Isn’t the Times pro union?
Damn, I read the headline too quickly. I thought they intended to shut down Boston. Still, shutting down the Globe is a good start.
Liberals are only pro union until they have to pay them. When other companies try to roll back union costs the NTY calls them heartless and greedy. When the NYT does it it’s smart business. The libs see no hypocracy in this and if you point it out to them, they look at you like you have 2 heads.
That’s it union pressmen...stand up for your “Rights” til you have no job, just like the airlines, auto workers and almost every union worker except those who suck at the governments teat.
Closing? A $1.1 billion investment in 1993 is now worth ... nothing? Maybe the federal government should take a look at the “(mis)management” at the Times and fire its CEO. I think even the community disruptor himself could run the propaganda sheet better than current management.
In all but the very largest cities (here, that means New York only), financial forces are going to create all one newspaper towns.
Here’s why: as newspapers cut back on resources, that which distinguishes one from the other also shrinks. Newspapers have always gotten most of their revenue from advertisers. Advertisers would rather advertise in one newspaper rather than two.
In past generations, the two (or more) newspaper town would distinguish its audience (city/ suburban, blue/white collar, liberal/conservative). Sometimes papers would go to war over features (comics pages, popular sports writer, etc.) Most papers don’t have a large enough audience anymore to have that much personality (although they remain uniformly liberal, that is a result of the hive of people working there.)
Once one newspaper gets the upper hand in a city, advertisers will flock to it. The other paper is forced to reduce its rates. If the strategy works, the lead paper will also reduce its rates some, but not as much, keeping both papers lean, and the smaller one at a competitive disadvantage that cannot be gotten out of. [save for continuous infusions of money, e.g.Deseret News, Washington Times]
Eventually, one of the two newspapers bites the dust. A percentage of that readership goes to the other paper, which can now exhale, as ad rates can go up, and so can circulation revenue.
I am not including neighborhood or niche nespapers (Chicago Defender, Spanish language papers, etc.) Within the decade, you will see Chicago, Los Angeles and every other big city except for Washington, D.C. (due to Times subsidy) and New York City (special case, international and financial center) become one newspaper towns. If we consider the Wall Street Journal as a national paper, NYC itself may go from three to two papers (I don’t count the Observer and Sun), with the Daily News biting the dust.
Some of the smaller city papers owned by chains may only have one local section and possibly local wrap sheets around other sections, with the rest designed someplace else, like an unlabeled USA Today.
Now if we can only get them to shut themselves down...
I’m having a hard time trying to figure out who the ‘bad guy’ is here....
Hmmmmm.......
Ok...I decided...
I’m siding with the Union on this one.
Shut down the Boston Globe and the TIMES next.
Am I bad? Or what?
:0)
That seems far too many employees for just those departments whether unionized or not. Add the union salaries and work rules and it is amazing they stayed in business as long as they did.
What’s the “threat” part of it?
“Threatens...?” Please make it a promise.
Sulzburger wants to sell the Globe for parts. He’s gonna Milken(sp?) it.