The Phoenix foreshadows the Globe's inner woes

While the situation between the Boston Globe and its remaining union, Boston's Newspaper Guild, continues to drag on and be increasingly frustrating, I have pulled a column run by the Boston Phoenix on April 30, the day before the feverish murmurings began (both by the Globe and the parasitic Boston Herald).

This column provides insight that few in the business were having on the fateful day but that, after the climatic weekend, more people are beginning to realize. The column foretold union leadership problems and also had a juicy paragraph about how the Guild handed out surveys to its members to get suggestions about how the members would suggest cutting costs — but the Guild went ahead with its own cost-cutting measures before the surveys could even be tabulated.

The most interesting part of the column, however, was its details on the "Save the Globe" rally. On the surface, such a rally seems like a great idea, but examples of how the Globe and its employees went about calling to save the newspaper are suspect and ultimately saddening for journalists, for they show that many within the industry are clueless about what is really at stake, and thus they will probably miss the boat and kill what's left of journalism.

At the rally, there were insinuations that the Globe's suffering was a First Amendment issue, which is dead wrong; the Globe is going out of business because the common man has stopped paying advertising dollars, not because the government has done anything. Another employee talked about not liking the Internet; one testimonial was about how a guy didn't think he could find another job.

Basically, the presentation given by the Globe showed it was out of touch with the real issue at hand — preserving real journalism and finding a way to make it viable for generations. Journalism needs to survive on the Internet and with new business models, and that's what Globe supporters are not realizing through all this. They are fretting over details to try to save the paper today, but they're still clueless as to how to keep the paper running for years to come. Hint: it's not by employing a lot of people to make a great product people are loath to buy. And it's not about mislabeling the problem or playing the victim, whether the oppressor is the Web, the job market or the New York Times.

One last note: It's easy to hate the New York Times for giving this ultimatum, but kudos to the Times for thinking ahead. They know serious changes need to be made, and they're making bold moves, even if it's not easy. Let's hope they cut some of their own fat in the next round of progress, but until then, all journalists are in this together. Save the ship for the future, not just for today.

Boston Globe coverage
Boston Herald coverage

Shoot the dinosaurs. Take the canoli.

It's no longer the gray lady disowning her golden child. It's the kid insisting that he be allowed to build a taller sandcastle, with no clue that the tides are due in any time now.

From what it looks like, the Globe has avoided being shut down again. The leadership of the papers got a nice list of concessions from its unions, with the paper currently talking over details with the final union, a 700-member stick-in-the-mud organization that continues to squabble with the paper's leadership. These union members are loath to give up perks such as lifetime guarantees or health care reductions, assuming, of course, that the paper they work for will be able to survive in the coming years without a drastic change in business style.

After the other unions working with the Globe gave up millions in concessions over the past few days, you'd hope this last group could scrounge up enough to give to the Globe, so the paper can please the New York Times. But right now it looks like the union (and mostly the managers, in fact) are fighting for a few marbles as a tidal wave approaches from offshore.

Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr wrote a rather nasty column about the future of the Globe, but while his remarks could have been nicer as the deadline loomed over the weekend, a lot of what he said was right. The news business is changing, and this is just the first step. The Globe is going to have to do some serious thinking about its focus and business practices if it wants to stay alive in the future.

This is not the New York Times' fault; it is merely offering to shoot the horse before it suffers too much.

Still, the Globe has a lot to offer and a lot of resources, which is why anger should be turned to the unions. Workers' rights are one thing; not having a place to work is another. And, for goodness' sake, the union leaders that are still making tons of money while their workers offer to get paid even less (they already have wage freezes) need to stop. They represent everything that is wrong with the Globe, whereas the people willing to sacrifice pay, benefits and cushy bonuses for the good of journalism represent all that is right (and sustainable).

It's a new age. Shoot the dinosaurs. Take the canoli.

Boston Herald news coverage
Boston Globe news coverage

As the Globe turns

Some interesting articles about the Globe's (and many newspapers') situation:

A. David Warsh writes about the Globe's shift in focus after being bought by the New York Times.

I see this as a representation of a deep problem in newspapers all across the nation: a detachment from the base. Instead of being family-owned, community-oriented newspapers, publications have tried to go after the evil twins of praise and money.

By pursuing high-profile pieces that make "good" papers in national eyes (and win prizes), newspapers have moved away from the communities that turned to them for down-to-earth, relevant news. On the other side, many papers have marketed to younger crowds to pull in more advertising dollars (which may have been lost in the first place with articles that didn't resonate with the community). The result? A paper that is always playing to the younger crowd instead of developing a following that will remain for a lifetime. Newspapers have cheapened their products and now have nothing to offer even to the sensible people who are trying to do the right thing and turn to a quality source.

I've got news for you, newspapers: little Johnny likes Dad's Beatles albums almost as much as the new Jonas Brothers track. And in 50 years, he'll still be playing the Beatles. Products built to last will attract all ages and be better in the long haul. But, why am I telling you that? You're still trying to make newsprint exciting for 11-year-olds with iPods.

B. Dan Kennedy's MediaNation has some great comments and links on the Globe situation.

Two parts I thought were particularly insightful were the comments about lifetime guarantees at the Globe and the New York Times' coverage of the situation.

Kennedy writes that the Times is "undercovering" the Globe situation, which I would have to agree with, seeing the next-to-nothing news coming from New York about one of its biggest assets (or leeches, in this case). Kennedy hints that this could be because of the Times' control of news coverage across the U.S., which is why the shutdown of one of America's biggest cities' largest newspaper has been covered less than the death of Denver's second largest paper a month ago.

My answer to that is: After years of hearing conservatives whine about the New York Times, is it possible that sheep from the Times' own "liberal" fold may also start bleeting, when news coverage turns against them in an unfavorable way? Liberal, not liberal, good news judgment or not, it is suspicious how little the Times is saying about the Globe's situation, and how little the nation is paying attention.

Second, the lifetime guarantees. First of all, lifetime guarantees are a preposterous way to enhance productivity. It's a well-known fact that there's an 80-something-year-old woman who still writes a couple obituaries a week for the Globe because she has a lifetime guarantee. That's no way to keep your business from going under. (See my blog post on shooting the dinosaur, taking the canoli to see what I think about people whining over benefits when their 137-year-old employer is about to croak.)

The real problem with these lifetime guarantees are that they are apparently very difficult to undo, which is part of why the Times is pushing to get the Globe to get them taken care of, or shut the paper. Kennedy suggests that bankruptcy court may be an easier way to get rid of these guarantees, since the paper isn't looking to take them away despite the dire times. I would have shrugged at Kennedy's assertion, until today, when I realized that the one union that has held up the process of keeping the Globe alive was still trying to keep those guarantees, even as the paper was hours from death (again, see dinosaur, canoli blog post). If I was the Globe, I'd go to bankruptcy court, cut off some fat, and then start again with people who really want to work for what they see is good and true. The rest of the grumblers should get a taste of how much worse life can be.