The Globe's demise LEADS TWO SECTIONS TODAY!!!
And LOOK at all the PRINT DEVOTED to it!!!!
(Blog editor's note: I broke down when I went to the newsstand today; the local had the winter wrap up and awards insert, and while I was there I bought a Globe. I promise this is the last time, readers, especially once the price climbs to $4)
"A jewel in the crown loses its luster; The paper the Times Co. may shut down was once its prized acquisition" by Keith O'Brien and Robert Weisman, Globe Staff | April 12, 2009
Reporters marked the news of the sale the best way they knew how: They drank.
Gathering in The Boston Globe's Washington bureau in June 1993 shortly after learning that The New York Times Co. had purchased the Globe for an eye-popping $1.1 billion, they sipped cocktails, former bureau chief David Shribman recalled, discussing both the past and the future.
Few, if any, Globe staffers welcomed the sale. The Taylor family, who had controlled the Globe for over a century, was generally beloved - and bedrock Boston. But the prevailing feeling the day of the Globe's sale was that if the Taylors were going to sell, the best possible owner was the company that published the best paper in the land.
Times Co. executives were equally pleased. It was Times Co. chairman and CEO Arthur O. Sulzberger who had reached out to the chairman of the Globe's parent company, William O. Taylor, in the fall of 1992, not the other way around. And as Globe reporters downed their drinks, Sulzberger and Taylor, newspaper scions both, held court at the Parker House in Boston and later at a New York hotel.
It was dubbed, at the time, a "royal marriage." But 16 years later, with the parent company struggling, the Globe bleeding cash, and the Times Co. threatening to shutter the Globe if it doesn't get union concessions, this marriage is in trouble and possibly stumbling toward an ugly split.
It was always a relationship with issues, even as the Globe for many years generated handsome profits and major journalism awards for its owners. With the benefit of hindsight, some now question whether it was a smart purchase for the Times Co., given the recent implosion of the newspaper business model and the Globe's financial freefall. What else could $1.1 billion have bought in 1993, on the eve of the age of the Internet?
But no one then could have foreseen this: The Globe is on track to lose $85 million in 2009, according to a Globe employee briefed on the numbers - the equivalent of $1.6 million a week. And revenues at the Globe, as at just about all newspapers across the country, are projected to fall even further. The Times Co. stock price that once climbed over $50 a share now sits at just over five bucks....
*******************
Gordon Medenica, vice president of operations and planning at the Times Co. at the time, said the Globe was "a jewel of an asset." The paper seemed to be ahead of the Times in utilizing the Internet, he said, and in buying it, the Times Co. was essentially getting "a lot of in-house expertise on the Internet." But the greatest financial attraction was the Globe's classified ad revenue - from help wanted, auto, and real estate listings - the same revenue that would soon be under siege from Internet sites....
Called a "$1.1 billion gamble" in one 1993 headline, the early returns seemed to reward Sulzberger's risk. Between 1993 and 1998, according to an internal Globe report, ad revenue jumped nearly 36 percent from $319 million a year to $433 million. Revenue at both papers rose throughout the 1990s. And anyone owning Times Co. stock, including many Globe employees, did very well. The price soared over the next decade, peaking at $52.79 a share in June 2002....
But shortly after the purchase, cracks also began appearing in the freshly poured foundation of the newly constituted company. Times executives always maintained a hands-off policy on editorial content, but on the business side there was chafing. The Times Co. was making a significant investment into the Globe, said Gorham, but the Globe's advertising revenue, while growing, wasn't meeting targets set by the Times.
There were some uncomfortable board meetings as independent directors told Taylor family members that the Globe had to bring in more money, Gorham recalled. "The Taylors," he said, "weren't used to being told by outsiders that they had to improve."
Globe circulation, mirroring a national trend, had been slipping since it peaked in the early 1990s. And by 1999, so, too, was advertising revenue, especially classified ads. According to figures released at a meeting of Globe department heads in June 1999, classified ad revenue was down 4.5 percent compared with the previous year. And a Times Co. quarterly report that spring noted the trend as well. Ad revenue, the report said, was "weak at The Boston Globe, where help wanted advertising continues to soften."
Ben Taylor, the publisher, still expected growth in 1999. But the Times Co., which had vowed after the sale not to remove upper management for at least five years, was no longer bound by that promise and not willing to wait any longer.
Arthur Sulzberger Jr., having succeeded his father as Times chairman, flew to Boston in July that year, invited Taylor to dinner at the Four Seasons, and then fired him. "That was a bomb," said Tom Mulvoy, the Globe's managing editor for news operations at the time. "And it told us everything."
If anyone was in doubt, the Globe was the Times Co.'s paper now.
Like any owners, the Taylors had their foibles and flaws. And after all it was the Taylor family, or some among them, who led the charge to sell the Globe in the first place and reaped a handsome profit in return....
Running a newspaper, Richard H. Gilman, vice president of operations at the Times, explained, is a balancing act between journalism and business....
Yeah, the OBJECTIVE is to MAKE $$$ not TELL the TRUTH!!
And they ADMIT IT!!!
See: Prop 101: The "Terrorism" Business
Of course, I've TRIED to HELP THEM (hint, hint, hint):
"The media which has printed these lies and presented the horrors of the day according to the angle desired by those who operate it have become their own worst enemy. They are daily providing the evidence that they lie. Truth tellers on the internet are turning over every rock they tried to bury the truth beneath."
Of course, if they ever told the truth now, the people would not only be appalled at when has been done and the lies that were told doing it; they would understand the MSM's role in FACILITATING ABSOLUTE, AGENDA-PUSHING PROPAGANDA and OUTRIGHT RACIST RUBBISH!!!
Still, with Globe revenues falling each year since 2004, according to a Barclays Capital report, that balancing act repeatedly and inexorably led to more cuts. These cuts have forced hard changes at the Globe - the closing, for example, of its prized foreign bureaus - and some critics blame the Times....
The changing way many people get their news, combined with tough economic times, has made it hard for almost all papers, including the Globe.... And according to some projections, that trend is not likely to change anytime soon, with the Internet still savaging the media business model and the economy in the midst of a historic slump....
They JUST DON'T GET IT, do they?
The newspapers think it is because of the economic slump, not the lies!!!!
The SELF-DELUSION and DENIAL is ASTONISHING, isn't it?
Mulvoy, who retired in 2000 after 35 years at the Globe:
".... nobody had any answers then. And nobody has any answers now."
I DO!!! Start TELLING the TRUTH!!!!!!
--more--"
Nevertheless, the Globe keeps missing it!!!!
"What went wrong? Secure in their profits, the Globe and other newspapers underestimated the impact of the Web" by Robert Weisman, Globe Staff | April 12, 2009
.... For decades, advertisers relied on newspapers to post job openings, sell homes, and unload cars because the medium reached a broad audience. But as more people migrated to the Internet, websites like Monster.com, Craigslist, and Cars.com popped up to specifically target those customers. Newspapers were slow to recognize the power of the Internet to erode, then splinter their familiar and almost effortlessly profitable business model. And though they've now built a significant Web presence, newspapers' online ad sales haven't grown nearly fast enough to offset the precipitous drop in print advertising. Nor do online ads command as much money as ads in the paper.
The dilemma came into sharp focus on April 2 when the Times Co. told Globe union employees it is seeking $20 million in concessions, including pay and benefits, within 30 days or it may shut down the paper. The Globe has reported it lost an estimated $50 million in 2008 and is projected to lose $85 million this year. While the recession has hit the company hard, and it is no longer generating enough revenue to cover its costs, the biggest factor may be a shift of advertising to the Internet, which has accelerated in the past two years....
Because of the AGENDA-PUSHING, WAR-PROMOTING LIES!!!!!
That's why YOU and I are HERE, followers and readers!!!!
There were other fateful decisions in the early years of the Internet era. The Globe was one of the nation's first newspapers to set up a website, launching Boston.com in 1995. But like papers across the country, it opted to post stories online without charge, accustoming a new generation of readers to expect news would be free. Mutter has called that decision the "original sin" of newspapers in the digital age.
Yeah, except I WILL NEVER PAY for ON-LINE LIES!!!!!!!
But others disagree that a pay-model, like The Wall Street Journal's wsj.com, is the industry's silver bullet. Some believe that if papers keep their sites free, they will make more money because of the higher number of online readers and ads that follow....
Then WHY are the major war papers doing so badly?
I'll give you a hint: starts with the letter L!
Readers may view newspapers as a source of news, information, and entertainment.
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!
Is that what they are calling bullshit these days?
But papers are a business....
That's the SECOND TIME they said that!!!!
See: Prop 101: The "Terrorism" Business if you haven't yet.
In recent years the Globe's advertising revenues have sagged. With the recession exacerbating the decline, total advertising revenue at the Globe is projected to fall more than 25 percent this year, while advertising at Boston.com is expected to remain flat, according to people familiar with the matter who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly. Classified advertising is projected to plummet 50 percent this year, these people say....
Then the PUBLISHER is also a LIAR!!!!!!
"Yesterday, Globe publisher P. Steven Ainsley and chief advertising officer Samuel P. Martin sent a letter to about 5,000 advertisers to reassure them about the Globe.... "We are very committed to continuing as your marketing partner," Ainsley and Martin said in the letter. Powers said the news of the Globe's threatened shutdown has not affected advertising"
Well, I'VE HAD ENOUGH LIES from the GLOBE for ONE DAY!
A paradox of the Internet age is that the Globe and other newspapers enjoy more readers than ever through their papers and websites combined, but fewer readers pay for the news. Boston.com was a pioneer in creating a regional website that did more than simply post news from the paper. While the Globe is the nation's 14th-largest newspaper, Boston.com today is the sixth most visited newspaper website, with 5.6 million unique visitors in February, according to Nielsen Media Research.
Then what's the problem, Globe?
You guys are patting yourselves on the back for what?
Globe executives are optimistic that the new ventures will bear fruit, and that Boston.com will become a much bigger revenue engine. "We are very much at the beginning of the game," said Susan Hunt-Stevens, a Globe senior vice president who oversees the company's digital operations.
Unless you are shut down, of course.
The lying agenda-pushing never stops, does it, Globe?
"Boston.com has got to grow. We clearly need to develop ways to grow revenue. How we do that is something we're looking into closely."
Yeah, they want you to PAY MORE!!!
--more--"
Also see: A Final Farewell to the Boston Globe
Update:
"More whining by the corporate media.
And again, they portray their decline as a victim of the "whiz bang" web technology and avoid the real issue.
The corporate media is in decline because the public knows that when the US Government lied to us all about Saddam's "Nookular" bombs, the corporate media stood right besides the liars and helped them do it.
The corporate media, like the US Government, has lost the trust of the people, and it is not likely to come back any time soon. Trust takes decades to build, and is lost in an instant.
Look at the USSR for an example. When it became obvious that the government was lying to the people and Pravda and Isvestia were helping them do it, Russians set up a network of FAX machines called the Samizdat, to spread the truth about what was going on on the country. I suppose the Soviet media tried to ban FAX machines the way US Corporate media is trying to ban the internet, but the end result is pretty much the same. Once the people know they are being lied to, you cannot control them any longer and the USSR is gone.
The same fate clearly is in store for the US Government.
And here is the final irony. Had the corporate media actually performed their traditional role of exposing government wrongdoing all along, we would not be in this situation. Look at all the times when the corporate media chose to side with the cover-ups, Vince Foster, JFK Jr. Mena, Saddam's 'nookular' bombs, etc. At any one of those points the media could have done their job, exposed the guilty, caused a scandal, and prevented everything that has happened to the nation in these last few years.
The corporate media could have saved this nation. And they chose not to. For that reason alone they should be driven out of business.
And they dare call us bloggers the traitors!" -- Wake the Flock Up
The newspapers will never regain my trust, readers.
Never!
