Chris and others on this blog have been predicting that pink slips were forthcoming at the Globe. Unfortunately, that is the case. Dan Kennedy, a visitor to this blog, has broken the new on his blog, Media Nation. Details are here:
http://medianation.blogspot.com/2008/02/at-globe-dear-colleagues.html
OB posted the recent quarterly profit line from the Globe...I guess his point was that all is rosey. Not so according to the Boston Globe publisher who says, "As you all know, these are difficult times in the newspaper business." Some good commentary at Dan's site,
5 comments:
More reading comprehension problems.
The NY Times Company made $53 million profit in its fourth quarter, not the Globe which is one of its subsidiaries.
I don't contend that things are "rosey." But the Globe is not tottering on the brink of either irrelevance or insolvency. The universe of newspaper readers is getting smaller, but there are more journalists reaching more people in the Boston Globe than on any Web site you can name. What gets lost here is that most of what the mom's basement crowd "publishes" is based on either observation of public events and documents or on what they read in the papers (or on newspaper Web sites).
Layoffs are a fact of life in publishing, but nobody on the internet has come up with a better model of journalism than what we get from newspapers. There are clear standards, there are editors and there is admission of true mistakes.
I will now pause for the usual pap about how the "mainstream media" is ignoring the conspiracy theory of the week; my current favorite is the one that claims legislation has been signed to unite Canada, the US and Mexico under one government.
VOB
I stand corrected - you are right. You did state the NYT's profit line. But what was your point--you kind of threw out there as a sign that everything is rosey.
Dave M
The bottom line is that the Internet, in its infancy, was seen as a potential boon for the newspaper business. You'll recall that it was going to be a 'paid-for' thing, but that died a quick death as 'free' portals like Yahoo and Excite and others came along. Not every newspaper went along with the 'paid-for' model either, and when there's no consensus, you look like a stupid sore thumb by continuing to try (the Worcester Telegram, to name one example). So, the 'paid-for' model died a quick death, and readers were trading black-stained newsprint for mouse clicks. They were also saving money. Years ago, I would routinely buy the Boston Sunday Globe. It was the thing to do. I haven't done it since the late 1990s.
Media conglomerates are holding companies for all sorts of stuff: print, electronic, billboard. The 'profit' coming out of the NYT Corporation doesn't impress me in the least, because it masks the dreadful performance of The Globe by itself. It's easy to 'hide' a laggard in amongst other better performers. It sure ain't the Globe helping out with that profit, or else the NYT wouldn't have written down the value of its investment in our ode to Liberal propaganda.
The universe of newspaper readers is getting smaller, but don't take the easy way out and subscribe to the thesis that it's all the Internet's fault. People's utter distrust and disdain for the Globe and others of its ilk is at an all-time high. People don't TRUST the Globe and they don't LIKE the Globe; they realize that the newspaper is utterly biased and have taken their business elsewhere.
Check out the "Squaring the Globe" website for more info on why the Globe and NYT are losing readers, revenue and stock value.
OB/Dan:
Hey, remember when the Globe ran a front page story about Half Zantop (murder victim) having an affair? Turns out it wasn't true. Not a bit of it. And the Globe never retracted. Funny stuff, huh?
By the way, the Globe isn't tottering on the brink of irrelevance. It's already irrelevant.
Say hi to Marty "Insufferably Arrogant" Baron.
Your Pal,
Timmy
Post a Comment