Is the Boston Globe in Trouble Because It’s Left-Wing?

Every morning, since very early in my life, I have read the Boston Globe - first in print form for many years, and then exclusively online for the last few years. So despite my many disagreements with the publication over the decades, I do not view the possible demise of the Globe as a good thing. First, because I am concerned about its unionized workforce and what might become of them in these down economic times. Second, because there are fewer and fewer professional journalists out doing city-level reporting of substance anymore. So the loss of a major group of reporters in a city the size of Boston would be a real problem. Third, because - much as they annoy me day to day - I would actually miss the Globe if it were to significantly shrink or disappear altogether.

That said, I think it is important to point out that coming from the political left as I do, I've long been dissatisfied with the Globe's editorial policy. Because I feel its stances on a variety of issues are often strongly influenced by the work of centrist policy wonks from local academic powerhouses like Harvard, BU, MIT, Northeastern and sometimes UMass Boston or farther afield. Most of said wonks being social science professors who get a little too carried away with their ostensibly "scientific" research methodologies, and far too comfortable with the close relations they sometimes enjoy with the rich and powerful.

Among the most damning of the political lines to come out of such circles has been a fashionable communitarianism that attempts to solve social problems based on class, sex, racial and gender inequities by leaving social relations exactly as they are - and changing nothing of consequence. I'm sure Open Media Boston viewers from the Hub know what I mean. I'm talking about looking at a problem like our famously intractable institutional racism hereabouts, and saying "hey, we just need to get leaders from the affected communities, and government, and academia, and foundations, and non-profits ... and, of course, the 'business community' (a loaded concept if there ever was one) ... and sit around a table and just work things out."

Naturally, the "table" is often in a high-rise at some powerful law firm or large mainstream foundation, and the "leaders" are not selected in some democratic fashion by the affected communities, but chosen by the people in charge of the aforementioned government, academic institutions, non-profits, foundations, and businesses (including law firms). And the agenda is not set by the affected communities in some democratic fashion, and basically the meeting around the table comes down to a bunch of well-off white people dictating the terms of engagement to a bunch of poor people of color via handpicked leaders who may or may not actually be leaders.

Such initiatives never go anywhere. People in the aggrieved communities remain hamstrung by institutional racism. And the entitled people who called the meeting can pat themselves on the back for "trying to help." Never realizing that the thing that would be most helpful for communities affected by institutional racism would be for the powerful entitled people to lose their power.

So the Globe has long been all over such dog-and-pony shows like "The Mayor's Initiative for This" and "The Big Foundation for That" and "The Rich Kid University for the Other," and lauded them for their far-sightedness and done glowing profiles of their "stands on principle" and human interest pieces on the "victims" of whatever legitimate grievance isn't really being addressed. And then a year or two later it's all forgotten, and everyone tut-tuts about how "nothing's being done about Problem X or Quandary Y." And the whole cycle starts all over again.

Now I raise this stuff for the following reason - and ironically this argument can be viewed as a defense of the Boston Globe - in the last few days since the announcement that the New York Times Corporation was threatening to pull the plug on the Globe if its unions didn't agree to give back wages and benefits worth $20 million very soon. Naked capitalism at its purest, right? Sure. No surprises there. Numerous pundits including former Globe columnist Eileen McNamara and several others in the know have slammed the Times for taking out the very bad management decisions of Times owner Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. on properties like the Globe. Hurting its large workforce and the public's right to know in one fell swoop.

But things have gotten even uglier rather quickly in the public sphere because a fairly sizable group of right-wing commentators have decided to put forward an odd yet potent political economic myth ... they are saying that the Boston Globe is in financial trouble because it is too left-wing. And that if it collapses it's simply because the local population and the nation is right-wing and the paper isn't catering properly to its belief system - which the proponents of this myth seem to think is fiscal and social conservatism. Meaning free-market everything, and the devil take the hindmost. Plus some kind of theocratic "freedom is bad for you" stand on everything from pot to condoms.

Now this is all happening during a week when a major survey was released that found that only 53% of Americans support capitalism and many of the rest support socialism.

And herein lies the rub.

The Boston Globe is not left-wing. Certainly not as we on the left-wing, and in publications of the left-wing like Open Media Boston, understand the meaning of the phrase. The Globe is many things. It is a part of a large corporation. It is a powerful institution in local affairs. It is a news outlet of legendary staying-power and professional standing.

The Globe represents a spectrum of views in its editorials - ranging between neoliberal free market positions to roughly social democratic positions. The Globe features a somewhat broader spectrum of views in its Opinion pages - including a good number of conservatives, and (rather unfortunately from the perspective of many Bostonians) also allows arch-conservative Jeff Jacoby to have a regular column.

Still, overall, the Globe has a pro-capitalist viewpoint. It certainly believes in a good-sized public sphere and supports (more or less) good pro-capitalist technocrats like Deval Patrick and Barrack Obama over open plutocrats and autocrats like George Bush (and George Bush). But it is not going to back any kind of political, economic or social system that doesn't give corporations - and the rich and powerful that own them - a seat at any "table" that's out there. Communitarian or otherwise.

That means you can call the Globe center-left or center-right (in the European sense of those terms) depending on the issue under discussion, but it is not a left-wing publication. And the very idea that it is in financial trouble because of a "left-wing editorial stance" has no relation to the material conditions facing the news industry today, and is therefore not even worthy of more discussion than the occasional editorial like this one. Even a cursory examination of the economics of the news media puts that thought to rest. Large news organizations are losing money hand-over-fist, yes. But all of those publications share the core pro-capitalist politics of the Globe - differing mostly on social issues like gay marriage and abortion. In fact, looking at social issues - many of which also have political economic dimensions - is the often only way in which one can reasonably discern a more "left"-leaning publication from a "right"-leaning one.

In any case, the point of all this verbiage is that if you want to see a left-wing publication in Boston, then you are looking at one. If you believe that the Globe is left-wing, then you haven't really thought things through.

Despite our differences - which we know they are not even dimly aware of yet - Open Media Boston does wish the Boston Globe continued health and success. We want all of its union workers to keep their decent jobs. And most of all, we want the Globe to stick around long enough for us to get big enough to be able to kick the bejeezus out of them on key debates of the day - and win more hearts and minds over to a genuine left alternative than they can win to capitalism of even the nicest sort.

Anyhow, here's looking up your collective address, Globe. Which we hope will continue to be on Morrissey Blvd. for many years to come.

Jason Pramas is Editor/Publisher of Open Media Boston.