BY DAN
KENNEDY
Serving the reality-based community since 2002.
Notes and observations on
the press, politics, culture, technology, and more. To sign up for
e-mail delivery, click
here. To send
an e-mail to Dan Kennedy, click
here.
For bio, published work, and links to other blogs, visit
www.dankennedy.net.
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
METRO AND THE INTERNET. To
read the Boston Herald's World War III-style coverage of
allegations of racism and sexism at Metro International on Tuesday,
you'd think the tab had been the first to discover Rory O'Connor's
exposé
at MediaChannel.org.
Yesterday, O'Connor posted a
tick-tock
of what really happened, noting that Media Log was among the first,
on Monday, to get this story further out into the open and to push
for an answer from the New York Times Company. (The Times Company had
purchased a 49 percent share of Boston's Metro for $16.5
million the previous week.) By Monday evening, Media Log had posted
the complete text of statements from the Times Company and from Metro
International. All this was amplified by the media world's online
water cooler, Jim
Romenesko's site at
Poynter.org.
Noting that neither the Times
Company nor Metro would comment for his original story, O'Connor
writes, "The arrogance of the two 'communications' companies in
refusing to communicate with the public about the tasteless, racist
comments made by top Metro executives could not continue, however,
due to the awesome, unchecked power of blogs and the
Internet."
The war over the Metro
continues today. In the Herald, which is trying to scotch the
deal on anti-competitive grounds, John Strahinich and Greg Gatlin
report
on further allegations about the company. Herald columnist
Howard Manly calls
for a boycott (sub. req.),
which he has also done in his capacity as president of the Boston
Association of Black Journalists. The Herald editorial page
observes,
"The fish rots from the head." Gee, shouldn't that be attributed to
Michael Dukakis?
Perhaps the most interesting
comment of the day, though, comes from Rem Rieder, editor of the
American Journalism Review, who tells
the Boston Globe's Mark Jurkowitz that if he were an official
of the Times Company, "I think I'd be thinking seriously about
walking away."
Well, yes, that's one possible
response. What Rieder leaves hanging is that the Times Company could
move in the other direction, buying the remaining 51 percent of the
local Metro and cleaning house. There's a certain logic to
this. If the Times Company sticks with the 49 percent deal, it lacks
the control it needs at what may be a troubled operation, as well as
the leverage it wants in meeting the concerns of leaders in the
African-American community. If it walks away, as Rieder suggests, the
Metro is left staggering at a time when the parent company's
North American operations are reportedly in some financial trouble.
But if the Times Company buys the whole thing, it gets to control the
Metro's destiny and just might be able to make it a more
appealing paper besides.
I have no idea whether that would
pass antitrust muster. Maybe it wouldn't - or shouldn't. But there's
no doubt that would be Herald publisher Pat Purcell's biggest nightmare.
posted at 7:16 AM |
6 comments
|
link
6 Comments:
I had exactly the same thought last night - NYT should buy them out and fire the ones associated with bad conduct. It's the business model they want, not the bad actors. Of course, if the deal winds up not going through, I expect the Herald to wait a few months until the heat dies down then buy the Metro themselves. (You can call this move the "Extended Barnicle".)
Let me get this straight. The nasty, semi-public comments about blacks were made in April and August 2003. Yet it took until this month -- on the heels of the NYT deal -- for John Wilpers and others to go public with them?
Given that the Metro execs are apologizing, it's clear that Wilpers' memory of the events is credible. Nevertheless, what took him so long? And what is his motivation to do so now, vs. months ago?
I heard a talk-radio host say he's likely going to drop the Herald,if they don't knock off the front page headlines of Metro racism. The odd thing is they had just got him back after he droped them due to the bloody manslaughter picture,in the Fenway.
The Herald has made some interesting decisions of late and I can't see this as being a net positive but I guess if your up to your nose in trouble,you do what you feel you have to do.
Dan, isn't there something hugely hypocritical about
the Herald's accusations of bias, when the Herald
still employs Gerry Callahan, our dear friend who made
those lovely remarks about Metco a year and a half ago?
Dan K., you say that you have no idea whether the Times takeover of Metro "would pass antitrust muster. Maybe it wouldn't - or shouldn't. But there's no doubt that would be Herald publisher Pat Purcell's biggest nightmare."
Your last sentence tells you that it should. If the Times takeover is monopolistic then, it will allow the Metro and the Globe to raise its advertising rates and the Globe to raise its subscription rates. This, in turn, will allow the Herald and other newspapers in the Boston market to raise their rates. It is self-serving and contradictory for the Herald's publisher to complain that the takeover violates the antitrust laws.
This tactic is well-known as an abuse of the antitrust laws, and some economists have argued that third parties who would benefit from the alleged antitrust violation should, accordingly, not be allowed to bring a complaint. As your last sentence indicates, what the Herald's publisher is really worried about is the increased competition that greater efficiencies from the takeover may bring about. The antitrust laws should protect competition nor competitors.
To Steve,
I'm glad you asked that question. I had the same one myself. If he was so offended, why didn't John Wipers get up and walk out of the event? Why did he, in turn, stay on as editor for months after the incident if he feels so strongly that the whole company is filled with racist, sexist people? Why didn't the blogger state in his story why Wilpers is the FORMER editor of the Metro (it's because he was fired, BTW). While his allegations are true, his motives to come forward right after the Times decided to buy shares of the Metro is nothing more than to get back at the company out of spite.
While I am appalled, but not surprise, about all the bad news about the corporate climate at Metro, I'm glad Dan finally called a spade a spade about the Herald's coverage of this story. It's completely self-serving to call for boycotts and put the pressure on the Times to back out through overexposure. This is the same paper that just months ago was dealing with its own crisis and boycott threats with the photos of the dying girl. As the saying goes...he who lives in glass houses...
I personally think the Times buying stake in the Metro is the best thing that could happen to that paper and I wish they would consider Dan's suggestion to purchase the entire thing.
Post a Comment
MEDIA LOG ARCHIVES
Dan Kennedy is senior writer and media critic for the Boston Phoenix.
