As Globe staffers wave their recession mugs, we've compiled five reasons why the Globe is bleeding like a stuck pig. In no particular order:
1. Boston hates (print) news.
Portfolio got Edward Atorino of the Benchmark Co. to say that the Globe's situation (in Portfolio's words, not Atorino's) "has a lot to do with the city's makeup: a high proportion of Boston's residents are college students, who tend not to read newspapers, and a high proportion of its businesses are financial institutions, which, of course, have gotten hammered over the past two years." Do we buy this theory? It's plausible that the college kids are kicking it online, getting all of their news from Boston.com and never smudging their fingers with newsprint, and that financial institutions have canceled their Globe subscriptions to save costs. Still, we think Boston is actually a pretty media-friendly place—witness the blog rally to save the Globe—and takes pride in being a two-newspaper town. We don't want to lose that title... maybe community ownership is a viable solution? Boston's opinion on news aside, it is problematic for the Globe to be owned by a company that will (and should) always put New York first. A new owner able to prioritize local coverage might be the key to "Global" rejuvenation.
2. It's full of elitist Ivy League jerks with a liberal (or conservative?) agenda and an insular mindset.
George Snell argues that the Globe hired and promoted Ivy League grads over local journalists, emphasized upper-class lifestyle coverage over actual news, and allowed themselves to create an insular mentality that resisted change. We've done our fair share of complaining about the Globe's bourgeois tendencies, and think that creating such articles at the expense of reporting is a misstep. Adam Reilly takes issue with the liberal allegations, but agrees that "the excessively boutique-y nature of much Globe content" is a cause for concern. James Boyce at the Huffington Post goes further, actually criticizing the Globe for being too conservative (Herald commenters will be up in arms!), saying the Globe is "failing because when the whole world went left, the Globe continued to go arrogantly to the right and continues to this day." The rest of his article focuses largely on financial matters such as advertising revenue and lack of subscribers, providing no evidence of conservative rhetoric, so it's a big accusation to make. Still, it's clear that the problem isn't just financial or managerial: the content of the paper plays at least some role in its crisis.
3. The print edition is too cheap—or not cheap enough?
The Globe raised its prices, which seems odd in a recession, but still: is $1.50 a day (only $1 in Boston!) too much to pay to stay informed? When you can get everything online for free, maybe it is. But Dan Kennedy wants the Globe to charge $2 a day for the print edition, theorizing that the increase is necessary to fund the physical paper, would cut down on circulation expenses if people canceled their subscriptions, and could also result in a more targeted audience more desirable to advertisers. When ad revenue is down 60%, you've gotta do something.
Interestingly, though, Kennedy also thinks that the Globe could start a free daily to compete with the Metro (of which it is part owner), saying "There's money to be made in free newspapers." Especially if you're just repurposing existing content for them. It feels somewhat counterintuitive to create another newspaper when your existing one is struggling, particularly when it will compete with another product you own. But it's not necessarily competition when the product is free, and if the ad dollars will help, it's a worthwhile endeavor.
4. Management is overpaid.
Dan Kennedy has also disclosed how newspaper execs are overpaid; these inflated paychecks (common at media companies: Time Warner's CEO got over $20 million last year) constitute a big part of the problem. In the financial industry, at least they were creating fake money to pay themselves with; in newspapers, all you create is newsprint. Kennedy's commenters theorize that "The compensation is equivalent to legalized embezzlement" and we're inclined to agree. You can't overpay yourself when your company is floundering.
5. J-schools suck... or journalism sucks?
Tech journalist Sarah Lacy controversially theorizes that "Journalism schools are like foot-binding. They force you into a style that a bunch of dinosaurs all agreed was acceptable a zillion years ago. So in an age of blogging, you have no voice." Her screed is divisive, but she does have a point about style. As Adam Penenberg describes it, "Journalists don't sell news. We attract an audience that publishers can sell to advertisers—and make a few bucks in the process." As such, papers must dig into unique stories in distinctive ways. When you're just running the same AP stories as other papers, there's no reason for anyone to read you. Penenberg also declares, "The old way of doing business—taking advantage of the monopoly you held over your audience so that advertisers were forced to go through you to reach them—is no longer a viable business strategy." With the Herald covering local beats and national news available from countless other sources, what does the Globe offer its readers?
Which reason is right? Do they all play a part? How can we save the Globe from falling into Rupert Murdoch's dirty Aussie paws... or do we even want to?
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit