Looking for solace in the wake of an out-of-towner snapping up the Los Angeles Times? Take a look at Boston.
Tradition-bound Bostonians witnessed a similar scene to L.A. back in 1993 when the century-old family-owned newspaper, The Boston Globe, was sold to a media conglomerate from another city, the New York Times Co.
At the time, Bostonians had the same reaction as Angelenos to the loss of their city paper sadness, fear and anger.
But the fuss has pretty much faded. The New York Times Co. promised to be hands-off editorially and for the most part, it has done that so much so that many readers don’t even realize that the Times owns the Globe, because it’s not mentioned anywhere in the paper. (Globe Editor Matt Storin said that’s likely to change. “People should know who owns the paper,” he said.)
The corporate side is another matter. Recent management changes demonstrate that even under the best of circumstances, big media purchases result in at least a shift in priorities.
The circumstances behind the Globe’s purchase were different than those at the Los Angeles Times starting with a stable management situation. New York Times Co. agreed to stand back for five years from the time the deal went through, which hardly will be the case with Chicago-based Tribune Co. and the L.A. Times.
In fact, it could be only a matter of months before there are major changes at Times Mirror Co., starting with the departure of Chairman Mark Willes and the dismantling of the corporate side. Another likely casualty: Times Publisher Kathryn Downing, who became a lightning rod last year for much of the controversy concerning the Staples Center profit-sharing deal.
A family sells out
As in L.A., family interests played a key role in the Globe sell-out. In 1993, the Taylor family, owners of the paper since 1872, knew they had to give up ownership. Two trusts that kept the daily in family control were about to expire, and if nothing were done, there could have been a damaging bidding war as individual family members looked to sell their stakes.
So Publisher William O. Taylor worked out a deal with New York Times Co. whereby the Times would acquire Affiliated Publications Inc., the Globe’s parent company, for $15 per share, or $1.1 billion. Times Co. agreed to allow the Taylors to remain in charge for at least the next five years, although the Times Co. would control 60 percent of the Globe’s board.
“The acquisition of the Globe by the Times was a friendly takeover,” said Dan Kennedy, media critic for the Boston Phoenix.
Indeed, the Times did remain hands-off for the first five years and in 1998 even allowed departing Publisher William Taylor to name a successor, his cousin Ben Taylor.
But it didn’t take long for Times officials to change their minds. In July 1999, the Times Co. abruptly fired Ben Taylor and brought in Richard Gilman, who had previously been senior vice president of circulation and operations at The New York Times.
“The events of the past year show that the Times ran out of patience,” said Kennedy. “It didn’t take much in terms of (business) deterioration for them to make a change in leadership.”
The Globe’s ad revenues fell 2.5 percent and the paper’s circulation was down 1.6 percent between the first and second quarters of 1998. For the same period, The New York Times had reported a 5.4 percent boost in ad revenue and a 3.8 percent hike in circulation.
When Taylor was removed, there was speculation that the Times Co. had had enough of the family’s laid-back Yankee ways and wanted someone who would mesh more closely with the hard-driving corporate culture of the Times.
“It wasn’t (Ben Taylor’s) style to get visibly bent out of shape over a drop in circulation (or) a decline in revenue,” wrote Kennedy in a Boston Phoenix article last July.
Subtle effect
Newsroom sources say that despite the change in leadership, they still don’t directly feel the effects of the Times Co.’s ownership. Gilman reportedly is planning some changes to the paper, including a redesign and a narrower page size, but sources say the jury is still out on whether he will be imposing New York Times culture on the Globe.
“We’re doing a lot of strategic planning and probably will make some changes,” said Storin. “But (Gilman) has a lot of latitude. When he speaks, we think of him as the publisher of the Globe, not (the Times) talking.”
Things in L.A. could go the way of Boston, only quicker. While the Tribune is not likely to be quite as hands-off as Times Co., the L.A. paper will most likely be allowed to maintain its editorial independence.
“The Tribune has a history of letting papers run themselves editorially,” said George Harmon, head of newspapers at the Medill School of Journalism near Chicago. “But they’re also very good on the business side. If the (Los Angeles) Times has a thorny circulation problem, the Tribune has people who can help out.”
In fact, from a business point of view, Tribune Co. is likely to get its hands dirty.
“The Tribune is really bottom-line-oriented,” said one media critic. “Their MO is to spend a year looking things over and then making changes. They will be looking for efficiencies, trying to get the bottom line up at Times Mirror.”
