digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at boston.com

The New York Times Threatens to Shut Down Boston Globe

boston.com — "The New York Times Co. has threatened to shut the Boston Globe unless the newspaper's unions swiftly agree to $20 million in concessions, union leaders said."

Who dugg this? Made popular Apr 4, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

71 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • IHATEHIM, on 04/04/2009, -1/+38every time i go out to eat with my dad he buys a boston globe to avoid talking with me
  • NervousEnergy, on 04/04/2009, -5/+37Holy hell; what?! The Boston Globe has some of the absolutely best photojournalism I have ever seen (as well as some of the best journalism I've read). There is no way they can shut it down! ;__;
  • james188foster, on 04/04/2009, -2/+29Its sad what is happening to local Newspapers. The Seattle PI closed 2 weeks ago. The San Francisco Chronicle is about to close. Local news in both Print and TV form could soon become a thing of the past.
  • lordmike, on 04/04/2009, -2/+23Something ironic about the New York Times busting a union...
  • james188foster, on 04/04/2009, -1/+21Well you say that but with Craigslist etc killing off the classifieds where is the money going to come from to pay local reporters? I'm not interested in a 'local' paper that is >80% AP and Reuters feeds.
  • inactive, on 04/04/2009, -2/+13Noooooo :(

    They have THE best photojournalism photoblog on the net! They can't be shut down! :(
  • PhairOh, on 04/04/2009, -2/+12Is that a crying face? (serious question. I've never seen that one before)
  • algaeturd, on 04/04/2009, -0/+9And clearly you HATEHIIM for it.
  • FLUX, on 04/04/2009, -6/+15Capitalism works when a company makes a product no one wants or at a price no one will pay they go out of business

    catcha clue Obama let GM go under like it should have
  • NervousEnergy, on 04/04/2009, -1/+9Yup, the semi-colons make up the eyes and tears, and the underscore is the mouth.
  • RonPauls, on 04/04/2009, -2/+10it's so ironic that the NYT is fighting the unions after shilling for them for so long

    I'd like to see the NYT pen an editorial criticizing themselves for fighting unions because it was mean to the poor union workers
  • james188foster, on 04/04/2009, -1/+9This story is so timely. The latest from the BBC is The owner of the Chicago Sun-Times has filed for bankruptcy, the latest newspaper to fall victim to the slowdown in advertising revenues. They are falling like dominos.
  • algaeturd, on 04/04/2009, -1/+8The NYT is using the recession as an excuse to lower wages for the very employees it cannot operate without. Typical union busting approach. I have no doubt that keeping a newspaper running right now is tough but if those people walk out, that newspaper is done anyway.
    The problem lies not with the workers but the management who haven't figured out how to deal in a changing technological environment. Toss out the management, bring in people who can figure out a way to maintain a printed copy, make it profitable and then expand the online presence and bring in revenue that way as well.
  • inactive, on 04/04/2009, -4/+11At least their not asking for a bailout.
  • inactive, on 04/04/2009, -4/+11hardcopy newspapers are dead. let them all move to digital based subscriptions/format
  • DirtPile, on 04/04/2009, -1/+7At least they're not asking for a bailout.
  • Soriven, on 04/04/2009, -0/+6While they do have great content, it's growing more and more difficult to monetize that content.
  • monvalley, on 04/04/2009, -0/+6This can't be; the NYTimes supports Unions. Why don't they cut their own pay and eliminate a bunch of management positions.
  • AirRaven, on 04/04/2009, -4/+10And is that a reason to rejoice in their passing?

    "Old" doesn't necessarily infer "worse". I'd sooner take the standard of quality you get in print media over the hideous morass that is the internet's news outlets any day.

    The only Internet News Outlet that *produces its own content* without being tied to Print Media that can stand up to any kind of criticism is the BBC's News Site- that aside, the internet's yet to offer anything to touch the much-lambasted "Old Media".
  • Valyn, on 04/04/2009, -1/+7Im not happy about even more people losing their jobs. But (at least around here) all that is in newspapers and on TV is almost all AP re-reported news, or weather/BS. If i want to read re-reported news, I'll read a random blog.
  • gfryesc, on 04/04/2009, -1/+6what a laugh riot. The gray lady has been championing 'worker's rights' for 60 years. And here they're strongarming their own unions. hilarious.
  • falstaff, on 04/04/2009, -4/+9It's easy to take extreme ideological positions when it's someone else's business on the line.
  • ASfinkterSezWut, on 04/04/2009, -0/+5Management and Officers cost the newspapers far more than the salaries of employees... why not start the cuts there?
  • ASfinkterSezWut, on 04/04/2009, -0/+5Dugg for the reality of the AP content and the lack of REAL local content.
  • ASfinkterSezWut, on 04/04/2009, -2/+6Local newspapers died when local ownership did.

    The NEW YORK TIMES is closing a BOSTON paper... How the ***** did that ever come about in the first place and why would anyone ever think it is a good idea? The internet isn't the only thing killing Newspapers, it is the concentration of ownership and control in large groups like Thompson Media, Hollinger and Conrad Black.
  • SmokeyPotter, on 04/04/2009, -1/+5"The only Internet News Outlet that *produces its own content* without being tied to Print Media that can stand up to any kind of criticism is the BBC's News Site"

    That's largely a result of a stigma around the internet tied with the cultural tradition of the printed newspaper. Unfortunately, reepax is right about newspapers. They are outdated. The daily rag you get in the morning has the same stories all day. Online, a publication can break a story at 9am, expand upon it at noon, and have a full 2-3 page feature with audio, video, and links to related stories before the 5pm TV news does their little soundbite about it. A majority of people can access the web all day (and it's alot easier to hide a web page if you're surfing at work!)

    And as far as standards and qualities go, a print paper has a deadline for a story and that is final. Every story has to go the printing press at the same time. So a journalist has to have all the facts, quotes, and details by that deadline, and if he forgets something, or there's a typo, or he just plain lies, there's nothing the paper can do about it except run a retraction in the next day's paper, and who even reads those? Not most people, is the correct answer. BUT, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from keeping quality journalists from writing stories for the web. If anything, their stories have the opportunity to be of even higher quality.

    Print newspapers are on the way out. HOWEVER, I don't think they'll be all gone for at least another decade or so. Once the non-internet savvy generations are gone, there won't be as high of demand for print dailies. I think humans will always want something to hold in their hands, so I think magazines will start doing well again soon. Magazines are outlets for in depth stories that have a loose deadline, and there's lots of artistic statements that magazines make. Magazines are also not as concerned with being "fair." But newspapers cannot ever hope to keep up with the web. They should be moving online and creating awareness that they are outlets of quality news (because there indeed is a vast quantity of ***** to wade through online).
  • bringitontimx, on 04/04/2009, -1/+5FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT
  • ASfinkterSezWut, on 04/04/2009, -0/+4Damm straight algaeturd. I had lunch with a senior editor the other day who is beside himself trying to figure out how to get management out of the way of running the paper before they run it into the ground. The establishment - the old guard - are as incapable of seeing the path forward as the RIA and the MPAA.
  • ASfinkterSezWut, on 04/04/2009, -0/+4They BLAME it on falling ad revenues... the real story behind it is bad management... and management will NEVER admit that the problem is THEM.
  • jedinate, on 04/04/2009, -2/+6I grew up with The Globe and still read it online. Hopefully they persevere.
  • dselliott, on 04/04/2009, -1/+4All hail the rise of the new media!
  • PopcornDave, on 04/04/2009, -0/+3Why would people start to pay for what they appear to be receiving for free on the web now?
  • Stevanoski, on 04/05/2009, -0/+3And they could just have Radio Havana or Huge Chavez write their articles so they could just fire nearly every news reporter. Doubt we would see much difference.
  • PopcornDave, on 04/04/2009, -0/+3I find it interesting that it's falling ad revenues. This morning's Saturday San Francisco Chronicle seemed to be about 50% ads not counting the want ads and the advertising for overpriced condominiums.
  • sadatoni, on 04/04/2009, -5/+8Let's ressurect the horse and buggy! And outhouses!
  • inactive, on 04/04/2009, -1/+4The problem isn't lack of quality. Most news papers don't dumb down things as badly as internet or tv sources do. In fact, most newspaper stories are fairly well written. The problem is speed. You can read about news you read about on the internet yesterday, but most people don't want to do that because it's not new. The only reason I will buy a paper is for the coupons on Sunday. If I want my news, I'll watch PBS or check the internet.
  • AnalogAssassin, on 04/04/2009, -0/+2I used to be a copy editor/page designer at a NYTRNG (NYTimes Regnional News Group) newspaper. We were one of the few papers actually making a profit, but corporate kept pressuring us to make more, make more, etc.
    One of the reasons was that they purchased the Boston Globe and any profits the smaller papers made (they are still viable in smaller areas, and people still need a source of LOCAL news) were quickly eaten up by the losers.
    I am glad I got out of the newspaper industry.
  • MonoDede, on 04/04/2009, -1/+3Why are there guys with shotguns in the thumbnail?

    Are they saying the Boston Globe is being held up?
  • slickmick, on 04/04/2009, -3/+5Yay! The lying, corrupt corporate MSM is dying. I couldn't be happier!

    Seattle Post Intelligencer
    Rocky Mountain Chronicle
    Chicago Tribune
    Chicago Sun-Times

    Let the list grow!
  • JustinCase18, on 04/06/2009, -0/+2Large ownership groups allowed the industry to force its vendors into commodity pricing. Even the smaller newspapers got gobbled up by these groups causing some pricing structures to actually force a supplier to sell at a loss at certain sites.

    (Ex. Don't want to sell to Longview, TX because the shipping and raw material costs are more than your net price? Then you lose all of your business in Atlanta or Austin.)

    In addition to bending their suppliers over the desk, the newspapers were able to consolidate their journalists and editors. Why do you think they became so one sided over the past few decades?
  • mksmothers, on 04/04/2009, -1/+3most likely because a manager product is worth significantly more than the union thug driving the truck.

  • akatsuki, on 04/04/2009, -3/+5Newspapers are dying. Nothing new here. People would rather hang out in echo chambers online and read their ideological rag than anything that even purports to be neutral (whether they are or not is a different issue).
  • Rain12913, on 04/05/2009, -0/+2Says the man from Buenos Aires. The name of your city is "Good Air", if that's the best thing you can say about it than it must ***** suck pretty hard.
  • doublebummer, on 04/05/2009, -0/+2If they go out of business then he'll have to buy a laptop.
  • Stevanoski, on 04/04/2009, -1/+3Good riddance to bad trash and it will save trees which will save the world.
  • monvalley, on 04/05/2009, -0/+2Let's see; they have a product no one wants, no one reads, no one advertises in and no one agrees with and they solution is to cut Union wages and benefits. Why don't they try something unique like publishing a paper that people want, want to read, want to advertise in, and don't feel like they are being preached to. Aren't business models silly.
  • PopcornDave, on 04/04/2009, -1/+3The San Francisco Chronicle is in no danger of closing. That would mean that the only local paper would be the Bay Guardian and the local politicians can't have that be the only paper around. And since the Guardian has been at odds with about every mayor since Feinstein, I highly doubt that the self proclaimed powerhouse in Congress, Nancy Pelosi, is going to let such a willing accomplice fail. Plus the loss of jobs, not to mention union jobs, would be a huge black eye to her and there's no realistic way to blame it on anybody.

    And before anybody in the Bay Area mentions it, I know there's still The Examiner but since it became a freebie it doesn't carry the same journalistic weight in the community and the San Jose Mercury is too focused on being a community paper that seems to be one step above the church social newsletter in it's community offerings.
  • PopcornDave, on 04/04/2009, -0/+2Maybe they can just employ some of those refugees from Darfur and solve both problems at once?
  • ConnisKasman, on 04/04/2009, -5/+6I don't believe you have any understanding of politics, or for that matter, the world.
  • nihil, on 04/04/2009, -7/+8Good! That liberal rag isn't fit for bird cages.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.