Well, everyone else seems to have good ideas bubbling up about how to save the Globe, the good Professor Kennedy in particular.
Now, sometimes blogs get set up as rivals to professional media — as if a bunch of jes' folks with websites were about to replace the legit newsrooms — and all of the professionalism, skill, time, expertise, institutional memory and budgets those newsrooms provide. No, that's not what we do as bloggers. Hell, who links to the Globe more than us? We are citizens. We are media consumers, and therefore sometime critics of the product we so voraciously consume. But we remain very much interested in the survival of media.
So, in the spirit of our Save-The-Globe blog rally, we should affirm that the Globe remains an indispensible public institution. It's not all it could be or should be. But it's what we have, and is in many cases still pretty good. And we need robust, local, professional journalism.
But a newspaper per se is not necessary for that. The business model for the newspaper is dead, gone, destroyed, literally exploded. We can talk all we want about the “news business”, but news is not really what a newspaper sells. The newspaper used to stand at the bottleneck of information; if you wanted to know what the Governor was doing, or whom the Sox were going to sign, you also received a huge pile of advertising along with. Recent discussion of the quality of the actual news product is useful and interesting; but in terms of the Globe's survival, it's a bit beside the point. Unless we're expecting newspapers to be a combination of Craigslist/Amazon/ebay/Zillow/etc, then we're talking about a rather new form of news delivery.
So perhaps we should look at a news organization of considerable integrity that has thrived in recent years, even as print newspapers have cratered: NPR. NPR depends not so much on the breadth of its audience — the number of ears it attracts — but rather the depth of loyalty of its audience. You have to like NPR enough to want to contribute, in order for them to stay afloat. This is a similar business model to HBO, say, in which their programming (Sopranos/The Wire/etc) has to be attractive and special enough for you to want to pay the premium price.
It's reasonable to ask whether the Globe should be that kind of institution — more specialized, perhaps, but of unimpeachable quality. (I might argue that its sports page has held that kind of loyalty since the Gammons era.) Perhaps a “newspaper” should aim for a broader audience than public radio, in perpetuating its role as the regional intellectual “commons” or crossroads.
There are, of course, serious questions about a non-profit model:
- Can a non-profit model provide the scale, the sheer budgetary support for the kind of comprehensive coverage that a newspaper is supposed to provide? Is the Boston Foundation up for it?
- Who else pitches in? Is there a public passing-the-hat, as with NPR pledge weeks? How successful is that going to be?
- Does the news organization become beholden to a few big donors, as opposed to a diversity of advertisers? Does that affect news coverage?
In any event, I find the non-profit model to be more in tune with the central goals of journalism — and the business landscape. Frankly, I find it amazing that there ever was a “Golden Age” of American journalism, in which the business side dared not touch the news-reporting side. There simply is a structural conflict between bean-counting and fact-seeking; we may simply be seeing the natural unraveling of two mismatched strands. Let's face it: Fred Friendly is not walking through that door, folks.
So what's next?
sue-kennedy says
business model, that appears to be the problem. The solution needs to be a way to make it more profitable. Okay maybe just less of a moneypit, a serious problem.
Americans are on information overload already…for free. They are more likely to spend money on spam blockers and pop-up blockers than on more information.
old-scratch says
Under your plan, should the government fund a large chunk of the Globe, too?
mcrd says
and the Guild will get squat. Let the Globe travel the road they paved—-to hell!
mcrd says
and the Guild will get squat. Let the Globe travel the road they paved—-to hell!
ryepower12 says
<
p>Newspapers don’t need to reinvent the wheel. The Globe and NYT have their own problems, ones that I think are mainly attributable to bad management (and, in the Globe’s case, a few hundred too many employees), but it’s not a business model that can’t work without some tweaks. Newspapers all around the Globe are still profitable. There are several examples of newspapers even doing well online. Eventually, it’ll move more toward that direction and less toward print, but that shouldn’t mean less news — just less employees focused on print distribution.
<
p>I don’t think a nonprofit or quasi-nonprofit is necessarily a bad model, I just think it’s a model, with pros and cons, like any other. Sign me up for whatever takes the Globe out of NY’s hands and into our own local hands, be that new ownership or nonprofit status or whatever. But let’s bear in mind that while newspapers are in a tight spot, the reports of the industry’s demise is a tad overstated.
rickburnes says
If you’re going to create a non-profit, why not start it from scratch?
<
p>If you turn the Globe into a non-profit, you have not only the problems of running a non-profit, but also the problems of transition and legacy. That’s orders of magnitude more complicated than starting with a clean slate.
<
p>For example, if you make the Globe a non-profit, your first order of business will inevitably be scaling the current operation back. If that’s a painful, hopelessly complicated, task at a for-profit, how is a non-profit going to handle it?
<
p>On the other hand, if you start from scratch, your first task will be building and experimenting. Those are far more hopeful activities.
jimc says
<
p>- For at least a generation, the driving force of journalism careers has been “get to the publications where the pay is decent and my job is secure.” If a paper as large as the Globe is suddenly a nonprofit, does that dynamic change? Why would someone work for a small paper for $20K, then?
<
p>- I grew up with the Globe, so it defines newspaper to me. But, for about 10 years, they have steadily cut back on newsroom staff, and the effect on the quality has been tangible. They need to make the paper better to have it be worth saving.
<
p>
mike-from-norwell says
but this morning decided to go through the Wednesday A Section to see how many articles were Globe and how many were syndicated. There were 6 articles with a Globe byline in the purported US and World News section (all starting on page 1). From there on in, there were exactly 0 articles in the rest of the A section with a Globe byline; all the rest were syndicated via AP, NYT, WaPo, Bloomberg, or Reuters. Basically Google News on a broadsheet. Draw your own conclusions.
david says
is that the future isn’t for the Globe to try to reinstate national and foreign bureaus. And, of course, if you did the same experiment on the B section, you’d see a much different result.
mike-from-norwell says
Globe has turned into the Patriot Ledger on a slightly broader scale. Not too long ago remember a Russian bureau (Filipov) for goodness sakes. Guess we have officially turned into a cowtown.
hrs-kevin says
Why is focusing limited news reporting resources on local issues make this “cowtown”? It is this kind of thinking that has gotten papers to waste far to much money on trying to cover the same national and international news that is already well covered by bigger papers or other media, while leaving many local and regional issues uncovered.
<
p>
trickle-up says
No one would miss Peter Canellos.
trickle-up says
There’s lots of nonprofit models.
<
p>I don’t see the gimmee gimmee NPR shtick working out too well for the Globe. It only works for public radio because those fund-raisers go on the radio, where they preempt programming.
<
p>The equivalent for a newspaper would be to follow people around during pledge week and whack them with last week’s “G” magazine until they pay up.
<
p>But, suppose your subscription were membership dues in a nonprofit Boston community organization. Suppose it gives you access to online content and RL events.
<
p>Now suppose your subscription costs more, but you get a Rochdale-style share of, say, 50% of ad revenue. This adds value to advertising in the Globe: advertisers become both good guys (for supporting the community) and defrays the subscription price in a tangible way, so readers have a special interest in ads. (Complete with a monthly column in the business section: Ad Revenues, Subscriber Dividend Up This Month). Now readers can look at those big boring ads and cheer.
<
p>Okay, I admit this probably isn’t enough. Video killed he radio star, and the internet is killing the golden egg. But the nonprofit though is worth thinking and there’s a heck of a lot more to that than NPR fund drives.
bostonshepherd says
I’ve posted 4 times about the Globe in the past week, so I’ll say it again here.
<
p>It’s not newsprint which is sinking the Globe. It’s that (1) demand their product has declined thereby reducing revenues, and (2) they are burdened with crushing legacy costs.
<
p>How’s non-profit going to change any of this?
<
p>The Wall Street Journal looks like it has a viable print-online strategy. One would think the Globe could emulate their business model although it may be too late.
<
p>In any case, the Globe is NOT indispensable. It will re-organize is some different form — why not like The Metro? — or become the New England insert for the New York Times.
dkennedy says
Thanks for the link, Charley.
<
p>Public radio is the business model that works best right now, because the delivery model isn’t broken. It works because people are stuck in their cars. And it works because it really is a business, albeit a non-profit business – no listener contributions, no advertising (uh, “underwriting”), no station. Public radio’s dependence on government funding is so small that it could be eliminated without doing much harm. Unfortunately, an operation like WBUR – among the most admired public stations in the country, and probably the most interesting and vibrant news organization in Boston these days – still has a tiny news staff compared to the Globe.
<
p>Right now, the economy is hurting newspapers more than the Internet is. Even so, revenues for the Times Co.’s three New England properties (the Globe, Boston.com, and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette) fell only from $700m to $524m between 2008 and 2004. I say “only” … I realize that’s a lot. But how can you not be able to put out a good local newspaper/ website with that kind of money?
<
p>The best model: a profit/non-profit hybrid, like the St. Petersburg Times, a for-profit paper owned by a non-profit educational institution, the Poynter Institute. Yes, you’d still have to cut the Globe until it hits the break-even point. But no longer would you have to deal with Wall Street demanding 20 percent profits.
<
p>The Globe could get a lot smaller and still be the leading news organization in Boston for many years to come.
centralmassdad says
that the primary problem for the NYT and Globe is that the Ochs and Sulzburgers are driving trying too hard to wring out good quarterly numbers?
dkennedy says
No, not at all. The Globe is dealing with huge operating losses. The situation is pretty desperate. I’m just suggesting an ideal ownership model once (if?) the Globe is stabilized, probably at a much smaller size.
centralmassdad says
charley-on-the-mta says
I’d be interested to see how one would bring the newsroom of ‘BUR up to the size of the Globe. How much would that cost?
dkennedy says
The relative size of WBUR’s and the Globe’s reporting staffs move closer together as ‘BUR gets a little bit bigger and the Globe gets a lot smaller. Unfortunately.
<
p>And here’s a quick calculation – if you added 100 reporters to WBUR’s staff, you would start getting into the ballpark of what the Globe offers. Obviously you’d need a major upgrade to the website, too. But figure $100,000 apiece for salary and benefits, and it would cost $10 million.
<
p>In 2006, WBUR’s entire budget was $18.7 million, with 115 employees.
old-scratch says
. . . a $100K reporter’s salary would have inspired me to stay in the business.
dkennedy says
I was including benefits, but you’re right, that’s probably on the high side.
somervilletom says
$100K is about right for the loaded cost of a professional with a salary in the range of $60-80K, I think.
somervilletom says
whatever new entity emerges will have any connection to the Globe. I’m not sure that’s a bad thing.
<
p>Companies are born and die every day. Digital Equipment Corporation was a great company, with great employees and managers. Many of us continue to make significant contributions every day — even though DEC is no longer with us.
<
p>Polaroid is a better analog to the Globe. The handwriting was on the wall for both, and both maintained their denial about the implications of that handwriting until it was too late.
<
p>Millennium Pharmaceuticals was a fabulous biotech. Its shell now bears little resemblance to the original. Biotechnology in Massachusetts didn’t die.
<
p>We have lots of papers here. We have many more news and information outlets here.
<
p>The many good, skilled, and wise contributors to the Globe will have ample opportunity to make additional contributions.
<
p>Life goes on, with or without the Boston Globe. The same can be said, by the way, for Chrysler, Ford, GM, and — for that matter — Bank of America, Merrill-Lynch and Lehmann Brothers. Some of us remember Lechmere’s, Jordan Marsh, Gilchrist’s, Zayre’s and Bradlees. Life goes on.