Left In Lowell

Dire Straights for Democracy

16 Responses to “Dire Straights for Democracy”

1. Boston Patriot Says:
   April 4th, 2009 at 7:46 am

   When private companies push for a “shining bottom line”, people like you label them “greedy” When NY Times engages in union busting people like you label them “flawed pillars” Liberalism=hyocrisy=chaos

2. gp Says:
   April 4th, 2009 at 1:28 pm

   Lynne,

   Well said. I know this issue has come up on other blogs…as I like to say, newspapers are like anything else we take for granted — we can knock them, but when they’re not around it’s going to hurt. The organizational power, division of labor, accountability, and, as you said, “investigate prowess” of major newspapers like the Globe cannot be replaced by a bunch of part-time bloggers. I enjoy blogging, and reading blogs, but that in no way replaces the service the Globe provides me in the morning for what is by all means a bargain.

   best,
   gp

3. Lynne Says:
   April 4th, 2009 at 3:00 pm

   Patriot: you make no sense whatsoever. Your logic is seriously flawed, not to mention, nothing more than a talking point. (Oh noooooo, scary liiiiiiiberals!)

   The fact is, the NY Times company did really stupid things, like leverage themselves way too high (ie borrow money in spades) in order to buy up other papers. That’s been the trend in the whole industry, consolidation by borrowed money, shareholders holding more and more assets, until the only thing that anyone cares about is profitability, actually beyond that, a specific level of profitability (minor profitability need not apply). Publicly traded companies have inherent flaws in them, because of the nature of a shareholder, who is out to only make money. Once upon a time a shareholder wanted to hold on to their stocks, therefore cared about the long term viability of the company whose shares they bought…that has NOT been true for decades now, however.

   So, to placate shareholders, the NY Times co expanded beyond reasonable capacity. Now, because ad revenues are down (partly because of the economy, partly because of the competition from free or cheaper online services), the NY Times co is putting pressure on the workers to cough up concessions to cover their asses, when really, it was their own damn decisions made in worship of the short term gain which have brought us to this point.

   In other words, the workers are being asked to get screwed, because the corporate deciders messed around with the long term viability of their paper. End of story.

   Now, there’s nothing wrong with shareholding per se, or with publicly traded companies. Except that we the people should prevent them from getting too large and too large in scope (AIG, anyone) and in the case of our newspapers and other media, we HAVE a public interest to see that these institutions do NOT have to be quite so answerable to the whims of a short term gain market. Because inherent in media and reporting, we NEED it, we need it for making democratic decisions. No one cares if Acme Widgets goes out of business for making poor decisions (well, except Acme’s workers). But we ALL stand to lose if our papers fall, one by one, and nothing rises to take their place. Something very large would have to rise in order to take on the role the Globe has had in our democracy, and I don’t see that anything like that will happen very soon, so we would be bereft of an important resource if the Globe closed.

4. joe from Lowell Says:
   April 4th, 2009 at 3:17 pm

   The first comment on this thread is completely nonsensical. Liberals criticize corporations for being too greedy AND for union-busting. Therefore, they’re hypocrites.

   ‘kay.

5. MOONLIGHT Says:
   April 5th, 2009 at 8:47 am

   GEE!! I do not want the globe or times to go under
   I Am breaking in a new puppy and i need all the papers
   I can get !!!!

6. Shawn Says:
   April 6th, 2009 at 6:25 am

   I’ve been happy to see this happen. The Globe in its extreme left view of the world has reduced its readership beyond its viability. Let it die.

   Go into any store in the area and see that they sell few if any Globes. Their news just cannot be trusted. People buy it for the sports page.

   The company should sell off its sports department and let the news people just go work for PBS.

   I only wish the same would happen to the NY Times.

7. Lucy the Dog Says:
   April 6th, 2009 at 7:46 am

   “The Globe in its extreme left view of the world has reduced its readership beyond its viability. Let it die.”

   That comment is so dumb, I just have to say “Wow.”

   That’s all.

8. Shawn Says:
   April 6th, 2009 at 9:28 am

   Its called “the market.”

   The original “free press” that the founders were talking about was closer to Tommy Duggan’s paper than these large corporate franchises that believe that they need to drive their agenda rather than report news.

   The “news” was a free publication you picked up at the pub as you travelled from town to town.. usually published by a local guy.

   I know NOBODY who reads the globe for its news.

9. Mr. Lynne Says:
   April 6th, 2009 at 10:11 am

   I’m betting that Lucy’s comment was a reaction to the characterization of the Globe’s “view” as being “extreme left”, not the characteristics of markets. Characterizations about the the “press that the founders had in mind” seem irrelevant to me. Nobody has brought up any constitutional issues thus far.

10. Lucy the Dog Says:
    April 6th, 2009 at 10:21 am

    Whether or not the Globe is extreme left, moderate, or extreme right, it has very little, if anything, to do with its financial predicament or those of pretty much every other newspaper across the country. And its readership isn’t even reduced, much less “beyond viability,” when online readers - who, unfortunately, add zero to the bottom line - are taken into account.

    That comment shows no understanding of the industry or its challenges. Just typical, reactionary, paranoid, irrelevant talking points from ‘the left wing’s out to get us’ sect.

11. Shawn Says:
    April 6th, 2009 at 1:37 pm

    Sorry Lucy, I think I understand media very well, its challenges and the industry.

    The newspapers, in their current format, are not viable (especially if they have a declining client base willing to pay for the service).

    The news media need to find a way to make “content” the issue, and make it profitable (I know that word is blasphemy to the left, but its what our economy is alla bout). Without profit, there is no incentive to invest in the company.

    How that content is paid for, and how that content is delivered in the era of instant communications are the key issues of our time that all are having a quandry over.

    The “people” call for information to be free and unfettered.

    The content creators need a revenue stream.

    These two facts cannot coexist.

    I see the small, independent papers coming back into vogue (be they online only or totally independent like Duggan’s). Much like musicians and artists starting to sell directly to customers rather than via distributors.

    You could even get to the point where some writers could become independent and sell thier stories and investigations to aggregators. Thus the “newspaper” website has some self generated content, and some independent content.

    What people will have to accept at some point, though, is that there is value to news, and access to it costs the client something.

    The irony of the Times/Globe is that for years it has advocated for the unions and pushed for increased benefits. Now when that behavior ultimately causes them the same problems it has caused everyone else– they change their tune.

12. joe from Lowell Says:
    April 6th, 2009 at 4:23 pm

    You don’t know what you’re talking about, Shawn.

    The Globe’s average weekday circulation in 2008 was 350,605. Sunday circulation was 525,959.

    The Herald’s average daily circulation was 182,350. Its Sunday circulation was 105,629.

    So, remind us, who exactly has a viewpoint that is out of the mainstream again?

    I know NOBODY who reads the globe for its news. Oh, I see. The answer to my question is “You.”

13. joe from Lowell Says:
    April 6th, 2009 at 4:24 pm

    Sorry Lucy, I think I understand media very well, its challenges and the industry.

    Oh, do you?

14. Shawn Says:
    April 6th, 2009 at 6:29 pm

    It’ll be interesting to see where that circulation is in 6 months… when you’re losing 85 million dollars a year, you wont be in existence for long.

    But if you really like the paper, be sure to buy 10 copies a day or so to show your true love.. or do you just read it online?

15. joe from Lowell Says:
    April 9th, 2009 at 8:19 am

    I’m a subscriber, and you know where its circulation will be in six months?

    Still an order of magnitude higher than the Herald’s, which is also declining.

16. Lynne Says:
    April 9th, 2009 at 8:31 am

    Losing 85M a year MY ASS. I have real questions about that figure.

Leave a Reply