… and red all over?
Answer: The balance sheet of the New York Times.
I wish I could take credit for this zinger, but Jon Stewart and the Daily Show delivered this dig and many others when their cameras visited the Times last week. Carl Howe touched on how all media is struggling with changing distribution and business models in his post two weeks ago, but the decline of many of our biggest and best newspapers is the most devastating example of media’s brave new world.
Residents of Boston have had front row seats to this decline. The fate of the Boston Globe has been the focus of daily reporting in the Globe itself, the New York Times (which actually owns the Globe) and especially the Boston Herald (which is clearly enjoying the struggles of its longtime competitor). I’ve read all of these reports (online, ironically) and I have to say it’s pretty depressing stuff. One of the biggest sticking points has been the issue of guaranteed lifetime employment, which is emblematic of the belief that newspapers as an institution will survive forever, despite evidence to the contrary. (I’m not pointing fingers at either management or the union, but I think both parties were delusional to even discuss lifetime employment given current market conditions.)
Yesterday, however, there was finally something positive to report: the Globe and its union agreed to $10 million in wage and benefit cuts, “following three months of bitter labor talks that threatened to close the 137-year-old paper.” This is good news - for the city of Boston, for journalism in general, and for the employees and owners of the Globe who now at least live to fight another day. But the thing that stands out to me is the timing: the agreement was reached after three months of discussion, and that was only after both sides “retreated into nine months of silence,” despite ample evidence that immediate changes were necessary.
Contrast this with what is happening at college campuses across the country. I’m on the Board of Directors of the Heights - the student paper at Boston College, where many years ago I was an editor and columnist. (The Heights is independent, meaning it receives no school funding and has only nominal oversight by the University, so the directors – all former writers and editors, like myself – provide some modest financial and strategic oversight.) The Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editor called an emergency meeting of the board a couple months ago, because for the first time that anyone could remember, costs were outpacing revenues. Like any paper, the Heights sells advertising, and at both the national and local level, ad revenues were down. The editorial board made some simple projections and figured they could lose a lot of money if they didn’t make changes - so they immediately changed everything. They cut down the total number of pages, eliminated sections, moved some of the cut content to their website, renegotiated their printing contracts, and even struck an ad-revenue deal with Google. Without any outside prompting, the editorial board considered dozens of solutions, and then called the directors for advice and counsel.
That a little college paper run by twenty year-olds can respond faster and more appropriately to changing market conditions than a large company of seasoned professionals is actually not that surprising. In many ways, the editors and staff of college papers today have a big advantage over their counterparts at major metropolitan papers. They’ve grown up through – and are responsible for – the permanent displacement of numerous other entrenched communication tools (compact discs by digital music players, voice-centric landline phones by messaging-centric wireless devices, primetime television by timeshifting DVRs, and so on). Unlike the management and staff of the Globe, the editors and staff of the Heights can easily envision a world without printed papers. To them, the permanent displacement traditional newspapers is logical and likely, but not predestined. The editors and staff of the Heights want the paper to live on, not because of concerns about lifetime employment, but because they believe in the product. Instead of wasting time convincing themselves that “newspapers will never die,” they simply said “not on my watch” and worked hard to reverse the paper’s fortunes, if only temporarily. Sometimes it’s easier to save an institution when you don’t assume it will live on forever.







Considering the