Guess the Metro really is in trouble. Without a buyout from the Examiner, they are cutting staff positions, including a sports editor, and the publisher has resigned.
People make fun of the Metro, but it's a part of any commuters' daily life. Most people get their news first from the Metro and some even become buddies with their morning vendors.
The New York Times Company, which owns the Globe, has a 49 percent stake in the Metro. The publisher, Stuart Layne, told the Herald that he quit because "The Globe and Metro wanted to take the paper in a different direction."
Here's what Layne told the Globe: "The Globe would like to be more involved in the operations. I believe that the goal is to utilize the Globe resources to create better efficiencies. They feel they can take better advantage of resources at the Globe - anywhere from sales to IT."
What different direction? Could news be any zipper and more bite-size than the Metro? This could also pose a problem for the Globe. If the Metro becomes more like the Globe, and people know they can get the Metro for free, then why should they pay for the Globe?
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
