Baron responds

In a blog post last night, I argued that the New York Times Co.'s poor diplomacy was responsible for the Boston Newspaper Guild's decision to narrowly reject its proposed contract. In the process, I discussed how Globe editor Marty Baron was informed of the Times co.'s close-or-die ultimatum, and his subsequent discussion of the Times Co.'s handling of the Globe crisis. Here's what I wrote:

The Times Co.'s concede-or-close ultimatum was delivered when Globe editor Marty Baron was traveling in Oregon, and Baron only learned it was in the works the night before. Baron could have been instrumental in helping management make its case to the newsroom and the paper as a whole. Instead, he later offered pointed public criticism (on WGBH-TV's Greater Boston) of how the Times Co. had handled the situation.

Today, Baron argued that I misrepresented his remarks. His email follows; if you'd like to watch the interview in question, it can be found here. (Baron's remarks begin at 2:00.)

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

Adam,

You wrote that I offered "pointed public criticism (on WGBH-TV's Greater Boston) of how the Times Co. had handled the situation" -- the "situation" apparently being how corporate management made its case with employees for labor concessions. You've told me that, in making such a statement, you relied on this comment by me in the television interview:

It is frustrating from a journalistic standpoint, absolutely. I understand that they're in the middle of very sensitive negotiations, and high stakes negotiations, and their position is that they--I believe--that they want to do the talking at the negotiating table and not outside of that room. That said, there is a public relations aspect of this, a community relations aspect of this, and a journalistic aspect of this, and we would prefer that they open up to us as well.

What I intended to say -- and what I believe I did say -- is that the Times Co.'s unwillingness to speak more freely was a natural frustration to journalists here trying to write and edit stories about the Globe. I recognized that the company's posture had implications for public relations and community relations, but I also recognized that the company preferred to do its talking at the negotiating table. I think it is a distortion to call this "pointed public criticism" of how the Times Co. communicated its case to employees.