Dont Quote Me

Mooney speaks!

Adam Reilly — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:17:00 GMT

When the Boston Newspaper Guild reached a tentative agreement with management late last month, reporter Brian Mooney--a very vocal critic of the New York Times Co.--said he planned to vote "No," but that he "might stop screaming about it."

For a while, Mooney was silent. But now he's weighing in again--not emotionally, he says, but with "rational and persuasive" arguments for yet another contract-proposal rejection. (One of these references an article of mine; Brian, thanks for the mention). Here's the email Mooney sent this morning:

-------------

Dear colleagues:

If we ratify this self-defeating proposal, we will exonerate the New York Times Co. and validate its despicable behavior in this tragic chapter in the history of The Boston Globe. This fight is over only if we submit and surrender. We have one more chance to stand up and insist on decent treatment as employees and human beings.

I do not approach this emotionally, however. From the outset, I have studied corporate disclosure statements, consulted experts whose judgment I trust, and monitored the debate and media coverage. I have thought deeply about this and the potential consequences.

My purpose has been simply to gather enough information to make rational and persuasive arguments that could put the Guild in a
stronger position to stop the Times Company’s efforts to stampede us into a decision that will be harmful to our members, our families, and to the newspaper we love.

As devastating as this indefensible 23-percent pay cut is, time is our ally if we can hold out a little longer. We can do better, if we have the courage of our convictions.

These are reasons why I will vote “no” on July 20.

* This contract is, at best, marginally better than the one we voted down on June 8. Guild member David Butler has updated his graphic that illustrates how this package will cost many of us more than the barbaric 23-percent wage cut the NY Times Co. has imposed as punishment for standing up, exercising our rights, and rejecting their outlandish demands.

* The inequities remain -- we take nearly double the pay cut of managers, and we lose benefits like 401k match while managers receive a 67-percent increase in their 401k match.

* The paper is for sale, and it is highly unlikely the Times can unload us without a new contract and if there is the threat of an adverse finding by the National Labor Relations Board in the future. The company has never bargained in good faith, and a “no” vote would give us real leverage to bring them back to the table to work out a slightly better deal we can all live with.

* In the event the company refuses to negotiate, we should pursue our NLRB case against the Times and seek to recoup with interest the punitive 23-percent pay cut they illegally imposed in an effort to beat us into submission. An adverse finding at the NLRB would also unwind agreements the Times has extracted from other unions at the Globe. A “no” vote would preserve this powerful weapon.

We would have a strong case before the labor board. This is from an Adam Reilly story in the Boston Phoenix:

"The problem, according to Angela Cornell, a labor-law expert at Cornell University, is that the impasse the Times Co. has to declare legally before imposing that 23 percent pay cut was actually reached on the offer the union rejected this week, which involved a de facto 10 percent pay cut and various benefit reductions. "It's that proposal that the Times Co. can lawfully implement," explains Cornell. "But management apparently has some intention, instead, of implementing the 23 percent pay cut next week. That's a concern, because it could violate the section of the National Labor Relations Act that deals with bargaining violations."

* In their June 25 memo to employees, NY Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and CEO Janet Robinson enumerated the savings they have already wrung from the Globe and added this:

“There will be still more to come but with these steps the Globe is on a path to a more secure financial future.”

That undoubtedly means layoffs, and it makes sense for the company to browbeat the Guild into ratification before the next round of layoffs because it would save them a bundle in severance costs. The reason is that under the proposal we are being asked to ratify, every one of us will lose our accrued vacation from last year, a giveback that is worth more than $2 million to the company. For those being laid off, that will mean two or three weeks’ worth of pay deducted from their severance packages.

A “no” vote will either postpone layoffs or force the company to pay more in severance to those who will lose their jobs.

Stand up for yourselves.

Stand up for The Boston Globe.

Stand up to the New York Times Co.

Vote “no” on July 20.

More Banner: what's your definition of "out of business"?

Adam Reilly — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:47:00 GMT

A few minutes ago, I reported that, according to Bay State Banner publisher Melvin Miller, the Bay State Banner is just ceasing publication, not going out of business.

Now a Banner advertiser forwards a recent message from Sandra Casagrand, the Banner's VP/marketing and Miller's wife. Here it is:

I’m really sorry to report but the Banner is not publishing after this week’s paper. We cannot remain in business in this economic climate and will continue to look for new owners/investors while we are closed so at some point it can reopen and continue on its mission. Until then, there is no Banner. Real bummer – and sorry for the inconvenience. [emph. added]

Based on this, I'd say Miller--who called the notion that the Banner was going out of business "excessive"--is being a tad Clintonian here.

Bay State Banner not dead, just gone?

Adam Reilly — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:06:00 GMT

Earlier this afternoon, Ashmont Media's Joyce Linehan Tweeted that the Bay State Banner, Boston's venerable Afro-centric weekly, is going out of business. But Banner publisher Melvin Miller says that, instead, the Banner is simply going to "stop publication for a couple weeks."

Why, exactly? "I'm of an age where I think it's appropriate for a younger generation to come up and start running the Banner," Miller tells the Phoenix. "That hasn't been able to materialize because of the downturn in the economy. So we just decided to generate greater interest, let's put it that way.

"For 44 years I've been running the Banner," adds Miller. "So people think I can do it from my grave."

So, just to be clear: the hope is that the Banner's cessation of publication will make possible investors get in touch?

"Absolutely, yeah," Miller replies. "If they want to step up and become part-owners of a thriving community weekly, sure, they should come up and talk to us."

Hmm. If this actually works for the Banner, maybe the Globe should consider taking a few days off....

BoMag's outsider problem

Adam Reilly — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:12:00 GMT

I've never bought the notion that only Boston natives should cover Boston--which you'd expect, since I'm not a Boston native. But I do think that, when we journalistic outsiders are getting started--and even when we've been doing our jobs for a few years--we can benefit from colleagues and superiors who've spent decades here, if not their whole lives.

If so, where does that leave Boston magazine? As today's Globe story on BoMag's recent turmoil makes abundantly clear, the people running Boston really don't know the city. Owner Herb Lipson lives near Atlantic City. Larry Platt, BoMag's editorial director, is all about Philadelphia. And Andrew Putz, BoMag's new editor, is a Minnesotan who's also spent time in Philly.

True, James Burnett--Putz's recently ousted predecessor--came from New York. But he'd been at BoMag for seven years, and presumably has a richer sense of place than Putz, Platt, or Lipson. (For starters, I'm guessing he knows how to pronounce "DiMasi.")

Putz has a good reputation, and he'll be able to draw on the knowledge of those fortunate BoMag staffers (from Boston and elsewhere) who survived the recent bloodletting at Horticultural Hall. Still, given the intense competition and bleak prospects facing all print media today, I can't help thinking that BoMag will be handicapped by its dearth of deep local roots--particularly at the publication's highest levels.

Metro's long, strange vacation

Adam Reilly — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:47:00 GMT

From today's Boston edition of the World's Largest Global Newspaper, nee Boston's Largest Newspaper:

Editor's note: Metro has decided to celebrate the independence of our country by taking a few days off around the Fourth. We're guessing you'll be too, so we'll see you again next Thursday, July 9.

My question is, why Thursday? If you're already taking off Friday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, why not just skip the whole damn week?

Hot perv fun in the summertime--updated!

Adam Reilly — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:10:00 GMT

Update: a reader notes that what I took for the Herald's admission that few sex offenders drive ice-cream trucks was actually the Herald marveling at the dearth of laws preventing popsicle-peddling pervs. (Take that, Laurel Sweet!) The original post follows:

Today in the scrappy tabloid, reporter Laurel Sweet marvels at the dearth of sex offenders driving ice-cream trucks, while simultaneously raising the spooky spectre of sex offenders driving ice cream trucks. From the piece, titled "The heat's on ice cream truck vendors: Pol proposes background checks to weed out pervs":

State Sen. Michael R. Knapik is proposing to outlaw convicted sex offenders from manning ice cream trucks - incredibly, a rarity nationwide. But don’t expect a soft serve when the bill comes up for debate tomorrow afternoon.

That is incredible!

Also noteworthy: Sweet's evocative description of how Knapik's bill would work:

Any offender caught dealing in fudgsicles would face up to 2 years in jail and heavy fines. Knapik is further asking the state to empower police to arrest dicey drivers lickety split, without first obtaining a warrant.

Congrats to Boston's Murrow Award winners

Adam Reilly — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:57:00 GMT

Both NECN and WGBH make the list. NECN won in the investigative-reporting category, large market, for The Forgotten Fire, a documentary on a fatal 2000 Newton blaze. WGBH, meanwhile, took top news-documentary honors (also large market, natch), for Boogie Man, its bio of legendary GOP operative Lee Atwater.

Kudos to both. And let's hope that NECN's win keeps Comcast, the station's new sole owner, from messing with the station's documentary unit.

More thoughts on the NYT's Rohde cover-up

Adam Reilly — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:30:00 GMT

Writes a commenter of my defense of the NYT's/Wikipedia's handling of the David Rohde situation:

I'd be more understanding if it wasn't for the NYT double-standard. When it comes to releasing information about our secret program to track terrorists finances, they have no qualms about publishing that info, in essence working against America's safety. So what happens when terrorism hits home with them? Surprise, it's "hush-hush" to the point of deleting public information again or again. I'm glad the reporter is OK, but I'll never trust the NYT, and now wikipedia.

That's an important point, and one I should have addressed in my original post. So I'll do it here instead.

When the Times reports something like the warrantless wiretapping story, they're operating on the assuption that the threat to privacy is a massive public ill that outweighs any potential safety threat stemming from their coverage. Whether you buy that argument or not, it's possible to make it.

In the Rohde case, in contrast, there's no comparably grave public ill that followed directly from the decision not to report. There are more abstract concerns, e.g. the invitation of the hypocrisy charge leveled here.

Then again, the potential downside of reporting Rohde's kidnapped status--i.e., one man's life, versus (possibly) thousands or tens of thousands--was smaller, if more imminent. That may sound callous, especially to Rohde's friends/families/colleagues, but it's true.

Readers, any thoughts on whether the Times and Wikipedia did the right thing? I still think the answer's yes, and I'd certainly want my employer advocating just as aggressively on my behalf if I were in harm's way. Still, it's a very thorny question.

Defending Wikipedia (and the NYT)--updated!

Adam Reilly — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:38:00 GMT

Richard Perez-Pena reports today that his employer, the New York Times, sought and received the cooperation of Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales as it worked to conceal reporter David Rohde's November 2008 kidnapping. [UPDATE: I originally wrote that the New York Times had "successfully pressured" Wales to delete reports of Rohde's kidnapping, but Wales objected that the term "pressured" was misleading. I've changed the text accordingly; his full objection and my response can be found in the comments.] The Times argued that publicizing Rohde's abduction would increase his value to his Afghan captors and lessen his chances of survival.

Is this problematic? In one sense, yes: if Wikipedia's your first stop for information, the Rohde case might make you less inclined to trust the site down the road. And if you're one of Wikipedia's stalwart contributors, you might be less inclined to contribute your energies.

That said, I find it very hard to criticize either the Times Co. or Wikipedia's conduct here. Rohde's situation was a matter of life and death. The Times simply had do everything in its power to increase his chances of survival. (Fortunately, Rohde escaped.)

Also, while Wikipedia did constrain the freedom of some of its users, it didn't violate their freedom of speech. The individuals who wanted to get word of Rohde's kidnapping out could have contacted countless news outlets, for example; or nabbed a relevant blogspot account to publicize Rohde's situation and Wikipedia's response; or simply stood on the streetcorner handing out leaflets that did the same.

Fire away, Wiki-purists! (Also, here's a more skeptical take on Wikipedia's conduct.)

Today's Herald cover: not protest-worthy

Adam Reilly — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:00:00 GMT

Universal Hub reports that today's Boston Herald cover--featuring Michael Jackson's death, natch--has become the subject of in-person protest:

Just got word of a protest at 1 Herald Square at 4 over the Herald's "FADE TO BLACKO" cover today. Protesers say it was racist and offensive to Boston's black community: "Michael Jackson was an icon and should be respected!"

I don't get it. Obviously, "Fade to Blacko" is just a hybrid of "Jacko" and "Fade to Black," neither of which has anything to do with race. Plus, while the Herald's hed doesn't strike me as particularly disrespectful, Jackson's freakish personal proclivities pretty much guaranteed that, when he died, his death would be just as much a spectacle as his life.

Am I being too callous here?

Times Co. memo blasts, contains bad info

Adam Reilly — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:16:00 GMT

Like Dan Kennedy, I'm curious about what "incorrect information" today's much-discussed Times Co. memo is supposed to correct. (Disclosure: my recent comments to NPR's On the Media may be involved, though if they are, I'd dispute said involvement.)

But as a commenter at Gawker notes, the memo--from Times Co. chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and CEO Janet Robinson--doesn't just condemn the (unspecified) bad information peddled by others. It distributes its own bad info, too.

Write Sulzberger and Robinson:

To Our Colleagues,

The month of May came and went and, contrary to the prediction of one writer, we did not stop printing The New York Times. But given all the speculation and incorrect information that has been reported about our Company, we think it is important to create a regular letter written so that you get the facts directly from us — on the record.... [emph. added]

That one writer would be the Atlantic's Michael Hirschorn, who offered a grim assessment of the NYT Co.'s current and long-termprospects earlier this year. Problem is, Hirschorn didn't actually say what Sulzberger and Robinson claim he did. Here's an excerpt from his piece:

But what if the old media dies much more quickly? What if a hurricane comes along and obliterates the dunes entirely? Specifically, what if The New York Times goes out of business — like, this May?

It’s certainly plausible. Earnings reports released by the New York Times Company in October indicate that drastic measures will have to be taken over the next five months or the paper will default on some $400million in debt. With more than $1billion in debt already on the books, only $46million in cash reserves as of October, and no clear way to tap into the capital markets (the company’s debt was recently reduced to junk status), the paper’s future doesn’t look good....

Granted, the odds that The Times will cease to exist entirely come May are relatively slim. Many steps could be taken to prolong its existence. The Times Company has already slashed its dividend, a major source of income for the paper’s owners, the Sulzberger family, but one that starved the company at precisely the moment it needed significant investments in new media. The company could sell its share of the brilliant Renzo Piano–designed headquarters—which cost the company about $600million to build and was completed in 2007, years after the digital threat to The Times’ core business had become clear. (It’s already borrowing money against the building’s value.) It could sell The Boston Globe—or shutter it entirely, given what the company itself has acknowledged is a challenging time for the sale of media properties.... [emph. added]

In other words, Hirschorn floated a dramatic possibility to get our attention; explained why his scenario merited consideration; and then backtracked by saying it probably wouldn't pan out. Inflammatory, sure. But a "prediction" that ain't.

My executive editor, Peter Kadzis, argues that the memo in question is aimed less at correcting mistakes then at imparting calm. That makes sense. Still, this could have been accomplished without fudging the facts.

New in the Phoenix: Doubting the "Twitter Revolution"

Adam Reilly — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:03:00 GMT

In which I try to separate Twitter's news value, vis a vis the chaos in Iran, from its political efficacy--and generally side with the skeptics. Please take a look.

Who won the Globe showdown?

Adam Reilly — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:02:00 GMT

My first thought, when I heard about the tentative agreement struck by management and the Boston Newspaper Guild last night, was that Guild head Dan Totten must be patting himself on the back right now. After all, Totten's non-endorsement of the contract proposal rejected by the Guild last month was predicated on the assumption that he could get a better offer from the Times Co. if his membership just gave him the chance.

But did he? Yes, the current pay-cut proposal--8 percent when an unpaid furlough is factored in, as opposed to 10 percent in the contract rejected last month--is lower. As a result, though, the benefit cuts are more severe.

Now recall that, earlier this month, some Guild members were actually arguing that the benefit cuts contained in the proposal that was rejected on June 8--which were less severe than those contained in the new contract offer--were so onerous that the Times Co.'s threatened 23-percent pay cut was actually preferable.

Guild members, I'd love to get your take on this. Do you see the latest contract offer as superior to the one that was rejected earlier this month, or inferior, or roughly equivalent? And given that, what's your take on the representation you've received from Totten and the other Guild leaders?

Burnett out at BoMag

Adam Reilly — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:04:00 GMT

Just received a rather terse email from Boston editor James Burnett:

Dear media colleagues, ace freelancers, PR specialists, and assorted professional acquaintances I've had the pleasure of meeting during the past seven years:
Today is my last day as editor of Boston magazine, and, as is usually the case with these things, also the last at this email address.
Going forward, please try me at:
xxx@gmail.com
or:
617.xxx.xxxx

If you're thinking that Burnett's exit is linked to the recent appointment of Larry Platt as editorial director at Metro Corp., Boston's Philadelphia-based corporate parent, you're probably right. As a Boston insider put it to me before Burnett's announcement: "New York may own the Globe, but there's no doubt Philly is now running Boston mag."

Scrappy tabloid scribe allegedly too scrappy

Adam Reilly — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:02:00 GMT

The Eagle-Tribune reports that Herald crime reporter O'Ryan Johnson has been charged with assaulting a small old man with emphysema. At a laundromat.