Boston Globe May Have a Local Suitor

Finally, there seems to be a potential hometown buyer for the Boston Globe.

Aaron Kushner, an entrepreneur who owns Marian Heath Greeting Cards Inc. in Wareham, Mass., told Robert Gavin of the Boston Globe that his group, called 2100 Trust, is planning to make an offer to the New York Times Co.

He would not discuss terms of the projected offer.

"We are putting together the business model of taking what is an important community organization and reverse the cycle and have it growing," Kushner, 37, of Wellesley, said an interview. "If the Globe was achieving even half its potential, it would be of much greater import and impact."

The newly-formed group wants to purchase the New England Media Group unit, which includes the Globe, Boston.com, and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette.

Last year the Times Co. had put the Globe up for sale but pulled it off the market, saying that the paper's financial conditions had improved.

New York Times Co. Reports $4.3 Million 3Q Loss in 2010

The New York Times lost money in the third quarter this year, but the bleeding was not as bad as it was a year ago.

The company reported a loss of about 3 cents a share for the third quarter compared to a 2009 third quarter loss of 25 cents a share.

Total revenues decreased 2.7 percent in the third quarter of 2010 compared with the third quarter of 2009 as advertising and circulation revenues declined 1.0 percent and 4.8 percent, respectively. Increased digital advertising revenues, which rose 14.6 percent, partially offset a 5.8 percent decrease in print advertising revenues.

Other highlights in the report include:

Operating costs excluding depreciation, amortization and severance increased 0.8 percent in the third quarter of 2010 versus the third quarter of 2009. On a GAAP basis, the Company’s operating costs increased 0.1 percent in the third quarter of 2010 versus the third quarter of 2009.

Operating profit excluding depreciation, amortization, severance and the special items discussed below declined 23.6 percent to $62.0 million in the third quarter of 2010 compared with $81.2 million in the third quarter of 2009. On a GAAP basis, the Company had an operating profit of $9.0 million in the third quarter of 2010 compared with an operating loss of $23.7 million in the third quarter of 2009.

Diluted earnings per share from continuing operations excluding severance and the special items discussed below were $.07 per share in the third quarter of 2010 compared with $.16 in the same period of 2009. On a GAAP basis, the Company had a diluted loss per share from continuing operations of $.03 per share in the third quarter of 2010 compared with $.24 in the third quarter of 2009.

The Company reduced its debt and capital lease obligations, net of cash and cash equivalents, by more than one third to approximately $646 million from its balance at the beginning of 2009. The majority of the Company’s debt matures in 2015 or later.

Here is the transcript of the conference call with Times senior management.

Times Reminds Freelance Writers About Its Ethics Policies

New York Times freelance writers got a reminder today from management on ethics in this memo:

Date: Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:09 AM
Subject: TO ALL NEW YORK TIMES FREELANCERS: PLEASE READ
To: FreelanceWriters1-NO_REPLY@nytimes.com

TO: ALL FREELANCE WRITERS

This is a reminder about The Times's ethics policies for journalists.

As you know, The Times takes very seriously the issue of conflicts of interest and other problems that might undermine the credibility of our journalism.

Your freelance contract obliges you to comply with the applicable provisions of The Times's policy on Ethical Journalism (http://www.nytco.com/pdf/NYT_Ethical_Journalism_0904.pdf ) and to take care to avoid conflicts or the appearance of a conflict. The provisions pertaining specifically to outside contributors are reproduced below, but you should review the entire document. Readers do not distinguish between freelancers and staff reporters in The Times, so as far as possible we expect outside contributors to adhere to the same standards as Times staff members.

The ethics rules outline specific requirements while you are on assignment for The Times. But because of The Times's high profile, our freelance contributors are often viewed as "Times writers" even when they are not specifically working for us. Companies, organizations and other potential subjects and sources may believe that favors or special treatment for you - whether you are on assignment or not - will help them gain favorable treatment in The Times.

Note that our rules on free travel and other free or discounted products and services are stricter than those of many publications. Even if such a benefit is not directly connected to a Times assignment, it can create an appearance that undermines the credibility of The Times or its contributors. Any questions involving such benefits should be discussed with your Times editor.

Other common areas of concern include these:

- Work for companies or organizations that The Times may cover.
- Undisclosed ties between the writer and people or institutions mentioned in an article.
- Lobbying, advocacy or political activities or contributions related to the area of coverage. The written guidelines are detailed, but they cannot anticipate every situation. The best rule of thumb is the simplest: If you have any questions or doubts about compliance with our policies, ask your Times editor before proceeding.

When you first signed a contract with The Times, you should have filled out a questionnaire covering many of these topics. You should update the questionnaire as often as needed to keep the information current, so your editors can identify areas that might warrant further discussion. To review or update your questionnaire, please log in to the freelancer invoicing (Extranet) site (https://freelancers.nytimes.com) and follow the "Stringer Questionnaire" link. If you have questions about this policy, feel free to call your assigning editor; for technical help with the invoicing site, please call 1-800-756-3464 (or, from outside the United States, +1-212-556-2020).

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Philip B. Corbett
Associate Managing Editor for Standards

New York Times Suspends Kouwe Over Plagiarism Allegations

Zachery Kouwe was suspended today by The New York Times while the newspaper continues its investigation into allegations of plagiarism.

Jeff Bercovici reports that the business reporter's work could be under suspicion at previous employers:

One additional question in all this is whether Kouwe's use of other writers' language was confined to his work for the Times. A representative at the New York Post, where Kouwe worked before joining the Times, declined to comment on whether that paper is conducting its own review of his articles. But it's worth noting that, at the Post, Kouwe was writing only for the daily edition, while at the Times he has filed far more often as a contributor to the paper's DealBook blog. As I noted last week, web-speed journalism raises exponentially the possibility of journalistic malpractice, even for the best-intentioned of practitioners.

Times Answers WSJ's Complaint About Apparent Plagiarism

The New York Times issued a correction yesterday acknowledging apparent plagiarism by reporter Zachery Kouwe of an article written by Wall Street Journal reporter Amir Efrati.

The Times also mentions that there are other possible incidents of plagiarism by Kouwe.

The issue came to light after Robert Thomson, editor of The Wall Street Journal, wrote Times executive editor Bill Keller that "a significant proportion of an article by Wall Street Journal reporter was used verbatim, or near verbatim, in a story by the Times' Zachery Kouwe, both online and in print." His letter was published in The Times on Friday.

Once sentence that was apparently lifted (Example 6 below) carries the same typo in the word "accounts."

Here is the correction, and below is Thomson's letter:

In a number of business articles in The Times over the past year, and in posts on the DealBook blog on NYTimes.com, a Times reporter appears to have improperly appropriated wording and passages published by other news organizations.

The reporter, Zachery Kouwe, reused language from The Wall Street Journal, Reuters and other sources without attribution or acknowledgment.

The Times was alerted to the problem by editors at The Wall Street Journal. They pointed out extensive similarities between a Journal article, first published on The Journal’s Web site around 12:30 p.m. on Feb. 5, and a DealBook post published two hours later, as well as a related article published in The Times on Feb. 6.

Those articles described an agreement on an asset freeze for members of Bernard L. Madoff’s family, in a lawsuit filed by a court-appointed trustee. In the Times article and the DealBook post, several passages are repeated almost exactly from the Journal article.

A subsequent search by The Times found other cases of extensive overlap between passages in Mr. Kouwe’s articles and other news organizations’. (The search did not turn up any indications that the articles were inaccurate.)

Copying language directly from other news organizations without providing attribution — even if the facts are independently verified — is a serious violation of Times policy and basic journalistic standards. It should not have occurred. The matter remains under investigation by The Times, which will take appropriate action consistent with our standards to protect the integrity of our journalism.

Here is Thomson's letter:

Dear Mr. Keller,

I'm writing to alert you to a case of apparent plagiarism in the New York Times. As you'll see from the text below, a significant proportion of an article by Wall Street Journal reporter Amir Efrati was used verbatim, or near verbatim, in a story by the Times' Zachery Kouwe, both online and in print. There was no general news release about this particular story and the Journal's coverage was informed by original reporting and a meticulous review of legal files related to the case of Mr. Bernard Madoff.

Mr. Efrati's Wall Street Journal story, titled, "Madoff Sons, Brother, Niece Being Sued by Trustees for Victims" was published on Dow Jones Newswires at 12:25 p.m. on Friday, Feb. 5, and was published on WSJ.com shortly thereafter. At 2:31 p.m., Mr. Kouwe published a related, in fact, a remarkably related story. The examples below show the striking similarities.

Example 1:

Mr. Efrati wrote:

Mr. Picard said the family received about $141 million in the six months leading up to Mr. Madoff's December 2008 arrest.

Mr. Kouwe wrote:

Mr. Picard said the family received about $141 million in the six months leading up to Mr. Madoff's arrest in December 2008.

Example 2:

Mr. Efrati wrote:

The family members agreed not to transfer or sell property or assets valued at more than $1,000 or incur debts and obligations greater than $1,000 without approval of the trustee.

Mr. Kouwe wrote:

Under the agreement, the family members cannot transfer or sell property or assets valued at more than $1,000 or incur debts and obligations greater than $1,000 without approval of Mr. Picard.

Example 3:

Mr. Efrati wrote:

They are allowed to use credit cards for necessary living expenses.
The defendants also will provide the trustees with an accounting of their expenditures, the orders say.

Mr. Kouwe wrote:

They are allowed to use credit cards for necessary living expenses.
The defendants also will provide the trustee with an accounting of their expenditures.

Example 4:

Mr. Efrati wrote:

Last year Mr. Madoff's wife, Ruth, also agreed to an asset freeze as part of a separate trustee's $45 million lawsuit against her.

Mr. Kouwe wrote:

Last year, Mr. Madoff's wife, Ruth, also agreed to an asset freeze as part of a separate trustee's $45 million lawsuit against her.

Example 5:

Mr. Efrati wrote:

According to the trustee's lawsuit, son Andrew Madoff invested just under $1 million into his Madoff investment accounts yet withdrew $17 million through "brazenly fabricated transactions."

Mr. Kouwe wrote:

According to the trustee's lawsuit, Andrew Madoff placed just under $1 million into his Madoff investment accounts yet withdrew $17 million through "brazenly fabricated transactions" over the years.

Example 6:

Mr. Efrati wrote:

Peter Madoff invested $32,146 into his ccounts but redeemed more than
$16 million in similar fashion, the trustee said.

Mr. Kouwe wrote:

Peter Madoff invested $32,146 into his ccounts but redeemed more than
$16 million, the trustee claims.

The extensive use of such similar phrases, without any attribution, is extraordinary. This is not a case of involving a columnist with apparently perfect recall or a case of cryptomnesia, but one of fundamental journalistic integrity.

Clearly, we expect that The New York Times will run a correction and publically acknowledge the source of the published material-- that source being The Wall Street Journal.

Yours,

Robert Thomson

CC: Clark Hoyt, Public Editor
Larry Ingrassia, Business Editor
Philip Corbett, Deputy News Editor

NYT Co. Reports 11.5 Percent Drop in Revenue in Fourth Quarter of 2009

The New York Times Co. reported today that total revenues fell 11.5 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009. Normally that would be bad news, but when you compare it to the 16.9 percent drop in the third quarter, it loses its sting.

The full report can be found here. Excerpts include:

•Operating profit excluding depreciation, amortization, severance and the special items discussed below grew 10.9 percent to $157.6 million in the fourth quarter of 2009 compared with $142.1 million in the fourth quarter of 2008. On a GAAP basis, the Company had an operating profit of $136.0 million compared with $63.0 million in the fourth quarter of 2008.

•Operating costs excluding depreciation, amortization and severance declined 16.3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009 versus the fourth quarter of 2008. On a GAAP basis, the Company’s operating costs declined 15.5 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009 versus the fourth quarter of 2008. For the year operating costs declined by approximately $475 million as a result of reductions in nearly all major expense categories.

•Diluted earnings per share from continuing operations excluding severance and special items were $.44 per share in the fourth quarter of 2009 compared with $.36 per share in the same period of 2008. On a GAAP basis, the Company had diluted earnings per share from continuing operations of $.48 per share in the fourth quarter of 2009 compared with $.19 per share in the fourth quarter of 2008.

•The Company has reduced its debt by over $290 million to $769 million from its balance at the end of 2008 of $1.059 billion. As of the end of the quarter, excluding $67 million in letters of credit, there were no outstanding borrowings under the Company’s $400 million revolving credit facility.

Total revenues were down 11.5 percent in the quarter, a significant improvement from the third quarter decline of 16.9 percent.

“We were pleased to see advertisers increase their rate of spending across our newspapers, Web sites and other platforms as advertising trends improved during the fourth quarter,” said Janet Robinson, president and CEO. “Our results also reflect our ability to restructure our cost base, introduce new products and innovations, leverage our brand strength and extend our reach to new audiences.

“In the fourth quarter total advertising revenues declined approximately 15 percent compared with the fourth quarter of 2008, as a 20 percent decrease in print advertising was offset in part by growth in digital advertising, which rose nearly 11 percent. While the advertising market remains challenging, the rate of decline across the major advertising categories – national, retail and classified – lessened as the quarter progressed.

“Circulation revenues increased 2 percent as we were able to command higher subscription and newsstand prices at The New York Times and The Boston Globe. This growth demonstrates the strong demand and loyalty for our high quality news and information in print, even as the content marketplace becomes increasingly digital.

“Once again we were encouraged by the strong performance at the About Group, whose fourth-quarter operating profit rose 80 percent to $18 million. The Group’s advertising revenues grew 23 percent on healthy gains in both cost-per-click and display advertising.

“We continued to capitalize on our ability to aggressively manage our expenses, as evidenced in an approximately 16 percent decline in operating costs. And we remain focused on securing strong performance on costs as we continue to reposition our Company for the evolving media marketplace.

"Looking ahead, visibility remains limited for advertising. In the first quarter of 2010, we expect the rate of decline for print advertising to continue to improve modestly from the fourth quarter of 2009, while digital advertising is expected to perform in line with the fourth-quarter level.

“Lastly, we have begun taking steps to enhance our digital strategy by planning to introduce a paid model for NYTimes.com in 2011, to create an additional revenue stream while preserving our robust advertising business. We continue to embrace innovative new platforms and devices that provide rich experiences for our content.”

New York Times Starts Layoffs of 26 Newsroom Employees

Chris Rovzar, writing for nymag.com, has the names of the first few people who have been given notices of being laid off at The New York Times:

It's a "pretty grim atmosphere" over at the Times today, when layoffs are coming down from on high as the paper tries to reach the 100-person editorial cut it announced earlier this fall. While 74 staff members took the buyout, that left 26 to go. Layoffs have been ongoing all day, sources tell us, with the unlucky few people called upstairs out of the newsroom — where now people are "standing around in clumps and obviously talking about everything." Here's the list of names that we know so far who have gotten the ax, and their departments:

Eric Konigsberg — Culture
Sara Rimer — National
Christine Hauser — Metro
Josh Barbanel — Real Estate
Mitch Blumenthal — Continuous News
Kate Galbraith — Business
Allen Salkin — Styles
Monica Evanchik — Web

Barbanel is married to Times writer Anemona Hartocollis, who remains on staff. "They both came to work today with jobs, and one of them went home without one," observed one writer. "Not that that should mean some kind of job security, but it's kind of fucked up." Salkin was another surprise, as he contributes a cover story almost every week to "Styles." But the cut that's sparking the most buzz is Konigsberg, who was brought to the paper to be a "Metro" editor and also wrote the "Age of Riches" series. He was later lured to the "Culture" section by Sam Sifton, who was recently made food critic for the paper. "Eric basically lost his rabbi," said a co-worker. "He's a completely elegant writer ... People around here are in shock over it."

New York Times Guild Upheld on Seniority Rights in Ruling on Newsroom Layoffs

An arbitrator on Monday upheld Times' newsroom employees' seniority rights, added an annual week of severance pay for employees properly laid off in inverse order of seniority, and sped up the challenge process for those laid off out of seniority in a ruling that resolved in the Guild’s favor most aspects of a multi-faceted dispute over job security, according to a press release posted by Jim Romenesko tonight:

The binding decision by Arbitrator Martin Scheinman, issued a day before Times management targets approximately 26 Newsroom employees for layoff, provides fresh clarity to a process that had been clouded by disputes since last year's Newsroom layoffs.

After accepting the buyout applications of 74 News-side employees (60 Guild and 14 non-Guild) last week, Times management is expected on Tuesday to target additional Newsroom employees for involuntary layoffs to reach its goal of 100 job cuts. The numbers might change if people change their minds and revoke their buyout application.

The arbitrator's ruling sustained the Guild's view that seniority used to determine Newsroom employees' vulnerability to layoffs must be measured by their service in the entire News Department. In last year's round of job cuts, management had taken the position that seniority gets reset to zero each time an employee moves to a new desk.

Under the ruling, employees laid off in inverse order of seniority will receive three weeks per year of severance pay, instead of two weeks, the same rate as employees who are involuntarily laid off out of order, and will have to sign a release, as they currently do. Employees with the least amount of seniority are generally most vulnerable to layoffs, but management can pass over more senior employees if it determines that a less senior employee's qualifications are "superior."

Employees laid off out of seniority order who do not challenge their dismissals may receive their severance payments in a lump sum or in monthly installments, in exchange for signing a separation agreement and general release, Scheinman ruled.

Those who challenge their out-of-seniority layoffs will have their cases decided by Scheinman within 30 days of the Guild’s demand for a hearing, during which time they will receive no severance pay. If they prevail, they will be reinstated. If not, they may receive their severance pay only in monthly installments, in exchange for signing a separation agreement and general release.

The issue of whether the release negated rehire rights had been in dispute, and has now been resolved by the arbitrator in the following manner.

If The Times hires more than two employees in a classification from which Newsroom employees were laid off within the past 12 months, the Guild may challenge the layoff "as having been not in good faith, not bona fide, or a subterfuge," Scheinman said.

“In the arbitration, the Guild would have to demonstrate hiring individuals rather than rehiring employees involuntarily terminated within the preceding 12 months was unreasonable,” he said. “The Times would have the responsibility to explain why it did not instead rehire employees involuntarily terminated within the preceding 12 months.”

If the Guild prevails in such a challenge, Scheinman said The Times would have to offer to rehire involuntarily a laid-off employee, even if they signed a general release.

"We are pleased that the arbitrator has upheld the most important aspects of our position," said New York Guild president Bill O’Meara. "We also now have clarity on how layoffs are to be conducted and will have a swifter way of resolving future layoff disputes, which is of great benefit to Guild members,” he added.

Guild offers plan to avert loss of News Service jobs Responding to a management proposal to subcontract the News Service, the Guild last week offered a comprehensive package of cost savings aimed at keeping the operation and its 28 Guild-represented jobs in New York. Talks are continuing.

As reported, Times management notified the Guild a few weeks ago that it intends to subcontract the News Service to a Times Company-owned entity in Gainesville, Florida.

Workers there would be hired at about half the current rate of pay in effect here. That notification triggered a 60-day period during which the Guild can attempt to convince management not to go forward with its plans. The Guild proposal would cut costs by about 31 percent, saving the company nearly $900,000 a year.

Commentators React to Dobbs' Departure From CNN

Here's a short one-minute snippet of reactions to Lou Dobbs sudden departure from CNN. It was compiled by POLITICO. Most everyone was gracious to Dobbs with the exception of Keith Olbermann and The New York Times, who both showed their class once again.

In addition to his on-air comments, Olbermann had this advice for Dobbs' soul on POLITICO's Arena:

I can only say that I always wondered if his stance on immigrants, legal or otherwise, took a bigger toll on him than on the immigrants. This is, whether he or others will admit it, a Hispanic issue, and not only are Lou's wife and kids Hispanic but the daughters are in the Horse Show game, which, after the restaurant industry, is the top employer of undocumented immigrants in this country - and Lou helps pay them. If that isn't the ultimate hypocrisy, it must be the ultimate self-contradiction and very painful psychologically.

I worked with Lou as long ago as 1981 and I never heard any of this back then. He's always been a bully and one of those put-up-your-dukes clowns, but I think the immigration stance was mostly opportunistic. The insincerity of the xenophobia would explain how he went from 2nd place to 4th.

As to what he should do next, his soul would benefit from a few years at Telemundo.

The New York Times used up valuable Editorial Page space to make this comment:

Lou Dobbs has left CNN, or maybe the other way around. Whichever it is, an old, odd, infuriating-to-many mismatch of sober network and strident host is over. CNN, for now anyway, changes back to something closer to the nonpartisan, straight-up news network it wants you to think of it as, different from its ideologically branded rivals Fox News and MSNBC. The real question is the effect the change will have on Mr. Dobbs.

Mr. Dobbs, once a pinstriped purveyor of financial news, has burrowed deep into the popular culture as a self-styled populist enraged by illegal immigration. When he resigned on the air Wednesday night, he made it clear that that aspect of his public persona is not going away. He listed immigration along with jobs, the middle class and war as among the issues urgently needing his kind of honest, straightforward examination.

“Unfortunately,” he said, “these issues are now defined in the public arena by partisanship and ideology rather than by rigorous, empirical thought and forthright analysis and discussion.”

Mr. Dobbs couldn’t have phrased a more apt criticism of himself. He calls himself Mr. Independent, but he is far closer in style and method to the right-wing ranters who mold the facts to shape the argument on television and on AM radio, where Mr. Dobbs still has a show. Mr. Dobbs’s CNN program has long been a nesting ground for untruths and conspiracy theories: fretting over a nonexistent, immigrant-borne leprosy epidemic; questioning President Obama’s citizenship; issuing dark warnings about the “North American Union,” a supposed plot to strangle United States sovereignty.

It’s hard to pinpoint how much damage these kinds of ideas have done to the national discussion of illegal immigration, but they have been corrosive. Solutions have withered as many politicians parrot the central myth that people desperate to seek new lives in the United States are an affliction to be feared, not an opportunity to be engaged, future Americans who could enrich the country as immigrants always have and will.

Now Mr. Dobbs has pledged to “engage in constructive problem solving.” Here is a problem to solve constructively: Illegal immigrants are, as Mr. Dobbs likes to say, decent, honest, hard-working people. They are exploited by greedy corporate interests. They are not about to deport themselves, and we aren’t about to deport them all.

It’s a problem to which Mr. Dobbs has never really offered an answer. Perhaps someday he will.

New York Times Reports 16.9 Percent Drop in 3Q Revenues Compared to 3Q 2008

The New York Times Co. reported in a press release this morning that total revenues decreased 16.9 percent to $570.6 million in the third quarter from $687.0 million in 2008's third quarter primarily because of lower print advertising results.

Advertising revenues decreased 26.9 percent; circulation revenues rose 6.7 percent; and other revenues decreased 38.5 percent.

But there was some optimism in the statement.

Janet Robinson, president and chief executive officer, said in the press release that “looking ahead, visibility remains limited for advertising in the fourth quarter. But as is the case across the media sector, we have seen encouraging signs of improvement in the overall economy and in discussions with our advertisers. Early in the fourth quarter, print advertising trends, in comparison to the third quarter, have improved modestly, while digital advertising trends are improving more significantly."

The company, which just announced a reduction in its New York Times newsroom workforce of about 100 employees, expects to save approximately $475 million in operating costs as a result of reductions in nearly all major expense categories.

New York Times to Cut 100 Newsroom Employees

The New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller told the staff today via email that the Times is cutting 100 newsroom jobs by the end of the year.

The announcement was made via email because Keller is suffering from symptoms similar to the flu.

"This is not a good day," said Managing Editor John Geddes told the assembled staff, according to the New York Observer's John Koblin. The announcement came at about 2:45 p.m.

The paper has a newsroom of approximately 1,250 people, so the move represents an 8 percent cut. Keller's email said that there would be further cuts in the editorial, op-ed and business operations as well. The Associated Press reported that from 25 to 50 people could be let go from the business operations.

Here is Keller's email:

I had planned to invite you to the newsroom and break this news in person today, but I've been hit by something that seems to be the flu. Though I strongly believe in delivering bad news in person, I don't want to add insult to injury by spreading infection.

Let me cut to the chase: We have been told to reduce the newsroom by 100 positions between now and the end of the year.

We hope to accomplish this by offering voluntary buyouts. On Thursday, the Company will be sending buyout offers to everyone in the newsroom. Getting a buyout package does NOT mean we want you to leave. It is simply easier to send the envelopes to everyone. If you think a buyout may be right for you, you have up to 45 days to decide whether you will accept it or not.

As before, if we do not reach 100 positions through buyouts, we will be forced to go to layoffs. I hope that won't happen, but it might.

Our colleagues in editorial and op-ed, and on the business side, also face another round of budget cuts.

In recent years, we've managed to avoid the disabling cutbacks that have hit other newsrooms. The Company has chosen to protect the journalism by cutting production and other business-side costs, and the newsroom itself has managed its resources frugally. These latest cuts will still leave us with the largest, strongest and most ambitious editorial staff of any newsroom in the country, if not the world.

I won't pretend that these staff cuts will not add to the burdens of journalists whose responsibilities have grown faster than their compensation. But we've been looking hard at ways to minimize the impact -- in part, by re-engineering some of our copy flow. I won't promise this will be easy or painless, but I believe we can weather these cuts without seriously compromising our commitment to coverage of the region, the country and the world. We will remain the single best news organization on earth.

I doubt that anyone is shocked by the fact of this, but it is happening sooner than anyone anticipated. When we took our 5 percent pay cuts, it was in the hope that this would fend off the need for more staff cuts this year. But I accept that if it's going to happen, it should be done quickly. We will get through this and move on.

In my absence, Bill Schmidt and John and Jill have volunteered to take your questions this afternoon. Feel free to bring additional questions to me as soon as I'm back, or check with Bill Schmidt or John or Jill privately, or save them for the next Throw Stuff at Bill session, which is in a couple of weeks.

We often -- and rightly -- voice our gratitude that we work for a company and a family that prize quality journalism above all. I hope you know that the company and the family, and I, feel an equal debt of gratitude to all of you whose sacrifice and loyalty have kept us strong.

Like you, I yearn for the day when we can do our jobs without looking over our shoulders for economic thunderstorms.

Bill

Negotiators Angered By British-Led Raid to Free NY Times Reporter

Hostage negotiators expressed shock and anger today at British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s sending in the muscle of a commando raid to free a kidnapped New York Times journalist, saying that they were within days of securing his release through peaceful means, James Hider, Philip Webster and Michael Evans of the London Times report this morning.

Stephen Farrell — a British citizen who was in Afghanistan as a reporter for The York Times was rescued in yesterday's commando raid, but his Afghan translator, Sultan Munadi, and a British soldier from the Special Forces Support Group were killed.

According to media reports, the raid took place in the village of Kharudi, which was the site of a recent air strike that killed dozens of people. The raid to rescue Farrell took place under the cover of darkness early Tuesday when U.S. helicopters were used to deploy British and Afghan troops. At least one civilian and many Taliban militants were killed in the firefight during the rescue.

The Times report continues:

Defence sources said that intensive efforts had been made over the weekend to pinpoint the hostages and assess the strength of the Taleban presence. They said there were no guarantees that a negotiated deal would have led to Mr. Farrell’s release and that there were fears he could be moved. However, several sources in Kabul said that the captors were, at worst, seeking a ransom. A Western source involved in the talks said: “There was no immediate urgency that they were going to be beheaded or handed over to another group. You cannot move them easily. It’s a very isolated area.”

Another Western official said: “It was totally heavy-handed. If they’d showed a bit of patience and respect they could have got both of them out without firing a bullet. Instead, they ended up having one of their own killed, the Afghan killed and civilians killed. There’s a lot of p****d-off people at the moment.”

The negotiations had begun within 24 hours of the kidnapping last week. The Interior Minister had persuaded 300 local elders to intercede with the kidnappers, saying that the hostages were just journalists doing their job. Mr Mudani’s uncle had established communications with the provincial Taleban commander. An Afghan who spoke with the local commander said: “I think we could have got them out peacefully, maybe in a few days.”

Tuesday night’s raid was approved by David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, and Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Secretary, after consulting Gordon Brown, The Times can confirm.

Mr Brown said: “Hostage-taking is never justified, and the UK does not make substantive concessions, including paying ransoms.”

Daring Raid Rescues Times Reporter Held Capitve in Afghanistan

New York Times reporter Stephen Farrell, held captive by Afghanistan militants since Saturday, was rescued during a military commando raid by NATO forces earlier today. Unfortunately, his interpreter, Sultan Munadi; a British commando, and an Afghan woman were killed in the rescue attempt.

He was working near Kunduz, in northern Afghanistan, on a story concerning the aftermath of Friday's NATO airstrikes on Friday that resulted in scores of deaths, including that of civilians, Eric Schmitt of the Times reported.

Schmitt gives more details of the rescue in his report:

In a brief telephone call about 7:30 p.m. New York time on Tuesday, Mr. Farrell told Susan Chira, the foreign editor of The Times: “I’m out! I’m free!”

Ms. Chira said Mr. Farrell told her that he had been “extracted” by a commando raid carried out by “a lot of soldiers” in a fierce firefight with his captors. He said Mr. Munadi was fatally shot. “He was trying to protect me up to the last minute,” Mr. Farrell said.

A statement from Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain announced the commando’s death, and an Afghan official confirmed the death of the woman.

Mr. Farrell, 46, joined The Times in July 2007 as a correspondent in the Baghdad bureau. He has spent many years covering the struggles of the Afghan and Iraqi people and built a respected reputation for his reporting on the Middle East and South Asia. He holds British and Irish citizenship.

Mr. Munadi, who was 34 and the father of two children, had worked regularly with The Times and other news organizations and was in the process of studying for a master’s degree in public policy in Germany. Back briefly in Afghanistan, he had returned to his role as a translator. He had hoped to one day work in public education to ease the problem of widespread illiteracy in Afghanistan.

Mr. Farrell, speaking to colleagues at The Times, said that he and Mr. Munadi were moved several times over their four days of captivity, and were finally moved into a very small room. In the first two days, he said, they had felt optimistic that they would be released.

The men holding them talked freely on their cellphones, Mr. Farrell said, and on the third day, some new Taliban figures, evidently more senior and from outside the immediate district, arrived. Mr. Munadi told Mr. Farrell they discussed moving the captives from the Kunduz area.

The atmosphere grew menacing, Mr. Farrell said. The captors taunted Mr. Munadi, reminding him of a case two years ago in which an Italian journalist taken hostage in Helmand Province was freed while his Afghan translator was beheaded.

Early Wednesday, the thump-thumping of approaching helicopters became audible.

“We were all in a room, the Talibs all ran, it was obviously a raid,” Mr. Farrell said. “We thought they would kill us.”

The captors scattered, he said, and the two men initially stayed put, fearing to be caught in any cross-fire. Then one of the captors came back and tipped his gun toward them, he said, but left without firing. The two men waited a bit, then made their way out of the room into a courtyard. Mr. Munadi leading, they scuttled along the outside wall of the compound. “It was a big, high mud-brick wall,” Mr. Farrell said. He said he could hear British and Afghan voices. “There were bullets all around us,” he said.

In the darkness, they ran along the wall for 60 feet or so, and then Mr. Munadi put up his hands and walked into the open, calling “journalist, journalist!” Gunfire broke out and he fell, Mr. Farrell said, just a couple of feet away.

“He was three seconds away from safety,” Mr. Farrell said. “I thought we were safe. He just walked into a hail of bullets.”

He said he dove into a ditch and waited a couple of minutes, listening for which direction the British voices were coming from, and then shouted, “British hostage! British hostage!”

The British voices told him to come over. As he did, Mr. Farrell said, he saw Mr. Munadi.

“He was lying in the same position as he fell,” Mr. Farrell said. “That’s all I know. I saw him go down in front of me. He did not move. He’s dead. He was so close, he was just two feet in front of me when he dropped.”

Neither The Times nor Mr. Farrell’s family knew that the military operation was taking place.

Sam Sifton Named NYT Food Critic

The New York Times has named Sam Sifton, its own culture editor, as its food critic to replace Frank Bruni in October, Executive Editor Bill Keller announced in a memo today.

Here's his memo:

To the Staff:

In the weeks since the announcement that Frank Bruni would be hanging up his napkin, we've received numerous applications for the job of NYT restaurant critic. We narrowed the list, and then narrowed it some more. We had some really impressive candidates, writers who know their food and have interesting things to say about the way we eat.

Then we threw out the list and drafted Sam Sifton.

The choice is both obvious and eccentric.

It is obvious because, as a brilliant editor of the Dining section, as an occasional essayist on food for our magazine, and as a writer of discernment and wit and erudition, he is the best candidate any of us can think of. This is a marquee job for The Times, and our next critic will have the unenviable job of following Frank Bruni. It is an obvious choice, too, because the prospect of reading Sam on a regular basis brings big smiles to our faces. Joe Lelyveld used to ask of any prospective appointment or promotion, "Where's the lift?" On this one, the question pretty much answers itself.

It is eccentric because we are stealing one of our finest editors from one of our most important departments. This is certain to be a cause of anguish and anxiety in Culture, where Sam has run things with great skill, imagination, energy and good humor. Everyone understands that Sam the Culture Editor will be as hard an act to follow as Frank the Resaurant Critic. We've set ourselves the task of finding a new Culture Editor who will give us a lift, too. And we expect the anguish and anxiety to be short-lived.

For the record, it is our expectation that this will not be the end of Sam's career as an editor/manager/entrepreneur/mentor. He has run two departments exceptionally well, and nobody would be surprised to see him running something in the future. For now, though, his running will be on a treadmill at the gym.
After some overdue vacation and a few weeks of warmup eating, Sam will take over the critic's chair in October.

Best,

NYT's Ombudsman Dissects How So Many Mistakes Got Into Cronkite Story

We're all human, and journalists make mistakes every day. But The New York Times' ombudsman Clark Hoyt gave us a rundown this weekend on how so many mistakes went into its story on Walter Cronkite.

Pulling no punches, Hoyt took to task a reporter with a history of making errors, and editors who not only did not catch them, but introduce their own error into the story during the editing process.

“Wow,” said Arthur Cooper, a reader from Manhattan. “How did this happen?”

The short answer is that a television critic with a history of errors wrote hastily and failed to double-check her work, and editors who should have been vigilant were not.

But a more nuanced answer is that even a newspaper like The Times, with layers of editing to ensure accuracy, can go off the rails when communication is poor, individuals do not bear down hard enough, and they make assumptions about what others have done. Five editors read the article at different times, but none subjected it to rigorous fact-checking, even after catching two other errors in it. And three editors combined to cause one of the errors themselves.

Here is the original correction that ran on July 22:

An appraisal on Saturday about Walter Cronkite’s career included a number of errors. In some copies, it misstated the date that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed and referred incorrectly to Mr. Cronkite’s coverage of D-Day. Dr. King was killed on April 4, 1968, not April 30. Mr. Cronkite covered the D-Day landing from a warplane; he did not storm the beaches. In addition, Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon on July 20, 1969, not July 26. “The CBS Evening News” overtook “The Huntley-Brinkley Report” on NBC in the ratings during the 1967-68 television season, not after Chet Huntley retired in 1970. A communications satellite used to relay correspondents’ reports from around the world was Telstar, not Telestar. Howard K. Smith was not one of the CBS correspondents Mr. Cronkite would turn to for reports from the field after he became anchor of “The CBS Evening News” in 1962; he left CBS before Mr. Cronkite was the anchor. Because of an editing error, the appraisal also misstated the name of the news agency for which Mr. Cronkite was Moscow bureau chief after World War II. At that time it was United Press, not United Press International.

For her part, Stanley took the blame and apologized for her sloppy reporting:

On June 19, Alessandra Stanley, a prolific writer much admired by editors for the intellectual heft of her coverage of television, wrote a sum-up of the Cronkite career, to be published after his death.

Stanley said she was writing another article on deadline at the same time and hurriedly produced the appraisal, sending it to her editor with the intention of fact-checking it later. She never did.

“This is my fault,” she said. “There are no excuses.”

Reporting and desk work are high-pressure jobs. You can get 99 facts fixed and no one on the planet will notice or thank you. Miss one, and you're sitting through an uncomfortable conversation with your boss the next day. And heaven's knows, I have made some beauties in my day. But readers should expect to see more problems such as these in the future, as newspapers as big as The New York Times and as small as your local Merchandiser trim staffs left and right to cut spending.

With reporters doubling up on stories nightly, and editors and copy editors plowing through 5,000 words or more per shift, we will undoubtedly see more of this in the future.

Globe Management, Union Talks Last Through the Night, Will Resume Today

What started as an informational session turned into a negotiation as Boston Globe management and the Guild spent the evening bargaining over a proposed 23 percent wage cut.

Globe spokesman Robert Powers, as quoted by Robert Gavin in this morning's Boston Globe, described the discussions as substantive. Boston Newspaper Guild leaders expresed optimism that a deal could be reached.

"We discussed many issues during today's meeting with the Guild, but have not reached an agreement," Powers said early this morning.

"Talks are continuing," said Daniel Totten, president of the Boston Newspaper Guild.

The Guild came to the meeting with "offer of resolution" to management. That triggered an in-depth discussions over the $10 million in cuts demanded by The New York Times Co., which owns the newspaper.

About a week ago the Guild narrowly rejected a $10 million package of concessions. After the vote, management cut wages for the nearly 700 editorial, advertising, and business office employees represented by the Guild by 23 percent. Any new agreement must be ratified by the rank-and-file, but under Guild bylaws, the vote could not take place for at least 30 days.

Globe to Implement Wage Reductions Next Week

Here is the statement from the New York Times Co. regarding the Guild's rejection of accepting $10 million in concessions:

We are disappointed that in a very close vote of 277 to 265 the Boston Newspaper Guild did not ratify the Globe’s final proposal. As we have stated, the $10 million in cost savings from this multifaceted proposal is essential to The Boston Globe’s financial future.

This evening we have sent a letter to the Guild stating that as a result of the rejection of this proposal, we have reverted to our alternative Final Record Proposal which provides for a 23% wage reduction for all Guild members. This will secure the $10 million in costs savings needed from the Guild, and will allow the Globe to reach the targeted $20 million in savings needed from all our major unions.

Since the parties are at an impasse, the Globe will implement the wage reduction effective next week. We have told the Guild that we are available to meet any day this week to review implementation of the pay cut.

We regret having to take this action, but have no financially viable alternative.

Boston Globe Guild Rejects Plan for $10 Million in Concessions

Boston Globe Guild employees, by a vote of 277 to 265, narrowly rejected a proposed package of wage and benefit cuts today, despite a threat from the newspaper’s owner, The New York Times Co., that such a rejection could precipitate a unilateral, 23 percent cut in pay.

The Boston Newspaper Guild, which represents 700 editorial, advertising and business employees, was faced with the choice of accepting $10 million in annual wage and benefit concessions or risking even deeper pay cuts and the possible closure of New England's most prestigious newspaper. Management says said that a provision to reopen the guild contract gave owners the right to impose the 23 percent pay cut if the wage and benefit cuts were rejected. Union officials say the company was bluffing.

The rank-and-file with the newspaper's six other unions have already approved a total of a little more than $10 million in concessions.

The New York Times Co., which owns the Globe, said it needed a total of $20 million in annual savings from Globe unions - half from the Guild - to avoid shutting down the 137-year-old newspaper.

It was a choice of two bad options, as described by Richard Perez-Pena writing in The New York Times.

“We have two really lousy options,” said Michael A. Paulson, a reporter, who said in late afternoon that he was still undecided. “One is to accept a package that we think is unfair and excessively onerous,” he said, while the alternative might be more painful, and would mean “another battle with the company.”

Two months ago, the company threatened to close The Globe unless unions agreed to $20 million a year in wage and benefit concessions, and to give up lifetime job guarantees for about 400 employees. Of that savings, the company sought $10 million from the guild, by far the largest union, representing about 670 workers, most of them in the newsroom, with others in advertising and other departments.

A guild official said that voting turnout was huge, with more than 500 members having voted by 6 p.m. [Eastern.]

Alexandra Marks of The Christian Science Monitor wrote about the vote from the 35,000-foot level:

But hovering over the debate is a larger question: Is there a future for a traditional, major metropolitan newspaper?

"Certainly, there's nobody in the union who thinks, 'OK, if we approve this deal, we make the sacrifices now, but we're guaranteeing our survival and there's smooth sailing,' " says Mark Jurkowitz, associate director of the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism in Washington. He's also a former ombudsman at the Globe. "What we're seeing here is that: 'Even if we accept this offer, what is the future of the paper?' That's the big unknown that's hovering over this."

Photo of Boston Globe rally on April 24, 2009.

NYT Admits Errors in Its A1 Gitmo 'Recidivism' Story

The New York Times has published an Editors' Note that in essence says its front-page story on Guantanamo recidivism written by Elisabeth Bumiller was not accurate in saying that one of seven Gitmo detainees who have been releases have returned to terrorist activities.

Times Washington bureau chief Dean Baquet told TPMmuckraker that it wouldn't have been a Page 1 story if the paper realized the errors that it contained. "It's something that we thought we needed to explain to readers to amplify the story and to correct something we got wrong," Baquet told the website. Given the factual errors, "I'm not sure it would have led the paper" but still believes that the piece was "a legitimate news story.

"I don't think it's a mistake that's comparable to Iraq or the pre-war buildup. I think that's ridiculous. I think that's a ludicrous and politicized comparison. I think we made a mistake and we owned up to it."

Justin Elliot explains the mistake in his TPMmuckraker.com story:

The original story declared: "1 In 7 Detainees Rejoined Jihad, Pentagon Finds." But the story, which ran on the front of the print edition on May 21, was changed online to "Later Terror Link Cited for 1 in 7 Freed Detainees."

TPMmuckraker originally flagged the story's questionable use of "recidivism" and underlying issues about the Pentagon's numbers.

The editors' note, which is pasted in full below, acknowledges use of terms like "rejoined" and "recidivism" "accepted a premise of the report that all the former prisoners had been engaged in terrorism before their detention."

The original formulation of the story -- that one in seven detainees had "returned" to jihad -- was endlessly repeated on cable, picked up on right-wing blogs, and even cited more than once by Dick Cheney.

McClatchy and others have reported on evidence that some detainees may have in fact been radicalized while imprisoned at Gitmo.

Here's the full editors' note:

A front-page article and headline on May 21 reported findings from an unreleased Pentagon report about prisoners who have been transferred abroad from the American detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The article said that the Pentagon had found about one in seven of former Guantánamo prisoners had "returned to terrorism or other militant activity," or as the headline put it, had "rejoined jihad."

Those phrases accepted a premise of the report that all the former prisoners had been engaged in terrorism before their detention. Because that premise remains unproved, the day the article appeared in the newspaper, editors changed the headline and the first paragraph on the Times Web site to refer to prisoners the report said had engaged in terrorism or militant activity since their release.

The article and headline also conflated two categories of former prisoners. In the Pentagon report, 27 former Guantánamo prisoners were described as having been confirmed as engaging in terrorism, with another 47 suspected of doing so without substantiation. The article should have distinguished between the two categories, to say that about one in 20 of former Guantánamo prisoners described in the Pentagon report were now said to be engaging in terrorism. (The larger share -- about one in seven --applies to the total number described in the report as confirmed or suspected of engaging in terrorism.)

NYT Co.: Boston Globe Closure Is on a Very Real Path

In response to an inquiry by Adam Reilly of the Boston Phoenix, New York Times Co. spokeswoman Catherine Mathis emailed her comment on the possibility of the Globe's closure yesterday:

“Closure is a very real path for the Company to take. We have said that we need to achieve $20 million in savings from our unions in Boston. At the end of the ratification process (the drivers vote on Sunday and the Guild votes on Monday), we need to have secured the full amount. With the Guild we have two different paths to achieve savings of $10 million. One, ratification of the contract. Two, implementation of a 23 percent wage reduction. The Guild seems to believe it can reject the contract, prevent implementation and thereby force further negotiation. That’s not right. Time is of the essence.”

The backdrop to this is that Globe reporter Brian Mooney has been urging his fellow Boston Newspaper Guild members to vote no on the contract proposal this Monday. He expressed his belief that the Times Co. won't follow through on its threat to close the paper in an email to Reilly:

During the course of negotiations, the company has repeatedly engaged in punitive, bad-faith bargaining and basically committed an act of corporate terrorism with its threat to close the paper. They have traumatized their own employees, their employees' families, and the wider community that cares about and depends on this newspaper.

I think we've put to bed the notion that they can afford to make good on that threat, because the Times Company's own finances are so fragile, the cost of closing us would wreck the parent company. But the damage is done.

The deal was made on May 6 and calls for a 10 percent wage cut. It gives the company more flexibility with layoffs. The dollar figure behind the cuts are $10 million. The rank-and-file vote is Monday.