I recognize that not everything about the current situation at the Globe — which remains on track to be shut down in three weeks — is the fault of the New York Times Co. But a lot of it is. And I see no reason why my hard-earned money should go to supporting an organization that is frankly behaving like a schoolyard bully.
So my position is a simple one. If the Globe is shut down, I will cancel my subscription to the New York Times.
What about you? Are you a home-delivery NY Times subscriber? If so, how will you respond to a shutdown, if it happens? Leave your thoughts in the comments.
And also — TAKE THE POLL, which is in the upper right-hand corner of the screen. If you’re not a registered BMG user, take the poll here instead. And hey, if you like this idea, why not email it to your friends who don’t read BMG, but who might like the idea too. Let’s see how much interest we can generate.
Also, for the record: my belief is, and has always been, that we will have a shutdown. Management and the unions seem quite far apart, and especially given the draconian demands to the mailers’ union, the two sides will play chicken with each other until there isn’t enough time to work out a deal. How long it lasts is anybody’s guess. But I predict that we will see a shutdown of some duration.
hrs-kevin says
last week, although I do wonder how many people have dual subscriptions. You should probably also ask people to pledge not to switch to the Times if they weren’t already getting it.
<
p>I like both papers. The Times is clearly a better paper overall with vastly superior national, business, and world coverage, but inferior sports coverage even for NY teams. The Globe is a second-rate national papers but is actually quite good as a local/regional paper. So if you have the money, getting both papers is worthwhile. However, I don’t want to sacrifice one to save the other, and if I had to give up one, it would be the times: I would rather get my national/international news online than my local and sports news.
david says
Even if you only subscribe to the NYT, if you live in Boston a Globe shutdown will affect you. And you can always get the Times online for free.
pablo says
Compared to the NY Times coverage of local issues, probably. If you want to know what is going on in NY, you need to rely on another source.
<
p>The Washington Post, which is much more of a national paper than the Globe, seems to be a much better local paper than the Globe.
<
p>I have found the Globe to be awful in covering issues surrounding K-12 education, and their rigig editorial views prevail in their news coverage. On one level I hope the Globe survives and gets even better – on another level I can see why people have become disenchanted and stopped buying the dead tree edition.
hrs-kevin says
That is an easy claim to make, but what do you base it on? They definitely do cover those issues. What are they getting wrong?
<
p>It may be that the WP is both a better local and national paper than the Globe, but I don’t think you will find many other examples. When I lived in Chicago, I was astounded by how bad the local papers were despite the fact that it is a much larger city.
<
p>
pablo says
The Globe has been cheerleading increased accountability (good) but has failed to recognize the impact of local aid reductions and Prop 2.5 have had on the ability of school systems to deliver on this important issue.
<
p>The Globe editorial page has also been rabidly pro-charter, and the editorial coverage around this issue has been hopelessly biased. The articles, when they appear, seem to be rewrites of press releases from the Massachusetts Charter School Association.
ryepower12 says
I’m starting to agree with Kos. If newspapers like the Globe start to go under, it’s not the end of the world. They’re not the only ones who cover local news and if there’s a product in demand, someone’s going to pick it up. Maybe that means a paper like the Phoenix starts to cover (more) local news? Maybe that means a nonprofit entity emerges which specifically does hard news on the state house and/or gov center? Other outfits are doing hard news, investigative news and showing that newspapers aren’t inherently the best at it. All in all, I’d like to have the Globe, but if the NYTs kills it dead, we will survive.
<
p>All that said, I hope the NYT sells the Globe off – even if it’s essentially for free. Others are interested. It’s a once-great national paper. With good ownership and a few years effort, it could be again. But whoever would manage it would have to start pushing for an increase in the quality of the paper, making it frequently find stories that no other entity is getting, whether that’s local, regional or otherwise — people aren’t going to pay for a Globe subscription or read the paper as often unless its providing a service that you can’t get anywhere else. Right now, for the most part, it’s just not doing that.
david says
What’s the alternative for State House reporting? The Herald? I don’t disagree with most of your comment, but I think the last bit misstates the situation. The Herald does some good political reporting, but they’re so focused on the hack-o-rama and lurid headlines that they short-change a lot of important stories. State House News is way too expensive. The TVs are a joke on this stuff. Radio (public and otherwise) doesn’t have the resources. Who else is there?
ryepower12 says
Well, the state house news service already does a damn better job at covering state-house political stuff. Maybe they’d see potential in taking advantage of the situation?
<
p>Maybe not?
<
p>The Herald does do a lot of really horrible stuff, but its local reporting is not always terrible. They often do a very decent job, actually, perhaps minus the headlines.
<
p>There are other places out there David that could step up if they see a void left by the Globe. Maybe they wouldn’t be that wise. If they’re not, other papers could emerge, perhaps an online-only effort.
<
p>Maybe an online-only venture opens up? With even just 5 or 10 news staff that have a narrow focus, a lot of good work can come from it. It’s happening in other cities around the country today. It can happen here.
<
p>We have a history of good alt papers. The Phoenix does its thing very well. Bay Windows is one of the very, very few glbt papers holding its own across the entire country — and they often have great stuff over there. If the Globe folded, there’s room for another Metro paper, weekly, online, whatever.
<
p>And this is all a big if. I still think the NYT has far more to gain by trying to keep the Globe alive than eating all its losses and debts. That very well could drive the NYT bankrupt much faster than keeping the Globe open, without trying to fix it, would. Or they could try to sell it for basically nothing and pass on the trouble to someone else who’s willing to take a chance — others have expressed interest, even recently.
amberpaw says
So, Ryan, where do you read it? Social Law Library? State Office somewhere?
<
p>Yes, their level of detail is quite excellent, and the ability to monitor, given the absence of cable and the lack of good advance notice of hearings, is critical if there is an issue/legislation with legs.
<
p>But we mere civilians, who are not lobbyists, do not work for nonprofits with war chests, and don’t work for the state read SHNS in the library if at all.
<
p>Why? No way can I spend that kind of money, almost $200 a month, on a news source.
<
p>Remember – I do not have an employer. No reliable, comfy “W2” income, or state payment for such data bases.
<
p>What do I “get” as a susidy, or for free? Zero. I buy every sheet of paper I use, admittedly “by the case”.
<
p>If I shut my office and go to the State House, or write letters or make calls to legislators, testify at hearings, create white papers, etc. – that is time taken away from either earning a living or my family.
<
p>For full time activists who are employed by “The Massachusetts Budget and Policy Institute” or “The Public Policy Institute”, likely for decent money though less than what AIM [Associated Industries of Massachusetts} and the like pay the fulltimers at their organizations – that is their job, even if they are working for the forces of good – so they don’t miss any pay since they are “doing their job” and on salary.
<
p>I suspect that is why fewer citizens, you know “civilians” as it were, testify at hearings or stay informed or show up at hearings. Just the reality.
ryepower12 says
it costs over $2,000 a year… now.
<
p>It doesn’t have to cost over $2000 after the Globe goes under. Or maybe they open a new umbrella which uses some SHNS stories, etc. Maybe the SHNS would see that a free-online version or a weekly format geared toward the regular public would be a good model. Maybe they’d set off a new branch.
<
p>In this thread, we’re trying to think outside of the box. David asked where the news could come from. It already exists now, actually better than the Globe on state house issues. The only thing that would need to change would be the SHNS model — something, if I were at the SHNS, I would give great thought into doing should the Globe go under. There would be a huge vacuum they could fill.
ryepower12 says
Was that the year baseball went on strike? I can’t remember off the top of my head — but I can remember the backlash the strike had on people. Once season ticket holders and regular fans were told that they couldn’t go see anymore games for the a season, not only were they pissed, but they quite easily found that they could live without that product. They did so for a long time — attendance plummeted all across the MLB for years. It took a herculean allegedly steroid-fueled effort by Sammy Sosa and Mark McGuire to refuel national interest in baseball again.
<
p>Why do I mention all of this? The Globe still has over 300,000 daily and more than half a million Sunday subscribers. If the NYT stops printing the Globe, even for just a month, these people will find that they can, indeed, live without being killers of trees. I wouldn’t be surprised if, once the Globe started printing again, the paper would find its hole suddenly doubled or tripled as half the subscription base (or more) refused to re-up their subscription should there be a Globe newspaper strike.
<
p>The NYT doesn’t have great sports coverage, but they would be wise to ask Bob Ryan what he thinks. They can’t ask Jackie McMullun, because they let her go. The NYT would do well to stop with bully tactics and threats and ask the Globe management and unions, as well as management and unions from the NYT’s other papers (including the NYT itself) to all come together to work out ways to streamline costs and raise new revenue. Perhaps if the NYT stopped viewing its non-executive employees as adversaries – and started looking at them as allies who also want the papers to thrive – then they could find a workable solution and compromise.
amberpaw says
If the NYT shuts the Boston Globe:
<
p>1. I will no longer buy the NYT from any newstand.
<
p>2. I will no longer visit any NYT web site.
<
p>Reduce the NYT online visits and you reduce their income.
<
p>Let ’em rot on the newstands.
<
p>Doesn’t bother me. I have excellent “data rodents” and access to information from multiple sites.
<
p>Further, I will consider investigating the NYT advertisers and sending “I will boycott your product if the NYT shuts the Globe” letters. On letterhead.
ryepower12 says
now THAT’S a good idea!
liveandletlive says
If you compile the list, I will send a letter to each company and boycott the product. This will truly hit them in their pocketbook. If the advertisers get enough letters, it will make a difference. At least make the advertisers aware of what is happening and approach the NYT about it. Let’s do it. If you give the company names, I’ll look up the addresses and email addresses and post them here. Someone could draft a sample letter to make the process quick and easy.
rickburnes says
The Times isn’t being a schoolyard bully, technology is blowing up the schoolyard.
<
p>The Globe will and should come to an end. We need to stop trying to save it, and starting trying to figure out what the replacement is.
david says
The Times isn’t being a schoolyard bully
<
p>Yes it is. If NYT were serious about negotiation, they wouldn’t be trying this 30-day nonsense.
<
p>The Globe will and should come to an end.
<
p>Beyond that being your oft-stated opinion, I don’t see much basis for it. “Will,” maybe. “Should,” huh? Losing the region’s major news-gathering and -reporting organization would be a bad thing.
somervilletom says
The point is that technology is blowing up the schoolyard.
<
p>I don’t doubt that the NYT is acting like a schoolyard bully, it certainly appears that way. I also don’t doubt that management at the Globe has made serious, and perhaps mortal, mistakes since the takeover.
<
p>Perhaps a better metaphor than being blown up is that the schoolyard — and the school, and the entire frigging neighborhood, is being washed away by the ocean like a beach on Cape Cod.
<
p>The same inexorable force that is destroying this schoolyard is creating another beach somewhere else. Instead of worrying so much about who’s bullying whom (never mind how to stop it), I think we should instead be figuring out where the new beach is and buying up all the waterfront property we can.
rickburnes says
Sorry, you’re right, “should” is too strong.
<
p>The point, however, is that they play-by-play of the Globe’s death isn’t worth agonizing over. At the end of the day, both the Globe and The Times are going to be gone, or far, far smaller. How they get that way isn’t really important to the community.
<
p>What is important, and what will help us replace “the region’s major news-gathering and -reporting organization” is a discussion of new news ventures and ideas. How can we learn from Universal Hub? How can we learn from Blue Mass Group? From Somerville Voices? From Xconomy? From the Davis Sq Live Journal? From MassInc?
<
p>When the Globe is gone, this is what’s going to be left. How do we build on these experiments? To me, that’s a far more interesting conversation that pointing fingers at the shriveling NYT.
dkennedy says
Rick! The Globe still pulls in a lot of money — the New England News Group (the Globe, Boston.com and the Worcester T&G made $524m in revenues in 2008. That’s down from $700m in 2004, but still a lot of money.
<
p>Even if revenue drops precipitously in 2009, don’t you think there’s a bottom at which the Globe reaches equilibrium and can move forward? No information technology has ever killed off the technology it superseded.
lodger says
they’ve been replaced by cell phones.
<
p>The technology here is actually “printing” not “newspapers” so I guess you’re right, printing will not disappear.
hrs-kevin says
Pagers have not entirely been replaced by cell phones. They still have a niche, just not as large as it once was.
gary says
$524M in revenue is ‘too big to fail’. It really is. Corporate officers would have to be maliciously stupid to allow such a revenue stream to become worthless.
<
p>At some price, this is a viable enterprise, and any turnaround exec worth his salary can do it: 1) cut costs broadly-union, nonunion alike; cut can never be too deep 2) abandon sentimentality; find the core profitable segment, and close the rest 3) outsource where possible…go to Getty, AP for images and stories 4) can there be any question that the Executive officers have failed. They should be replaced by someone(s) who’s actually objective capable of finding the means to re-structure and downsize what is inevitably a different business than it was just a few years ago.
david says
And of course that couldn’t be the case here … or could it??
gary says
A legacy CEO. What better argument to terminate in favor or turnaround specialists.
<
p>
bob-neer says
and later CDs. There are some.
jimc says
I hope we aren’t expending all this energy defending stone tablets.
david says
as it is about the news-gathering organization. I argue below that, eventually, newsprint will disappear. But we will still need outfits like the Globe.
jimc says
With both your comments, but I would add that the demand dynamics are complex. I can picture a society where the local papers covers the town, electronic media cover specific areas (politics, sports, etc.), and magazines remain to provide longer, deeper coverage.
<
p>I can picture that world, but it worries me. Only the Globe (and to a lesser extent, the Herald) can strike fear into Beacon Hill (for example).
david says
interestingly, recorded music and video seems to be the area of technology where this has happened most often. Cassettes killed 8-track and reel-to-reel; CDs killed vinyl and cassettes; DVDs have killed VHS; MP3 recorders are on the verge of killing off recordable minidiscs. Also, and I think relatedly, CD/DVD technology has killed floppy discs. In all of those cases, the new technology did exactly what the old technology did, just more cheaply and efficiently. (Although some vinyl die-hards will always claim that sound quality is superior on vinyl, there aren’t enough of them to sustain large-scale production.)
<
p>In contrast, newspapers do certain things that radio and TV can’t do (e.g., very long stories that would take hours to read out loud). The internet is much more of a threat, though, because it can reproduce those long-form pieces. I do think, therefore, that eventually (two generations, maybe?) newsprint will cease to exist; the economics just aren’t there, and as a couple of generations who grew up on newspapers die off, there will be no demand for it.
stomv says
Those puppies were DOA in the USA.
<
p>”Big in Japan, big in Japan.”
Sincerely,
hrs-kevin says
You keep repeating the assertion that the Globe and Times will be “gone” but haven’t really presented any evidence to back up that assertion. The fact is that people who make grand predictions of exactly how technology will affect the future are almost always wrong.
<
p>Furthermore, you seem focused on the content gathering and delivery mechanisms while entirely ignoring the actual revenue and cost numbers. Without those numbers, you don’t have a business plan.
hrs-kevin says
The Times is using strong-arm tactics in an attempt to force long-term concessions out of the unions to fix a partly short-term problem. Yes, the internet has changed the business picture, but there is still plenty of demand for traditional newspapers and plenty of advertising revenue to be had now and in the future. There is really no evidence to support the assertion that the traditional newspaper is really dead. Perhaps it is silly to threaten the Times with a boycott, but for those of us who really care about having a real paper it is no idle threat. It is just as silly to shrilly repeat the “newsprint is dead” refrain, and insist that we must kill the paper immediately as if it were some dangerous out-of-date practice like driving without a seatbelt.
dkennedy says
But every other point you make is spot-on.
mak says
I frequently find myself at the coffee shop staring at the NYT and Globe and trying to decide which to buy on any given day based on the headlines. If they actually are the same company, is it a crazy idea to combine the two? A Boston Globe with all the important local, national, and sports coverage, plus the international/national/week in review features of the NYT? Has anyone seen the Guardian/Washington Post combo weekly? For comparison, it’s a snail mail small version that has some real quality to it.
<
p>I’m not sure I like this suggestion myself, but if it were to come to a hybrid Globe/NYT, the Globe should stay as the name, and add in the NYT content rather than the other way around. The reason is obvious, the Red Sox…
dkennedy says
I would be crushed if the Globe is shut down. But under what law or ethical rule is the Times Co. obligated to keep funding losses to the tune of $1.5 million a week?
david says
But under what law or ethical rule do I have to pay for the Times? Again, none — it’s free online, and I can live without it anyway. I simply choose not to subsidize that company under the circumstances I’ve outlined.
dkennedy says
Because even if I answer “No,” the question has been worded as though I accept the premise that, by God, I will subsidize bad behavior and be glad of it.
<
p>The Times Co. has done a lot of stupid things. The salaries and bonuses paid to top Times Co. and Globe executives are shocking. But what is happening now is definitely not outrageous.
<
p>David, you don’t like the 30-day deadline. Keep in mind that it would cost the Times Co. another $1.5 million if it had set, say, a 37-day deadline. At some point, deadlines must be set. These kinds of losses can’t go on forever.
<
p>I believe the Globe can absolutely be saved — not forever, certainly, but for another few years at least. But it has got to get serious about becoming a lot smaller.
david says
This million-a-week problem has been going on for well over a year, maybe longer. And we’re to believe that suddenly the Times has to find $20M from the unions in 30 days, or it’s over? No, that’s not cost-cutting or good-faith bargaining. That’s exactly what I said it is: schoolyard bullying.
<
p>And I’d raise a point that Ryan has made before: let’s say they do knock off $20M from the unions. At that point, they’re still losing about a million a week. But then they can keep the paper operating? Huh??
<
p>What’s happening now is indeed outrageous, Dan.
dkennedy says
And I’d raise a point that Ryan has made before …
<
p>Ryan? You’ve got to get out more, David. Everyone has been wondering about that. But I don’t think it’s too mysterious.
<
p>$20m is what the unions are being asked to give up, but no, of course that’s not the end of it. It will inevitably be followed by the elimination of many more jobs and perhaps drastic steps such as cutting back the print edition to three or four days a week.
david says
who made what point first? If you want credit for it, feel free to take it.
<
p>As to the rest of your comment: that’s exactly my point. If it’s “not the end of it,” nor the beginning of it (numerous layoffs and buyouts having come before), it’s somewhere in the middle. So why, suddenly, do we have a 30-day “concede or die” deadline?
<
p>I still don’t see any rational explanation for that. If the argument is that other kinds of cuts (buyouts, attrition, cutting back print, etc.) can be made unilaterally by management, while the $20M requires the union to go along, well then, I return to schoolyard bullying. There are more adult ways of handling these kinds of situations other than “if you won’t play by my rules, I’m taking my ball and going home.”
dkennedy says
It’s just that it is probably the single most often made point by everyone who’s been looking at this, writing about it and talking about it. Seems kind of weird to attribute it to Ryan.
david says
Anyway, my basic point remains.
hrs-kevin says
Pure and simple. Shutting the Globe down breaks its contract with its subscribers; it will create enormous bad-will in the community, which in the short to medium term will greatly diminish the remaining value of the paper. They will only do that as a last resort, especially since in the current economy the Globe’s physical assets would only get a fraction of their potential value.
<
p>If the crisis was really as bad as they say it is, why are they waiting until May to raise their newsstand prices, and why aren’t they raising subscription prices?
david says
If they raise subscription prices, they’ll see massive cancellations as people who continue their subscriptions out of inertia decide that enough is enough and go to the web. Raising the newsstand price won’t have such a dramatic effect, as those buyers are not as reliable as subscribers.
hrs-kevin says
Surely they could raise subscription prices slightly without losing many subscribers. And reliable or not, newsstand copies produce revenue and are counted in readership totals, so the same issue applies to the newsstand as well. Furthermore, changing the newsstand price requires that you actually update the physical displays and reconfigure vending boxes (which probably explains why they can’t change the price immediately), while changing the subscription price probably only requires an easy change to the billing software along with a letter of apology/explanation.
<
p>In any case, the point is simply that they clearly haven’t exhausted all possibilities for tweaking their revenue streams, so it definitely seems premature to talk about shutting the paper down entirely.
jimc says
Everything else has gone up. Yes there will be cancellations, but prices should be raised when expenses have gone up but revenue has not.
lasthorseman says
has been instrumental in the globalists achieving their globalist vision the let sleeping dog die.
http://www.preferrednetwork.co…