And yet, this is how the NY Times Company is holding its workers at the Boston Globe hostage. That phrase is not just rhetoric, it really is like a loaded gun held to the head of every Globe worker, and by extension, every worker, in this country. This sets the worst kind of precedent imaginable for every other struggling newspaper in this country, and eventually, for every worker who could be caught between their own desperation to keep at least some semblance of of dignity and ability to survive, and having to pay for the consequences of the idiot owners of their company who made very poor business decisions. This is not a communist manifesto (let’s nip that stupid talking point in the bud) but the god’s honest truth. Workers are under attack in this country, and there is class warfare being waged – by the rich and wealthy. And they are winning.
You want to know what I think? I think we’re seeing the results of same sort of accounting bullshit that we saw from Enron, only legal. How much do you want to bet that the Globe is completely profitable, even today, if you do not put the debt from its own acquiring by the NYT Co on its books? I would like to know if the NYT Co, which claims its flagship NYTimes paper is profitable, is taking their liabilities for that debt off the books of the main company onto a subsidiary that ostensibly owns the Globe, making that other paper look like a golden child of profits while the Globe has to make enough to meet the debt payments and only then have its income considered profits?
This is complete bullshit, and nothing shows that we need to break up these dangerous media conglomerates more than what is happening to the rank and file of the Boston Globe. I say that we need to step in and forcibly take the Globe from the NY Times, and leave the Times Co with the debt that they moronically decided to take on.
And the way to do that would be …?
Eminent domain! Arrr…
Not that I’m hopeful the Obama administration will do this, not with the media conglomerates (medianewsgroup anyone?) OR with Citi/BankAmer/AIG/etc.
<
p>But they should. And then we need to put the laws BACK into place to stop things from getting “too big to fail” but “too big to last.”
what’s the antitrust argument? The Globe is no more a monopoly of the Boston-area media market under NYT ownership than it was before it was bought (maybe less, in fact). And NYT owns only the Globe; it hasn’t tried to buy up the Herald, or local TV or radio stations.
<
p>Not seeing it.
Whatever, figure it out. I think personally that ownership of more than one major paper should be outlawed, because when one goes down, the rest might too, and media outlets are way too integral to democracy to let this sort of debacle happen.
<
p>There used to be laws against media ownership of too much marketshare of multiple media in one area, or too much lateral ownership. I think you could include looking at the marketshare of the circulation of NYTimes in the Globe’s distribution area and say it would be bad for NYT to own both the NYTimes (which people around here buy, a certain percent) and the Globe (which even more people buy). I also think we need to start thinking of online distribution as part of this calculation as well.
I find this whole conversation exceedingly ironic given my signature line here at BMG…Heh.
<
p>But the bottom line is, we should ultimately outlaw businesses from operating these damned subsidiaries and not being held accountable for their own decisions at the top. Like watching the Billerica power plant being proposed by a local LLC which will dissolve if the thing goes through and is built, to be owned by another subsidiary, of a huge energy company out of TX. Screw that, that’s just F’ed up.
<
p>So, if it is solely the Globe being saddled with the debt service for the NYTimes buying it out, if the NYTimes really has very little incentive to try to work this thing out, all in the name of calling the NYTimes Co profitable but the Globe NOT, I have a real issue with that structure and we need to find a way to make companies accountable for their own long term consequences of such decisions.
<
p>Maybe an outright banning of these accounting tricks, or the use of subsidiaries, at all, if there’s really not much benefit to society from them. Make all companies either “own or not own” their assets.
Leave it in private hands, but in exchange for government bailout funds, the government can appoint a editor and some government paid execs to run the paper.
<
p>You know, like Stalin was the editor of the Pravda and also Shepilov and Molotov. That turned out well.
I’m sick of this sort of extremely unhelpful half-serious scare-snark rhetoric. If you don’t have something productive to add to the conversation, then why do you post here?
For a change.
<
p>Sure, the paper’s going down because people read it less. What to do? Seize it, you say, apparently you say it seriously, although your suggestion, absent legal rational, is as dumb a statement I’ve ever read.
<
p>Think about it, how to nationalize: 1) eminent domain 2) force of arms 3) condition of government assistance 4) anti-trust (there’s a non-starter). Then what, appoint a government cow-tow, you know, like Stalin or Molotov. That historical reference, is, as you likely don’t know 100% accurate.
<
p>The government would, under your ill-conceived scenario, appoint a task force, a person, a newpaper czar, either one fraught with its obvious political overtones. Say, here you go, what if the government appointed Fox News to run it. Would that be a good idea?
<
p>Do you get it yet?
thinking? Right.
<
p>And once again, you entirely miss the real point being discussed.
<
p>Not ONCE did I say “nationalize” or “take over” or “government-run.” But you manage to assert I did anyway. Yup. Thanks for living down to my expectations of you.
<
p>”Take,” to you, means what? Because, to me “take” and nationalize or take-over, differ little. Enlighten me.
the comment thread above, that’s not my problem.
for the insult
<
p>also, thanks for making it so quickly – spared me from reading the rest of your post.
So you don’t know what Lynn was talking about either, and how “take” is so vastly different from “take over”.
Though I do have a general sense of what Lynne was talking about.
<
p>thanks for playing.
Are you sure about that?
<
p>I can think of other examples in Massachusetts that the NYT owns.
the NYT could have publicly said, “Hey, unions, let’s get together in a big consortium and try to figure out how to solve our debt/revenue problems, and let’s try to do it quickly please. All ideas are on the table.” They could have even invited other parties — perhaps parties that are doing better on the revenue front and willing to offer advice, expertise or even resources.
<
p>Nah — shotgun to the head approach, instead.