Since Shank can't be bothered writing Globe columns for the past ten days (Bob Ryan has at least five columns in that time span), I need to keep things moving, right?
This one's dedicated, more or less, to Bruce M., aka 'Objective'Bruce, who used to post quite frequently in previous years as Shank's sole defender. He's commented in the single digits over the past thirteen months. I wonder why that is?
Actually, I don't. There are two main reasons he is absent from this site. To the detriment of page hits to this site, I have given him nothing to argue about. I'm well acquainted with liberal / leftists with little real world experience beyond the spheres of academia and journalism, and Bruce M. fits the mold to a tee. It's a narrow, parochial world view that lends itself to snotty, condescending comments to those that disagree with said worldview, and Bruce M's. historical comments amply demonstrate this attitude. I, for one, applaud his ability to derive a living through semi-parasitic means as a former Globe writer. Shall I provide the readers of this site with a link to your current 1927-like Yankees Murderers Row of co-worker individuals with scant / nonexistent private sector experience? I eagerly await the opportunity to provide readers of this website numerous examples of Bruce M.'s world-class arrogance, and perhaps his identity, if he pisses me off enough. It's like a Shank template shitting on Coach Belichick, writ large. Bruce, do you think the DSW readers will like that NECN clip from last year?
I've hinted at the other in comment threads - I'm quite sure I know who Bruce M___ really is. I figured it out after one week of posting on this site. I talked to two Globe employees, describing the situation thusly: "There's this guy posting at the DSW site, he calls himself 'Objective'Bruce, his every post is in complete support of Shank, he supports the Globe in the most effusive manner possible..."
Both times, I was cut off in mid-sentence and given the same name, Bruce M___. Who can argue with gems like these
As long as there is a Boston Herald, the Globe will never suck by comparison. The Globe is a good paper. It could be better. It used to be better. And if you don't read it, you are missing something.
Now there's a rallying cry - Read the Globe! We don't suck as bad as the Herald!
Sorry, I'm supposed to be bashing the Globe. My bad
Circulation declines slow at the Globe, other newspapers
Oct 25, 2010
By Johnny Diaz, Globe Staff
Circulation declines at The Boston Globe, The Boston Herald, and many other newspapers around the country slowed in the six month period that ended in September.
The Globe's daily circulation dropped 15.6 percent to 222,683 while the Herald's fell 9.8 percent to 124,691 compared to the same period a year ago, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, which measures industry results.
The Boston Sunday Globe's circulation dropped 12 percent in the period to 368,303, while the Herald's Sunday circulation fell 5.6 percent to 90,222.
The Globe's publisher, Christopher M. Mayer, said in a memo to the paper's staff today that the lower circulation figures were expected after the newspaper raised prices last summer in most areas by 30 percent to 50 percent to increase revenue.
He noted that the rate of daily and Sunday circulation declines between the new reporting period and the previous six-month reporting period last March are smaller.
"The good news is the rate of circulation decline has slowed as we cycle through the impact of the price increases,'' Mayer said.
He also noted that local traffic to the Globe's website, Boston.com, grew by 2.9 percent.
"Print and online media work in concert with one another to build audience," he said.
Elsewhere in Massachusetts, daily circulation at the Worcester Telegram & Gazette fell 9.3 percent from 73,207 last year to 66,397 this year. (The New York Times Co. owns T&G, The Globe, and the namesake flagship paper, The New York Times.) The Patriot Ledger in Quincy dropped 10.2 percent, from 44,729 last year to 40,154.
In Rhode Island, The Providence Journal's daily circulation declined 9.6 percent, from 106,861 to 96,595.
You still want to make some circulation bets, Bruce? You wanna dance
Labels: boston globe