaper", online or otherwise.
I look forward to whatever emerges from the chaos at the Globe. I feel badly for the many hard-working professionals who are going through such trauma. I also think that the sooner they, and we, redirect our energies towards creating and demonstrating business models that work for the 21st century market, the sooner those professionals will attain the sustainable prosperity they seek.
It's not an aversion to being paid
It's just that there's no real way to make money blogging, without at least being someone like Kos or prominent like Marcy Wheeler -- who's scoring tens of thousands in donations because of her "citizen journalism."
Believe me, I would love to be paid to do what I do. Heck, I'd blog for a living even if it were at/near poverty level wages. LOL. I've had Google Ads on my site for well over a year now. I've made $150 thus far. I tried to score my own ads privately and made $25. The money I "make" blogging doesn't even cover my blog expenses. That's the extent of profitability in blogging from someone who blogs just about everyday, has a decent amount of readers for the type of blog I write (I'd have more readers if I wrote about Paris Hilton, but then I'd want to jump off a bridge): I make up most of my expenses, but not all.
I'm relatively good at what I do over at Ryan's Take. It's just not feasible, at least not without a serious business venture, complete with advertising for the blog across the 'net and sales people to sell ads on the actual site -- plus enough people to write compelling content. It took Arriana Huffington to bring together that kind of talent and people. I don't think it would be possible to do that at the local level - just look at the Politicker venture. It was great, compelling news -- best state and campaign news made public, period. It was so good, in fact, that it could only last a few months before it was shut down.
Perhaps, someday, we could do something like that in Massachusetts (or nationally) if Democratic donors realized that donating small sums of money (for them) to bloggers would be at least as beneficial as donating it to safe, incumbent candidates... but the donor class has not bought that idea yet and probably won't, because we're just not the political Kool Kids. Dinner with Ryan Adams just isn't as exciting as dinner with Deval Patrick. It's not even as exciting, to a donor, as dinner with Rep. Sciortino.
I would love to explore more ways to make blogging more profitable. Perhaps you have some ideas and would like to start a thread? I've been unemployed for a few months now and would love nothing more than to go into business for myself, writing blogs and spending enough time doing it to actually do real citizen journalism -- finding sources, answers, etc. But I can't possibly see a way that I could both write that kind of content and have the time to do the business side, too.
Sounds like a great idea, Ryan
Let's take this offline and work out a way to follow up on your suggestion that we continue the conversation.
I actually thought we were going to do more of that at the gathering I came to last April, but that was more focused on planning for the convention.
I'd like us to put together both an online and also a meat-space group, focused on making online journalism (including but not limited to blogging) profitable and sustainable. With any luck we might even be able to entice some others to participate (I'm hoping stomv is reading).
Thanks, Tom
err... who said we did?
I never claimed to substitute for the Globe.
But, we do have about 4 local news channels on the telly, all with websites, as well as the excellent NECN. Then there's the local papers in Boston, that are so specific they actually cover neighborhoods and other communities. That's where the real Boston news is being made, anyway.
There are other operations poised to fill in the vacuum left by the Globe, should it go under -- like the SHNS. Maybe the SHNS will decide to start testing new models should the Globe go under -- it may suddenly make sense for them to offer some of their stories free to the public. It already has much, much better coverage of state news than the Globe.
Then there's literally more than a dozen of medium to small dailies in the state which cover news from a local angle -- such as the New Bedford Standard Times and the Lynn Daily Item. The death of the Globe will not be the death of journalism in Boston. Far from it. And who says it's going to die, anyway? The Times is already looking to sell it, which is precisely what the Globe needs.
Ah, come on
It wouldn't be a celebration, just a wager. People bet on far grimmer things.
What's the point of Sulzberger, incidentally?
Isn't the paper just words and photos and someone to sell ads? Why don't they all just stop showing up at work, pitch in to lease an office, bring in their PC's from home- heck, why even have an office? Telecommute- register a new domain name, and carry on as if nothing happened. Call it the "Boston Courier.com" or something. It would suck for the "paper" people (printers, deliverers, mailers, etc)- it would suck bad, but the "dead tree version" will be gone eventually no matter what anybody does, right? Start over without the "ownership" burden and the physical product. (I believe this was suggested before, by Ernie Boch III or someone). The talent is what matters, and the already established contacts that the reporters have. The capital would seem to be only a minor part of it... unless the size and cost of the servers is somehow exorbitant (I don't know much about that stuff). Leave Sulzberger holding the bag with the delivery guy/ press-operator contracts- I'm sure he'd have to grant them some kind of severance.
The problem for the reporters in trying to reorganize as an online paper
Is how they get paid. Online advertising doesn't bring in that much revenue, and no one has proved out a subscription model yet for an online publication.
The best way to prove a subscription model is ...
to do it.
Nobody figured out how to make money selling affordable personal computers until Steve Jobs simply did it. Nobody figured out how to make money at online searching on Google did it.
This isn't something that anybody is going to successfully plan and analyze ahead of time. The process is already happening, and its much more like evolution. The process works like this:
1. Create new variants from whatever is here now 2. Grow the new variants 3. Kill the variants that don't work 4. Repeat from (1)
A bunch of people have a bunch of wild and crazy ideas about how this all works. Some of us are doing just what Farnkoff suggests. Each of us thinks our way will work. Not all of us can possibly be correct. Many of our ventures will never even emerge. Many of those that do will fail. Some of those that survive will flourish and prosper.
None of these new ventures has to cost much to start (a few hundred, perhaps a few thousand, dollars). It sounds like a bunch of very talented professional journalists are going to have a bunch of time on their hands in the near future -- creating content for a venture like this, on spec, is at least as good a use of that time as writing cover letters and resumes (and the two aren't mutually exclusive).
The turn-time through the cycle can be very fast (weeks or months). Nobody's reputation is ruined when a venture "fails", you shrug, take a few days off, then take it apart and see what pieces might work for the next one.
When you grow spinach, you don't sit under the light examining little seeds with a magnifying glass. Instead, you spread them in a furrow, water and fertilize them as best you can, and wait to see what sprouts. Then, later in the spring, you pull out the scrawny ones so that the healthy ones can flourish.
Farnkoff is exactly right about the cost drivers. It's all about how the people who generate the content get paid. The rest of the capital expenses are either small or quite manageable if you're willing to use existing server technology like Ruby on Rails or Zope.
BrooklineTom, I'm curious
you seem to be involved in an online journalism venture. i'm curious to see it or hear more about it. when will that be possible, if it isn't now?
Soon, I hope -- perhaps this fall
Launching something like this is filled with catch-22s.
I'm currently aggressively pursuing advertisers, sponsors, content contributors, and investors. In today's economic climate, everybody wants to see something real before they put any money on the table, and putting together "something real" is still gruelingly hard work. The technology is still emerging, the business model is still emerging ... you get the picture.
When I have something ready for people to see, I'll say more about it. Perhaps even here, though I want to be scrupulously careful about not being perceived as a spammer. The moderators/editors of BMG are doing a marvelous job, I thoroughly enjoy the community, and I want to be very careful that, so far as I am able, I always contribute to the vision they are so successfully making real.
In the meantime, I also want to vigorously encourage anyone and everyone who feels a similar urge to "go for it". In my view, this is an exhilarating -- even intoxicating -- new domain that thrives on offering as many alternatives as possible and simultaneously responds to a desperate need and hunger for real journalism.
Good luck!
Look forward to hearing more.
if you link it, we will come
just mention it here and sell it there.
a simple signature link will keep people reminded and if it warrants discussion, who here is ever shy about initiating that? your jumping in and explaining is more than fair.
can't wait to see it unveiled. good luck getting it launched.
did anyone else see
the camera shot of Jack Welch sitting in John Henry's box at the Sox-Yanks game last night?
coincidence?
yes, just a coincidence GoldsteinGoneWild
Welch is a huge Red Sox fan. He's regularly at Fenway and visits the NESN booth. He even did a regular stint on the NESN set a few years ago.
He was there with Dick Eberson, NBC sports legend, who also has a history with the team and the owners. His son was a huge Sox fan who passed early. He and the team refurbished a baseball field on the Esplanade (the use of which became the subject of some heated debate here).
Kraft was up there the other night, too. Henry tweeted about it.
Lost in translation
Translation: don't ever darken my door again. You had your shot. Now it's the lawyers' turn.
Part of being in a union is that your forfeit your ability to negotiate directly with your employer. Employers are also barred from negotiating with individual employees (or groups of employees).
Sulzberger is right -- the authors of the letter need to take their concerns to their union leadership, not management. The union leadership then takes that message to management. Or not. It depends on union rules and who is in the majority. Apparently the authors are not.
So, by joining a union and being of a minority opinion within that union, they essentially have no where else to go. At this point, they might have better luck breaking off from the union and negotiating directly with management.
technically, yes
But unions regularly reach out beyond the negotiating table to higher leadership of a company that hasn't been directly involved in negotiations. And management makes direct appeals to workplace "leaders" who are not directly involved in talks.
Bringing new, fresh perspectives to a bargaining or diplomacy discussion often provides new momentum to stalled talks.
The sticking point here--as it often is--is that one side thinks talks need a jumpstart while the other doesn't.
Isn't Yiddish grand?
I don't know how to make an Ernie Bloch III-style poll, but if I did, here's how it would go:
What Yiddish word best sums up Sulzberger?
1. Mensch 2. Nebbish 3. Schlemiel 4. Schlemazl 5. Schmendrick 6. Zhlub
TedF
To do a poll,
you have to write up a user post - you can't do it in a comment. At the bottom of the "write a new user post" field there should be an option to create a poll.
Go for it! :-D
I vote for nebbish.
He lacks the equipment to be a putz.
Odd that a few here make light of such a serious matter
The consequence of the Globe going down the crapper (which it most certainly will)is immense. (In the interest of full disclosure--I stopped buying the Globe years ago r/t their abhorrent editorial policy) There will be no one to keep the Herald or any of the myriad of hacks in this state "honest." Everyone is going to lose. This did not need to happen. All the Globe had to do was temper their bilious and venemous attacks on their "enemies" list, but that was not to be--so they essentially have killed themselves. They never thought, due to their inflated sense of self, that half of their readership would be become so angry with the condescension and scorn directed at 50 of their readreship,that the scorned would have the temeruity to shut them off. They were wrong. The "internet" is part, not all of the problem.
Bloggers will never replace reporters. Bloggers would have no clue as to the nuts and bolts of investigative reporting and I would hazard a guess that most bloggers are loath to leave the safety of their own homes. When newspapers as we know them cease to exist, bloggers will not be far behind. There will be nothing to blog about but idle speculation. I see bloggers as nit pickers, people absorbed in criticism, fact checkers, those who enjoy pontificating, but few or no one that engages or has ever engaged in an investigation.
So---we'll see what happens after the Globe shuts its doors. The reporters of any newspaper are readily identifiable and are out there. Almost everything on the internet is cloaked in anonymity. I am hesitant to take as gospel many things that I read in newspapers, I believe nothing that I read on the internet, unless I am privy to the facts of the case myself. That is the primary reason that "internet news" won't fly. It amounts to gossip, speculation and innuendo. Perhaps Rupert Murdoch can make a go of something. We'll see.
Nothing to do with editorial policy
I have seen no evidence that editorial policy had anything to do with the Globe's impending demise. Do you have some to offer?
The Globe is not failing because of falling circulation. Classified advertisers moved to Craigslist (and its peers) in droves, knocking the legs out from under the Globe's most profitable revenue stream. That had nothing whatsoever to do editorial policy or some speculated " 'enemies' list".
The harsh Daily Show piece, added to the thread starter, is aimed squarely at the real problem. Many of us laughed when Jon Stewart accurately skewered "Crossfire". I'm not sure this piece is fundamentally very different, other than this time it targets a troubled institution that many of us love.
My own experience with internet news is apparently very different from yours. I am far more informed today, far more immediately, than I ever was before the internet. I watched Jeremiah Wright's sermons myself, in their entirety, rather than being forced to wait for carefully snipped excerpts to come around on various "news" channels (never mind the way they were "reported" in hard-copy). I have always been struck by the difference between my first-hand experience of events and the subsequent reporting of those events in print. I remember when a flagship paper-of-record, like the NY Times or the Washington Post, printed a full transcript of every speech separately from any "commentary" or "analysis" of it. That hasn't been necessary for years -- because of the internet. As the Air France tragedy unfolds, I'm getting the information essentially in real-time. I had the facts on the terrorist attack on the Holocaust museum within minutes of the episode.
It looks to me like more information is available to more people then ever before in human history -- all because of the internet. That suggests, to me, that professional journalism is no danger of impending extinction.
I must say that Rupert Murdoch is not at the top of my list of people most likely to lead the way to whatever comes next. It seems to me that "gossip, speculation and innuendo" (let's not forget pure old-fashioned sex) is his stock-in-trade.
????? Logic??? If no one reads the paper---why would an advertiser advertise?
Again-------where does the internet derive their information. They $quot;steal it$quot; from newspapers and their reporting staff.
If newspapers were copyrighted---the internet would be put out of business.
It's not clear...
...that this is a problem.
Yglesias:
Newspapers *are* copyrighted
Why do you think they are not? Is this why you have been plagiarizing your diaries?
Damn Murdoch and his profit-making papers...
It would be great if he bought the Globe and kept everything the same except added O'Reilly as a columnist. It wouldn't matter if he added Olbermann and Cindy Sheehan too, the left would go batty.
To paraphrase noted statesman John F. Kerry,
"How does it feel to be the last person to write for a failed enterprise?"
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Wed 23 May 4:37 AM