Finally, there’s an industry-wide concern linked to this kind of thinking. If media outlets like the Globe turn inward, that might ultimately help their bottom line. But what about journalism in general? Ideally, more reporters working a particular beat means more competition for good stories — which, in turn, should be good for readers and viewers and listeners. Case in point: plenty of journalists cover the capitol, but it was the Globe’s Charlie Savage who fully explored President George W. Bush’s reliance on presidential signing statements in April 2006, to devastating effect. How many good stories will go unreported as more media outlets commit to thinking smaller?
Glass half full
As the Times Co. continues revamping the Globe, the point man for business decisions will be P. Steven Ainsley, who replaced Richard Gilman as publisher in September 2006. While Gilman was known for being somewhat detached, Ainsley has a reputation — albeit a nascent one — for being accessible and engaged. (For example, he reportedly impressed the conclave of local bigwigs gathered at the invite-only breakfast hosted by Kevin Phelan at Meredith & Grew.)
Speaking with the Phoenix this week, Ainsley cast the paper’s circulation and advertising struggles in 2006 as something of an anomaly, noting that the paper was hurt by its inadvertent release of customer credit-card information and the closing of Filene’s, respectively. (Boston’s daily and Sunday circulation dropped seven and 10 percent, respectively, between April and September 2006, to 386,000 and 587,000; the national declines for this period were 2.8 and 3.4 percent.) He also said the paper has been working to reduce third-party circulation, in which commercial sponsors underwrite residential delivery for customers. (This practice drives up circulation numbers but is frowned on by advertisers, who end up paying higher rates as a result.) Consequently, Ainsley predicts, circulation numbers “will be far better for us going forward.” As for advertising revenues, Ainsley says, “I actually feel pretty good about the prospects going forward. I think the market is improving — we’re seeing some slight upticks in the local economy — and I like to think the Globe is well-positioned to take advantage of that.”
Asked about recent cutbacks at the paper, Ainsley suggests that no further cuts are imminent — and that the Washington bureau, in particular, has a secure future at the Globe. “While we’re always going to be examining costs across the board, we don’t have any plans to do anything beyond what we’ve already stated on the expense front,” he says. “We’re very committed to the Washington Bureau. . . . I spent a day down [there] a few weeks ago, and what impressed me to no end was the relationship our people have with the local congressional delegation. You’re not going to get that from Reuters, from AP, even from the New York Times News Service. And that translates into far better coverage of our delegation than any other media outlet can deliver.
“I consider that local coverage,” Ainsley adds. “Part of that is how you define local. And I define it as anything that has a direct, immediate impact on our customers.”
This is the crux of the issue, of course. If Ainsley’s relatively expansive definition of local coverage holds, recent talk of the Globe’s death may prove to have been hyperbolic. Then again, if Ainsley and his superiors at the Times Co. amend this definition — or change their take on what constitutes “a direct, immediate impact” — the future may prove even grimmer than today’s bleak status quo.
On the Web
Adam Reilly's Media Log: http://www.thephoenix.com/medialog
