Globe editor wants to make boston.com 'edgier,' remove in-depth reporting from it

Poynter interviews new Globe editor Brian McGrory, who says the current boston.com/bostonglobe.com dichotomy is too confusing and that he plans to make people pay for all in-depth reporting on bostonglobe.com, while making the free boston.com "more social media, more community bloggers, hopefully edgier content."

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Comments

marketing garbage

By on

Ahhhhh,

So they're going with "make it shittier so it frustrates people and they pay."

and I didn't think Boston.com could get any worse.

Ugh

Newspapers shouldn't try to compete with news aggregators and blogs by becoming more like them. They'll just disappear into the online muck.

It's okay to dabble in that a little with a sub-section of the brand, but there's no way they can beat Gawker and the like at their own game, without massive corporate restructuring and nothing but a staff of eager kids right out of college.

I'm convinced old media's only hope for survival is what sets them apart. It's the news they publish that feeds bloggers and the short-attention-span serving sites - that I admit to using, myself, in addition to Boston.com, NYTimes.com, etc. I pay for a digital subscription to the globe and I also digitally subscribe to Lynn's Daily Item. I won't pay for a localized Gawker-like site. People in their 20's especially won't pay for it, nor will the ads cover expenses in a local market. They'd have to go national, at least.

Besides, we already have UHub, what else do we need? :)

I have a hyperlocal site that's a little short on in depth stories. That's because I have a day job, and no staff. However, all I do is fill in the small holes left by what my local daily isn't doing much of. It's a niche, and it only slightly more than pays for itself, and that's okay with me. I can't imagine trying to make a living off of such a thing, though I wish I had a little more revenue to pay for the occasional in depth piece.

I can't wait until in depth reporting is the new "edgy" again. I already see comments on established blogs criticizing their paid authors for not doing their jobs well enough. That's great!

Swirling down the toilet...

Another death knell for the globe/boston.com. Do they really think that making boston.com crappier they'll get more Globe subscribers.

The article says it has 28K bsotonglobe.com subscribers. Really? 600K residents in Boston, 4M in the greater boston area, and they're happy that only 28K want to pay for on-line access?

Maybe once the Globe is finally sold, someone will turn it back into a real paper...

So...

Doesn't mean they use it.

I assume 28K were the number of people who pay for digital and don't want a paper. so the globe gets 6M a year in money they would lose if the paper was still free. but they lose thousands who now don't read it at all, so lost ad revenue form on line, plus an increase in herald visits (and other web sites) that still offer ad-supported only news.

Sometimes you have do go into

By on

Sometimes you have do go into private browsing/incognito mode for it to work, but it does work.

It's amazing that these

By on

It's amazing that these newspapers actually pay for such crappy paywalls. The NYT wall is even easier to get around, you just delete the string starting with gwh at the end of the url and hit enter and you're all set. Well done, print media.

I was just reading not to

I was just reading not to long ago that the English speaking world's most successful newspaper web site is the UK's Daily Mail. Pure tabloid, pure success.

The Boston Globe is not in the business of providing you with thoughtful reporting and commentary on the news and issues of the day. The Boston Globe is in the business of making money. Either they will find a way to make money, or they will shut down. Analysis of the national budget deficit has nothing to do with it.

actually

By on

they're also in the business of creating Democratic voters, by whatever means necessary.

up
11

No. They're Not.

By on

I don't know if I've ever seen a response that so missed the point of what it's responding to. If the Boston Globe's editorial page leans left, it does so because they think it will make them the most money.

It's the plethora of pictures

By on

The DM also delivers the goods. And the readers comments are always good for a laugh. Ditto The Sun, Guardian, a few other Brit papers.

Other than that, the DM does a poor job in the accuracy department, but so doesn't 95% of the media. Don't get me started on the NYT.

Amateur hour

The pinnacle of British newspaper letter pages is the Daily Torygraph, which has now published several volumes of their collected letters. From the first volume, Am I alone in thinking...?

SIR – I find it intensely humiliating to be asked by airport security staff if I have packed my own bag. This forces one to admit, usually within earshot of others, that I no longer have a manservant to do the chore for me.

"Edgier content"?

By on

Does this mean they'll only be featuring Boston's best burgers or Boston's best pizza or Boston's best Chinese food only once a month now?

Does this mean they'll only

Does this mean they'll only be featuring Boston's best burgers or Boston's best pizza or Boston's best Chinese food only once a month now?

Don't be silly.

You missed in depth coverage about Giselle and Tom. Tom's hair length and where he ate lunch.

Utter crap

That's why I get redirected to "Member Center" for supposedly free content?

Once upon a time I subscribed to the Globe. I stopped when they stopped reporting on where I lived, except Sundays. Then I bought the Sunday Globe for my local reporting and the Globe Magazine, until they stopped doing more than a paragraph on my town and then they eviscerated the Magazine.

So I had a (free) login, which I used until they started lambasting me with popup "subscribe to our digital edition". So I logged out and deleted my cookies.

If the Globe wants to become even less relevant, they should keep doing what they're doing. I look forward to their demise.

Brian McGrory has become the

By on

Brian McGrory has become the Ourobouros of the Boston media, except instead of biting his own tail he has inextricably lodged his head in his own ass.

Wow....how's this for "edgier"?

By on

Boston.com 11:42PM Monday February 18, 2013 Front page

"Are you nuts for Fluff?"

"Top 50 scariest movies" (in February,mind you)

And...wait for it....wait for it....

"Where to get Boston's best Chinese"

Yessir..you want edgy, you got edgy..thanks to Brian McGrory, Boston's answer to Nick Denton!

On a side note, I am enjoying the Jeremy Piven series set in 1909 London, "Mr. Selfridge" on English TV. In last night's installment, one of the featured characters was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. At one point Sir Arthur refers to an article he read in the Boston Globe. As my heart started to swell with hometown pride, it was quickly deflated by the thought that this historic institution once highly regarded around the world, is now run by a fucking idiot.

It's a complicated issue

By on

but the Globe circa 2013 is very lame. Maybe if it had remained in local hands rather than be sold to the NYT,I don't know. I have no use for it.

Maybe they should try to actually report on things they often neglect or deliberately ignore. There are more than a few times the Globe has been very slow on the uptake, or not report on legitimate local news [in particular] at all. For example, I can tell you most people like know about crime issues in the city and their town or neighborhood, and police blogs are very popular. That's just one issue, but there are others. The Globe simply comes across as too antiquated.

up
10

Interesting

By on

I think he's looking for something that exists. Bostinno.com