The Boston Globe vs. The New York Times—vs. the internet
The Boston Globe reports on its own stay of execution. The decision about its fate has been postponed till midnight tomorrow.
One of the Globe’s many problems is that it seems to have made an error in calculating the value of the employee benefits it is willing to give up:
In calculating the value of potential concessions, management had mistakenly included 80 Guild [union] employees who have left the Globe through buyouts, layoffs, and resignations since January, according to union officials. Once the wages and benefits of those employees were factored out, it reduced the value of the potential concessions available to the Guild. When negotiations began a month ago, the company provided a menu of possible salary and benefit cuts that it valued at $14 million, but now that same menu is valued at about $10 million. There has been no clear public explanation of how 80 people could have such a dramatic impact.
Globe employees are having trouble believing the paper’s officials are that incompetent:
“Jaws were dropping when news of the ‘mistake’ swept through the newsroom and the rest of the building,” said Sean P. Murphy, a Globe reporter since 1987…Marguerite Courage, who has worked 44 years in advertising, said it was hard to believe the company could make such a mistake.
“It’s a sad commentary,” said Courage. “You kind of hope you’re going in the right direction and then you take a step back.”
It’s easy to be snarky about the Globe, a newspaper that is typical of the worst biases of the MSM. And of course, the specter of a Red Sox vs. Yankees type of confrontation between the Globe and the equally abominable Times, its parent company, is somehow satisfying.
But, as the article points out, the human costs are large. The paper employs 2,100 people, a large number of whom are on the technical end and have nothing to do with the editorial product. Many are long-term employees who know no other jobs, and the newspaper business generally is not doing a whole lot of hiring these days.
The fate of the Globe seems to rest on concessions that management insists need to be made by the unions. The Globe (like the automakers) is a highly unionized operation: there are thirteen separate ones involved in putting out the paper. The pressmen have a union, the mailers another, and the delivery truck drivers still another, while negotiations with the union known as the Boston Newspaper Guild (a group that includes both white-collar and blue-collar workers in its mix) appear to be the main sticking point.
I’m not privy to the details of the benefits provided by the Globe unions, or whether they seem to include unreasonable salaries or perks. It’s a good guess that they might (especially if you consider that the average figure for the concessions in salary and benefits—not the salaries themselves—that the Globe was factoring in for each of those 80 employees would have been 52K per person), but I really don’t know. I’ve read quite a few articles about the paper’s negotiations, but they don’t include those particulars.
At any rate, unions might not be as big a factor as they seem: it’s not just the Globe that’s in trouble; most newspapers are, be they liberal or conservative or in-between, and they’ve been killed by the internet. The old saying about premarital sex—why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?—appears to apply to the newspaper world as well. As this Globe column points out, the paper (like so many others) is following a “self-defeating business model” by “selling the paper with one hand and giving it away on Boston.com with the other.”
True enough. That, combined with the recession, has caused revenues to plummet. Readership online is good, but that doesn’t generate much money, as most bloggers (and Pajamas Media, which had to get out of the online ad business) could have told you.
Scott Lehigh, the author of the column, wants to know whether Globe readers would pay for web content, a gambit that failed when the Times tried it but seems to be working okay for the Wall Street Journal. Lehigh writes that the problem is not the ultra-liberal stance of the Globe—fewer than 10% of its readers cited problems with content as a reason for dropping their subscriptions. But that’s a pretty hefty group, and there are probably more who felt that way but didn’t see fit to share that information with the Globe on their way out the door.
If you look at the comments on Lehigh’s piece, you’ll find that reactions are many and varied. Some say they would pay for the online version, some say that the paper’s extreme liberalism has turned them off, and some say the quality of the writing itself has declined.
My guess is that to survive, it may be best for newspapers to find a particular and unique niche and then charge for online content. The only thing special right now about the Globe that might make a person willing to pay for it when other papers can be read online for free is the local coverage, especially sports. Who wants to fork over hard-earned cash for AP stories with a Globe URL? Nobody.
[ADDENDUM: This isn’t exactly about the Globe; technically, it’s about the Times. But Frank Rich is an excellent example of the bias and tunnel vision—combined with arrogance and denial—of so much of the MSM.]
As you point out Neo, while union help and content issues have not helped newspapers, the real killer is the paradigm shift brought about by the internet. The “deadwood edition” of traditional newspapers lost their audience and consequently their lucrative advertising base. The Globe and the NY Times must morph, or completely die. Multimedia Web 2.0 is just in its infancy, before long it will become a viable model for news dissemination, and we will not miss the geographically limited dinosaurs of the printing press era.
Neo,
You are right on target. The newspapers that are doing well are the ones with low operating costs and are heavy on the local news. Most of these papers are in small to medium sized “towns”.
Though the internet is often cited for causing substantial drops in circulation which affects ad revenue – cable TV also plays a part.
I had a fascinating conversation one night a few years back with a guy who sold advertising for the local cable company (cox) in Fort Walton Beach, FL area. being somewhat tech savvy I was still amazed at their ability to target markets – even down to square blocks – for advertisements. This really keeps the cost down and allows the advertisers to spend their dollars more wisely by targeting their market. Much less expensive than paying for newspaper ad space.
One part of the internet impact on newspapers that is not often discussed is classified ads. Incredible cash cows which really dried up with the advent of the net.
As far as the WSJ being able to sell on-line content – I think you only have to look at their even-handed reporting style to understand that. Also they had a huge base of readers all across the country already. Even back before the net they used to have the paper printed in several locations around the country and it was distributed from there. I used to work for a commuter air line in Denver that had the contract to fly the WSJ (about 3AM to various cities).
It’s too bad because I think there are still a lot of people that enjoy spreading out the paper and having a read, but have gotten tired of the one-sided reporting that seems to be norm these days.
A lot of the local stuff, though, is covered by the free newspapers which now exist in just about all cities of any size…generally weeklies, often run by people of the hippie persuasion, and mostly “lifestyle” businesses rather than ones seeking maximum growth and profit.
I live in Tampa and was a subscriber to the St. Petersburg Times for 2.5 years, mostly because I got it for a very good rate. I did so in spite of completely dis-agreeing with their liberal editorial slant. When it came time to re-subscribe this year at 1/2 off, I declined. When I told the representative on the line why, she admitted she understood and sighed, like she felt this way too.
I would much rather have a paper newspaper, just like I would rather have a book, rather than a kindle. Its my preference. I wouldn’t even read the Times, online if it was free (which it is).
Lighten up on the liberalism and I might consider otherwise…
Something more than the internet is causing this. Probably not even the biased reporting. My aunt, 80 years old, and not the online type, routinely comments there is really nothing in the paper worth reading. And she has the obits which are of interest. She doesn’t comment much on the slant, only the lack of interesting content even though the paper is ultimately owned by the Times. She still gets delivery more out of habit (60 years) but with requirements. The delivery guy must drive down her driveway (about 200 yards) and toss it near her porch. When they neglect this, she tells them stop the deliveries if they can’t do this. They always fix the problem. I scan her paper occasionally but rarely find anything of interest there or on the web site. On the upside, her grandson uses the paper to start fires in the outside fire pit and to make swords for after-school entertainment.
Now I’m not saying the slanted reporting isn’t a factor to some. I stopped taking the Economist when an editor change caused them to weave Bush bashing into every story a few years back. Editorials are one thing but editorializing in a news report causes me to suspect the information.
I have to admit to a certain perverse pleasure at watching a left wing newspaper beat up on its unions.
“Lehigh writes that the problem is not the ultra-liberal stance of the Globe–fewer than 10% of its readers cited problems with content as a reason for dropping their subscriptions.”
Wow, no wonder they are going under. They can’t do simple accounting and they can’t see past the end of their nose. While it maybe be true only 10% of the current cancellations were content-related (assuming that figure to be accurate), it says nothing about how many people have refused to subscribe in the first place or have dropped their subscriptions in previous years when they got fed up with the leftward tilt. I guess the Boston Globe got satisfied with only trying to serve half the population of Boston and figured the other half would be forced to come along for the ride. Well, now that the Internet has come along and given people an out, that model doesn’t work any more. Although I agree totally that the convenience of the Internet is the prime cause of most all newspaper declines, it doesn’t help your cause to have “pre-alienated” half your potential readership in the first place. They’ll just leave that much faster.
“One part of the internet impact on newspapers that is not often discussed is classified ads. Incredible cash cows which really dried up with the advent of the net.”
I never knew that until fairly recently. Growing up, I wouldn’t have guessed that the classified ads were that important for revenue. The fancy full page ads in the main section from the local department store seemed like where the action was. But now that I know that, I’m even less impressed with the (especially liberal) newspapers. What they were doing all those years was ruthlessly exploiting a (near) monopoly. Classified ads were always overpriced, it seemed to me, and it turns out the great protectors of the little folks were pulling in money hand over fist exploiting that fact. I’ve read that back then newspaper profit margins were in the 20%+ range, which boggled my mind. (ExxonMobil had a 10% profit margin last year, even with the run-up in gas prices and all the criticism.) Good riddance to a bad product (a few lousy black and white lines of text). With the Internet, you get way more words, you get color, you get pictures, you get instant editing and all sorts of advantages the crummy classifieds don’t give you. Unless the Internet dies, that business is never coming back.
“some say the quality of the writing itself has declined.”
I don’t know if it’s declined (I hope it was better at some point) but I know much of it is not very good. I think any old crap is starting to pass for writing these days, even at bigger more prestigious places and I think that’s a symptom of the bigger societal problem where politics is more important than competence and integrity. The Lancet (or should I say its current batch of editors) has sold out their reputation for professionalism in an attempt to score political points on the Iraq War and a similar case can be made for other previously respected institutions. The New York Times, from what I hear, used to be a (at least somewhat) different paper than it is today. I grew up in the great American heartland watching NBC and am shocked and saddened at the hyperpartisan left-wing turn the entire network (to one degree or another) has taken (most blatantly with MSNBC). What happened to Mom and apple pie? It’s like the baby boomer generation thinks all these entities are their personal playthings to use and abuse in promoting their personal politics. Now they’re doing it to Chrysler and anything else they can get their hands on. The Supreme Court is in their sights, too. They’re too stupid to realize that once you take the law part out of the “Rule of Law” that you’re not left with much. The damage will be long-lasting and perhaps irreparable.
Sorry for the length of this. It just came out.
One problem with papers is that they rely so heavily on the Associated Press. The AP is so biased its pathetic.
The papers that survive may need to be regional papers that focus heavily on orginal, non AP Regional news and advertising and perhaps are bi or tri weekly.
I don’t think newspapers understand the bias charge or could “fix” the problem at this point if they tried. It really has become an issue of a reflexive world view ingrained into personalities. You can spot it in stories from foreign policy on down to foods you should eat.
I have forsaken print newspapers for the internet, you betcha. The cow quote is the exact reason.
Also, journalism as a profession is in decline. Even in the rock-solid-red-state where I live, one can trace the decline in the local rags. Case in point: a recent article on county sewer issues used the technical term “poop” — and used it liberally — and why should I pay for that lack of professionalism and respect for the reader?
As for the Globe itself … increasing liberalism leads inevitably to declining professionalism leads inevitably to poor writing and to editorializing painted as reporting. It’s not limited to the coastal liberalstans, but it’s most obvious there.
The WSJ has prospered online by adding value for the online subscribers — features that the paper subscribers do not get. When my sub comes up for renewal, I plan to go with the online sub for this very reason. Also, the quality of thinking, writing, and reporting has been sustained. I hope the Murdock connection does not eventually drive out the clear thinkers … we will see.
I too mourn the passing of print journalism, but that does not extend to the Globe as they decided to stop being a newspaper long ago in favor of being a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party years ago. I appreciate and expect a newspaper to have an editorial point of view but will not tolerate a publication that allows its opinions to escape the confines of the editorial page. Taken together with the sneering condescention with which they couch their patently dishonest reporting I shed no tears for their soon to be shuttered doors. I feel for those who are losing their jobs but they have no one to blame but their thuggish unions who gleefully extracted their pound of flesh when times were good.
This coming from a guy who began reading the Globe as a young child and stopped reading it in utter disgust during the Kerry presidential campaign.
Companies that are successful at one stage of a technology are rarely the leaders–often not even among the survivors–at the next stage. Steam locomotive builders like Baldwin and Alco didn’t make it in the diesel era. The vacuum-tube people weren’t the winners in transistorization. Big integrated steel companies lost it in the mini-mill era. And so on.
For the newspapers–even absent political bias, it would have taken unusually creative and astute executives to navigate this transition effectively. The political bias and the arrogance have made things much worse.
Turfmann, I think you mean a “wooly owned subsidy.” As in wooly thinking!
When I was a kid growing up in Massachusetts, we referred to the paper of record as The Glob.
I remember during the Solidarity years in Poland, The Glob ran a photograph of Lech Walesa leaving union talks – the caption said “Lech Walesa flashes a peace sign.”
Ever heard of “V for Victory,” guys?
The New York Times is no better – just a few years ago when the movie “The Da Vinci Code” came out, they ran a long story discussing the historical background of the film, referring throughout to “The Knights of Templar.” Unbelievable.
It’s not surprising we have a president now with no understanding of history – he doesn’t need it. Who would know? Who would check? Certainly not the newspapers. They’re in the business of deciding what people should know and think, and building stories to enforce that outcome. President Obama’s campaign and administration are in this same vein.
Of course, the newspapers are going out of business. Will the same thing happen to Obama in 2012? Or will voters decide to continue their “subscription?”
I’m curious about how long the media bias has been going on.
We now know that Cronkite is a left-wing nutjob, but back in the day he was literally considered the most trust man in America. Did he lose his marbles as he aged, or was he always nuts and we just didn’t know about it?
Similarly with newspapers and magazines. Did their heavily left-wing tilt predate Woodward and Bernstein, who obviously exerted a siren call for left-wing activists across the nation, or was it always there and we didn’t know it?
Consider Dan Rather’s attempt to brazen out his malfeasance. He was positively indignant that anyone questioned his assertion that the memos came from an “unimpeachable source.” That assertion, at a minimum, was revealed as a flat lie – the source was about as “peachable” as you can get. Makes you wonder how many times media mavens perpetrated similar frauds but were never caught.
The internet is certainly killing the traditional business model for the media by changing distribution, but it further damaged the media by revealing their feet of clay.
Occam’s Beard: I think the bias has slowly and surely grown worse over the years. But there were always pockets of it, at least in the 20th century post-WWI. Case in point: Walter Duranty.
As for Cronkite (and the topic of the changing press in general), I wrote a lengthy two-parter on the transformation. See this and this.
I can’t wait ’til the “Old Gray Lady” goes down in flames, too… 😉
The real decline in journalism came as a result of the rise of journalism schools. When newspaper writing was a trade rather than a “profession” it was done by people who came from, and considered themselves to be, middle-class. They had brothers who were cops and uncles who were bartenders. It was a job, not a “calling” and their only duty was to get the job done on time and competently — which they did.
Since journalists became products of journalism schools, they have considered themselves part of the elite — “professionals” equal to lawyers and scientists. Their job isn’t just a paycheck, it’s a sacred trust, the foundation of our democracy. They have a duty to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. They are the Fourth Estate. The Deciders. The Informers. They know better than everyone else and have the right to decide what people should read.
The current generation of newspaper reporters (can I even say that?) grew up in monopoly newspaper markets. You didn’t have to beat the afternoon competition for scoops. There was an assumption that people would buy the paper and for a while it was true. This lead to lazy writing and a feeling that they were just doing this to fill the time until their Great American Novel was finished.
In my Connecticut town, you didn’t have to wait for the internet to kill classifieds. A local classified ad paper was the place to put your ad, more focused and less costly. They now still do well with the paper version and have a nice internet option.
If the local shopper papers would pick up some tabloid style crime and local politics stuff they could really take off.
Thanks for the link, neo. Excellent analysis.
camojack, I’m with you on the NYT death watch. Watching the Globe circle the bowl is nearly as good, as it foreshadows the fate of the mother ship.
Trimegistus, you also made an excellent point. It’s what I refer to as the “Woodward and Bernsteinization” of the media. The J schools in particular have a lot to answer for in the transformation of the Fourth Estate into the Fifth Column.
Ah, but one would have made money betting that Pravda, Ria Novosti, and a few others wouldnt have survived, and yet, they are the ones that survive the fall, teh dead years, and the return…
so i would not make any bets as to the gray lady.
i would more likely bet that before three years are up, political opinion by non professionals will be illegal… (under hate crimes legistlation).
and these papers will again be the record of note, except that now the record is stalinist and they can hire fiction writers.
“One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight…That was Perella Weinberg.”
how would the totalitarian state function witout this ability?
now you know what the end result will be… if your a realist.. pragmatist… communist… etc..
Newspapers like the Globe and the Times don’t get it. They continue to blame the internet rather than looking inward for their problems. I cancelled my subscription to The Philadelphia Inquirer last year because the reporting lacked balance and integrity. I could handle the liberal bias in the editorials, but not on the front page. I decided that I no longer wanted to support a newspaper that far to the left.
The Internet always wins its battles. What it comes down to is operating cost, professional neutrality (or the opposite – some people like to hear things they agree with) and fair coverage. If large news agencies like CNN, the New York Times and MSNBC can’t cover an anti-spending rally without referring to those involved as “teabaggers,” then it’s no wonder that they’re going out of business.
I watched CNN’s coverage of the tea parties, and I was disappointed (but not particularly surprised) by their complete lack of professional integrity. When I did some Youtube snooping, I came up with a video that covered the tea parties in their entirety, not just some snippets of arguments between protester and reporter. This Youtube user had more professional integrity than the largest of news agencies. It’s no surprise, then, that smaller groups with practically no overhead cost are quickly becoming more and more common as we head deeper into the Flat World the Internet has created.
I’m no expert on these things. I’m just a kid with a computer and a pair of eyes and ears. However, I suggest that the Globe and other major newspapers phase out of the union business and start giving incentives to smaller groups that would like to contribute. The kid who used to sell newspapers on the street has become the kid who uses a laptop to write his own story, and it’s high time the folks in the news industry learn that, and take advantage of it.
– G
Giles, great post. Thanks for giving us the young peoples’ perspective.
Giles, great post. Thanks for giving us the young peoples’ perspective.
E and Oblio,
Thank you for your curiously identical replies. 🙂
– G
It’s like we share one brain between us! 🙂
Sorry for being late to the scene but I need to shout out somewhere about this as it’s been in my chest for a long time.
Dammit! I request for Boston Globe to open up their pay wall archives and charge more for current online content except for the blogs and editorials *which are biased usually*.
It’s like these people in charge have no brain so we get half assed attempts at updates to the main site.
Better yet instead of charging for PC users they should charge for mobile phone users and Kindles for those on the go since mobile devicces are the wave of the future and they will capture the most audience.
Now about opening up the paywall archives.
There are a lot of neat content you can find thru newspaper archives such as learning about life in the turn of the century history books cannot grasp.
You can learn more about people’s habits/living/fashion.etc by reading news archives of a particular time period.
Why can’t they accept that they would get a lot of ad revenue if they opened up the paywall archives and encourage people to read past articles?
It’s like these people only see half the picture and not only that they think they have the full information not willing to learn more.
The communist party don’t need guns to destroy people. They just need enough supporters to make those who stand up lose their reputation.
It’s in point of fact a great and helpful piece of information. I am satisfied that you shared this useful info with us. Please keep us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.
Here is my blog; How to remove System Care Antivirus