From the perspective of at least some employees of the Globe, it may be a good thing because they’d prefer a more committed owner than the Times – as well as less demands from the union. See the quotes from the article at bottom of this post.
Perhaps you meant it’s not good because this may lead to closure of the Globe. If that’s the case, then it’s something happening across the nation, not only in Boston.
“After this experience,” said Globe columnist Scot Lehigh, “people here are willing to take a chance on a local owner in hopes that he or she will have a more genuine commitment to the Globe. “What we’re seeing from the Times is not the fair-minded face of the editorial page, but a single-minded, hard-nosed focus on the bottom line. We were asked to do it at gunpoint, and it got people’s backs up.” The Times Co. had no comment yesterday.
Donovan Slack, the City Hall bureau chief, said she has “serious questions about my union leadership and the choices they made in the face of what was clearly a real threat. . . . For me it comes down to paying my mortgage and buying my groceries.” Slack said she had viewed the Times Co. as “a cathedral of journalism” but now “would love a more financially stable owner.”
Jack Welch, the former General Electric chief executive who was once reported to have an interest in buying the Globe, said on his Twitter page that it was “ironic” to see the Times “act so brutish toward labor. Certainly would be crucifying any company with labor practices like theirs.”
That there would no longer be, should the newspaper fold, an editor named “Donovan Slack” would, in and of itself, seem to be a great loss!
The not good refers to closure of the Globe as a possibility. That was always the ‘Sunday paper” when I was growing up.