Comments on: Boston Newspaper Guild rips Times Co. bonuses

By: L.K. Collins

L.K. Collins — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:38:53 +0000

The goals of a corporation are not necessarily the same as the goals of journalism.

Given the closely-held nature of NYTCo., the private interests may hold sway over the journalistic. Certainly under the current stewardship, a reasonable argument could be made for this point.

By: tobe berkovitz

tobe berkovitz — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 13:35:29 +0000

L.K. Collins said,
“NY Times is a closely held family company whose goal primary goal is to make money for the family. The fact they do it through journalism is of a secondary consideration.”

I thought the goals of journalism were reporting the truth and protecting democracy.

By: L.K. Collins

L.K. Collins — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 14:33:20 +0000

NY Times is a closely held family company whose goal primary goal is to make money for the family. The fact they do it through journalism is of a secondary consideration.

Short-sighted business people long have compromised the employment opportunities of millions of people and ultimately destroyed the the very businesses that they rely upon for their own personal comforts.

This generation of the family operator of this once successful and powerful journalistic enterprise has a track record of moving the Time from being THE paper of record to being just another voice. But his personal goal, and his compensation haven’t changed.

By: LFNeilson

LFNeilson — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 13:24:31 +0000

Beyond the wage reductions and personnel cutbacks is the reduction of news coverage. Foreign bureaus? Washington coverage? Suburban coverage? Spotlight team? etc., etc. Shadows, memories. Such coverage is supposed to be the “stuff” of a good newspaper, and of a healthy democracy. I don’t understand how R&S can take such bonuses without holding one hand behind their back with crossed fingers.

By: John Bohn

John Bohn — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:19:47 +0000

Please keep in mind that in addition to the $10 million in give backs from current Boston Globe union employees, many of us gave significantly more to Arthur and Janet during 2009. Some of us gave up 100% of our pay and benefits!
On March 26th of 2009, my 16 year career as a staff photographer with the Boston Globe came to a crashing end. No notice, no severance. They actually informed me of my being laid off via a cell phone call while I was on vacation!

By: L.K. Collins

L.K. Collins — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:30:35 +0000

Times Co. sold a fair number of properties over the past few years. These salaries are reflective of the company of the past NYT accounting year.

By: Dan Kennedy

Dan Kennedy — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:08:25 +0000

@L.K.: Yeah, but not much more. Here's the breakdown.

By: Pete Bartolik

Pete Bartolik — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 16:18:30 +0000

Somebody should correlate the increase in exec pensions and the decrease/elimination of employee pensions over the past 10 years.

By: L.K. Collins

L.K. Collins — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 15:51:58 +0000

Not defending Sluzberger and Robinson; their greed is extraordinary.

But we, as critics, need to understand that the New York Times Co. is more than just the NYT and The Globe.

By: BP Myers

BP Myers — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 15:40:43 +0000

@Bob said: They should have gone public with a demand that executives not get bonuses– and done this during the give-back negotiations.

I can’t imagine that it even crossed their minds, given the gloom and doom financial picture that the Times Co. painted at the time, that they would even have money to give themselves bonuses.

It is ironic, though, that the hard-as-nails and just as cynical fourth estate didn’t see this coming. In retrospect, that the Times wouldn’t open their books during negotiations is all revealing.