The deal struck between the Globe’s largest union and NYT management will be presented to union membership for a vote without a recommendation either way. And from anecdotal reports, it seems that the membership is far from unanimous on whether to take the deal (which, among other things, eliminates “lifetime” job guarantees, replacing them with a no-layoff guarantee until January 2010 along with $33,000 in severance). And union chief Dan Totten reportedly is predicting more hardball tactics from NYT:
Totten said he expects the Times to file the government-required layoff notice [i.e., the WARN Act 60-day plant closing notice] by the end of the month “just to scare everybody in this room.”
What’s the union’s alternative? Vote the deal down, and it seems almost certain that the Times will indeed shutter the Globe (or, perhaps, unilaterally impose their threatened 23% wage cut). That seems like a poor outcome for all union members. Is the “deal” worse? If so, why?
In other media-related news, there’s a bit of back and forth between the Herald and the Globe over Globe publisher P. Steven Ainsley’s salary. The Herald’s Jessica Heslam says that Ainsley “made $1.9 million in 2008.” But Ainsley, in an interview, denies it.
Well, if I made that much money, I’d think that would actually be an inappropriate level of compensation. The fact is, the reporting of that as my compensation speaks to the fact that those who were reporting on it don’t know how to read a proxy statement.
Fortunately, BMG News has obtained the NYT Co.’s 2009 proxy statement. (Not exactly a major journalistic coup.) And it seems that on this one, Heslam has at best oversimplified a complicated compensation situation. According to the proxy statement (see p. 41), Ainsley’s base 2008 salary was $500,000. He also got a cash bonus of $113,575. The rest is more complicated: $489,585 in “stock awards” and “option awards”; $490,848 in “non-qualified deferred compensation earnings” (which “includes the aggregate increase in the actuarial present value of each named executive officer’s accumulated benefit under The New York Times Companies Pension Plan … and the SERP, accrued during 2008”), and $353,187 in other expenses, which included nearly $250,000 of “duplicate housing expenses; and monthly payments offsetting mortgage, bridge-loan and home equity loan interest charges on his Massachusetts home” related to Ainsley’s move from Florida to Massachusetts in 2006. A generous package, to be sure, but he’s not making $1.9 million in cash every year.
Heslam appears to be right, however, that if Ainsley is terminated (due, for example, to a change in control at the Globe), he will take away about $1.5 million — $500,000 in severance, and the rest in various deferred compensation and retirement benefits (see p. 52 of the proxy statement).
And in other Jessica Heslam-related news, she still hates Jon Keller’s book. Heslam broke the story back in 2007 of Keller’s non-citation of newspaper stories throughout the book; now she reports that you can pick up a used copy for a penny (plus $3.99 shipping — darn it!) on Amazon.
Can the Globe really declare an impasse here? I thought that declaring an impasse was only legal when there was a failed collective bargaining session after an expired agreement. Otherwise the existing contracts need to be honored.
I’ve seen it argued that, if the union votes down the deal, NYT Co. could conclude that that’s an impasse, and move ahead accordingly. But, presumably, the question of impasse would be litigated.
If you haven’t checked out Walter Pincus’ take on the demise of newspapers, I recommend it: http://www.cjr.org/essay/newsp…
<
p>He largely avoids mentioning the internets but discusses some deeper issues. It’s interesting in light of the Globe’s issues. The highlights:
<
p>1) Management and ownership (formerly one in the same) were too greedy. Running a daily newspaper should net around a 7% profit, similar to a public utility. These people looked at Gannett’s 22% and demanded those returns, which was not sustainable. You can talk all you want about the declines in circulation and advertising, but the papers do still generate considerable cash flow. The pursuit of these profit margins resulted in a downward spiral — overleveraging debt, stock buybacks, layoffs which eliminated the paper’s ability to produce a relevant product.
<
p>2) Loss of relevance to readers. Large feature stories can be great if done well, but all too many of them are “prize bait.” I honestly often turn the page when I see a whole page of text in the Globe or Times. The Ted Kennedy series, e.g., would be an example of this.
<
p>3) The current notion of “balance” is a joke. The newspaper has largely lost any real “voice” and is a platform for other people. When you think about the best things the Globe has done — church abuse, the recent pension stories, etc. — they clearly LACK balance… and that’s a good thing! Sometimes, there really aren’t two sides to every story.
4) Replace geographical “beats” with issue-based ones
When your job is to cover the Governor’s office, you inevitably end up covering a lot of his press events b.s. or silly “process” stories. Rather, papers should seek to assign reporters to a concrete issue or problem, allow them to develop expertise, and then allow them to call a spade a spade in their reporting. Here’s a start: the Globe should endeavor to go one week without quoting Kyle Sullivan, Eric Ferhnstrom, or any other press flacks from Beacon Hill. I know what these guys will say before they even say it. Turning to them to fill column inches is pure laziness. Ditto for blind quotes that serve only as hit pieces. Especially when they come from Republicans. I have as much say as to what will happen on Beacon Hill as Rich Tisei; quoting him is a joke.
The problem with #4 is that there is always a local angle to any issue, and purely issue-based reporting will usually give it short shrift. That is why the NY Times, WaPo, and CNN are never going to be enough. We need local operations to cover what’s going on at the State House and in City and Town Halls around the state.
<
p>Now, maybe you’re saying that instead of a Globe “State House Bureau,” there should be (for example) a Globe health care reporter who, by virtue of the fact that he/she lives in MA, should also develop expertise in the local aspects of the health care story. I could see that. But I also think that there is some virtue in just covering the day-to-day goings-on at the State House, effectively turning it into an “issue” of its own.
<
p>As for cutting out Kyle Sullivan, Eric Fehrnstrom, etc., doesn’t your #3 pretty much take care of that?
Here’s my take on the “state house beat”: it would be as if you hired a reporter to cover the automobile industry. And instead of writing thoughtful pieces about the future of the industry, structural problems, trends, etc., they just covered the marketing efforts of the car companies. Sometimes they would do a “postive” story, which would basically be PR for one company (a press event like a ribbon cutting). Sometimes they would do a “negative” or “conflict” story — “a senior Ford offical said ‘GM cars suck.'”
<
p>That’s not to say there aren’t local angles. I totally agree we need local coverage from media like the Globe. But take healthcare — covering local aspects, good (the Partners story, e.g.); uncritically reporting a quote from some industry group, bad. I guess I like to think that if you were a “healthcare reporter”, you might cut through the bullshit a little more than if you were a state house reporter covering a proposed reform. Maybe that’s too optimistic.
If you’re going to cover the state house, at least offer the readership insight as to what is actually going on — who is pulling the strings and why, what deals are being cut, etc. Do not collect dueling statements by press secretaries and hit quotes ( “I think the governor’s doing what’s politically expedient for the governor, and I would question why,” said Rep. Robert Spellane, lead House conferee and co-chair of the Public
Service Committee. from that paragon of virtue Robert Spellane.
The progressives and Liberals at he Globe would never even think of stabbing the unions in the back.
Which edition have YOU been reading?