In his reply to today's announcement of up to 50 impending newsroom cuts at the Boston Globe, Boston Newspaper Guild president Dan Totten argues that any cuts should focus exclusively on Globe management.

Also noteworthy: according to Totten's email, the new buyout program will be open to all editorial staff, however long they've worked at the paper.

That's the most important point of this Globe business update. If Connors is telling the truth, then the Financial Times got it wrong.

The second most important point is Herald publisher Pat Purcell's statement that he, too, is uninterested in the Globe.

Please note that multiple versions of the FT story have appeared in the past few days.

Bad, bad day for the Boston Globe's parent company. From the New York Times's own write-up:

The New York Times Company sharply reduced its dividend on Thursday, just a year and a half after a major increase, as the company seeks to conserve cash amid concern about dwindling profit.

Directors cut the quarterly dividend to 6 cents from 23 cents, which would save the company $97.

The New York Times Co. didn't have such a hot third quarter, period--but the company seems especially down on the New England Media Group, which includes the Boston Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette. From Bloomberg:

The publisher plans to write down the value of its New England newspapers, including the Boston Globe, by as much as $150 million.

On Friday's installment of Greater Boston's Beat the Press, Herald deputy managing editor Joe Sciacca suggested that Christopher Buckley's recent endorsement of Barack Obama might be a PR stunt aimed at promoting his next book.

You got it, Joe. From today's NY Times profile of Buckley:

As to his own father, it was “a complicated relationship,” he said.

In my recent column on media conflicts-of-interest and their disclosure, I credited the Boston Globe for finally realizing that the connection between its corporate parent, the NY Times Co., and the Boston Red Sox should always be noted.

But judging from today's Sox advertorial--which opens with the dubious claim, "When the Red Sox are up, it doesn't matter that the Dow is down"--I spoke too soon.