Boston Globe: Pressmen Under Pressure

In this clip, the Boston Globe's pressmen talk about not just their jobs, but their relationship with the paper. (You can also read the associated Boston Globe article here.)

Aside from showing these guys at work, hearing them talk about how long they have been at the paper, and what it will mean to them if the paper closes, this clip also illustrates why the Taylor family put in the clause in their deal when selling the Globe to the New York Times that their employees would have their jobs for life. The Taylor family knew that what they had was truly a family business, and they wanted to make sure that they didn't abandon their employees through a business decision. Perhaps this clause doesn't stand the test of time, but it really is more than just a frivolous union "perk."

There are no easy answers when it comes to saving the Boston Globe specifically or the newspaper industry generally. More than anything else, this clip puts a face, several in fact, to what it will mean to those who are spending their lives, not just making their living, putting out the paper every day.

Watch this at Boston.com

Dirty deeds done dirt cheap...or pricey, depending on your mood

Breaking up may not be so hard to do, especially if you plan it right. If your significant other suggests drinks at Sonsie's on Newbury Street, he or she may not be planning on being significant for much longer--at least to you. That's according to Meredith Goldstein of the Boston Globe. Just in case you need the pictorial, Boston.com is happy to oblige.

Martini lunches

Earlier this week, Joseph Kahn 's "Voices" column in the Boston Globe sounded the death knell for the martini lunch.

Personally, I hope he got more out of Arthur Schlesinger Jr.'s Journals 1952-2000 then the observation that Schlesinger drank during lunch (his starting point for this essay). But since he brings the subject up...

All things being equal, perhaps that helped matters. I mean, considering the industries that Kahn quotes John Spooner (Boston investment advisor) as having been champions of the martini lunch--law, publishing, financial investments, and advertising--switching from alcohol to bottled water did nothing except make people more health conscious (not healthier) and self-righteous, and boost EPS for Perrier.

Back in the day, when I worked in business and banking, we didn't wait for happy hour (that was also back in the days of the happy hour in Boston). Summer afternoons we could be found at Lily's outdoor patio drinking strawberry margaritas or the local Mexican restaurant with a Slow Train to Nagales (a strawberry/banana thing). Then back to work, none the stupider. One company that I worked for was innovative in being a solidly no-smoking environment, but the president kept a bottle of scotch in his bottom desk drawer. As a company we were none the worse on either count (except for the day the systems' guy thought he set the computer room on fire, but that's another story). In the late '80s that gradually changed, but in a weird kinda way. People still wanted to, but no one wanted to be the first when the waiter came around. So unless the boss ordered first, there was that pause, then "Diet Coke."

When I switched to writing there were a lot fewer business lunches. But a couple of years ago, when I was writing movie reviews and entertainment pieces, I ran into an arts editor I knew at an interview who invited me to lunch. At 11:45 (I noted the time) we were sipping martinis at the Ritz and talking about the Boston arts/entertainment scene. She was much older and wiser than I, so who was I to argue? And why would I? In fact, I remember thinking, it doesn't get better than this.

(Brief aside: It's good to see that John Spooner is still around and still in Boston--whether or not he drinks anymore at lunch. His 1985 book, Sex & Money: Behind the Scenes With The Big-Time Brokers, a names-have-been-changed account of his early days in the money business, was a fun read and worth reading again.)

What does a good journalist look like?

Jeff Jacoby's latest opinion column, "Why should a journalist's race matter?" in the Boston Globe is sure to get journalists and journalism educators and professionals riled up. (Which is, granted, always his primary agenda: to get people in general riled up.) I have never agreed with anything he says, and I don’t wholeheartedly agree with his argument here. His comment on the efforts of magazines such as Jet and Ebony is interesting, but his reasoning is a bit too simplistic and misses the point of the whole industry, education, and opportunity.

He makes a good point, though, that good journalism is good journalism regardless of skin color. But I do think that the field should be more diverse…and by that I don’t just mean more black journalists, but varying backgrounds and viewpoints. (Because being black or being anything--a woman, a liberal, even an evangelical--isn’t a point of view.)