But then fate turned. I found out that Balboni, a legend in Boston broadcast journalism, had been developing a similar idea, one he had nurtured for more than thirty-five years, to create a collaborative for foreign correspondents, but not as a nonprofit. Phil had already put together a convincing prospectus for investors, one with a clear business plan and modest projections for revenue, built around a confident assessment that ad dollars were shifting from print and TV to the Web. I loved a part of his plan that allowed for the correspondents to own shares in the company, which meant they would be vested in its success.
Perhaps most importantly, it was written with a philosophy that I had come to respect: quality journalism has value and it needs to be paid for. Great, independent journalism should be self-sustaining. I realized I was in the presence of a rare entrepreneur: a journalist with a strong business sense and a track record. Balboni had founded the New England Cable News (NECN), and his success there had led to several key investors who were already on board. We met and combined our editorial visions into a single plan. A partnership was taking shape, and I was excited about the possibility of creating a new news organization.
Newsrooms, I believe, have a tendency to crush the entrepreneurial spirit, and those of us who love the business should resist that part of the culture. Yet every time I felt the entrepreneurial urge, I reminded myself that I had a family to think about. I was at a crossroads, unable to sleep. The buyout offer was pending. I had to decide.
The moment of clarity came thanks to my wife, Julie. In the middle of a sleepless night, she said, “For ten years, you have been getting shot at in war zones for a living. So why are you so afraid of taking a risk when it comes to your own career? You’ve got to do what you love.” The next morning, I worked out the final terms of a deal with Phil, and I signed the buyout papers on St. Patrick’s Day.
On my last morning at The Boston Globe, as I walked past its glorious fleet of green delivery trucks, I was sad, and took in all the things I love about the paper. The biggest part was the chatter with colleagues who know how to tell a great story, who know precisely how and when to give you a hard time, and who could make you laugh even on a bad day. I had it out a few times with some editors, but I knew I would miss the old-school types who loved the craft and had great respect for the tradition of the paper and its place in the city.
I savored one memorable sound from the newsroom in particular—the thud of the huge rolls of newsprint hitting the cement loading docks. It shook the newsroom just a bit on Thursdays before the big Sunday run. To me, this was the sound of a big city newspaper, the heft of it all.
I didn’t know it then, but as we were building this start-up, two statistical lines were crossing. Print newspaper readership was trending downward and being surpassed by the rising number of those who got their news online, according to a Pew Research Center report that would be published in December 2008. We could all feel the trend advancing even if we didn’t yet have the facts. And that’s why on that last day of work, the wondrous thud of the newsprint hitting the docks seemed more ominous, like thunder. And the news of the industry since I left has been devastating. More newspapers have had layoffs, the Minneapolis Star Tribune went bankrupt and The Christian Science Monitor ceased its daily print edition; the Globe is staring down the barrel of more buyouts and likely layoffs.

Despite the deep admiration I have for Charles Sennott, I worry about the motivations for beliefs like this: Global Post's business plan "was written with a philosophy that I had come to respect: quality journalism has value and it needs to be paid for." Why must that be philosophy? As a practical matter, I'm certainly fine with a publisher charging for content if it can. But I see no defensible grounds for a philosophy (dogma?) that the way to monetize journalism is by selling content. There are so many other options, as these guys well know.
#1 Posted by Josh Young, CJR on Tue 3 Mar 2009 at 02:22 PM
GlobalPost is a BS news outlet. Don't let Mark full you here. Pure BS. Why? They lump Taiwan in as part of China on their intl news page, calling Taiwan part of some imaginary country or place called "China and its neighbors", which lumps Taiwan in the communist pile, but does not put Japan or South Korea there, although those countries are also neighbors to China. So why only Taiwan? because the GlobalPost has no cojones to stand up for freeedon and challenge communist China. i have written 25 letters to Mark and go no reply on this. This GlobalPost thing is pure BS. Mark, face the facts, man.
#2 Posted by Danny Bloom, CJR on Thu 5 Mar 2009 at 08:33 PM
Kindle as a verb has now been accepted officiallt Wikipedia and Urbandictionary, can you pass this info on to Michael and Karen, thanks
DANNY BLOOM in Taiwan, who did the legwork on this.!
Some Kindle users are now using the word "kindle" as a verb as in "Are you kindling?" or "I am kindling now and will call you back in one hour" or "I love to kindle on my Kindle now." The editors at UrbanDictionary have accepted the word as a verb now, since it is in common usage on the blogosphere. The defintion reads: "To read a book or a newspaper on a Kindle e-reading device."
In fact, the name "Kindle" was conceived by San Francisco designer Michael Cronan, and according to his wife and partner, Karen Hibma, "we wanted it to be memorable, and meaningful in many ways of expression, from 'I love curling up with my Kindle to read a new book' to 'When I'm stuck in the airport or on line, I can Kindle my newspaper, favorite blogs or half a dozen books I'm reading'", so the use of "kindle" as both a noun and a verb was already set in motion from the very beginning. WIth the uppercase the word or lowercase it depends on how it is used, of course. As a proper noun, it should be uppercased. As a verb, it should be lowercased, but it may be uppercased as well.
#3 Posted by danny, CJR on Thu 5 Mar 2009 at 09:49 PM
Global Post offered to publish a story I proposed at what amounted to 26 cents per word. The terms: they would own exclusive rights to the writing worldwide into eternity as well as the rights to all material related to the work. This is something Mr. Sennott does not address as he describes the struggle to get GlobalPost off the ground. With non-negotiable terms like this for freelancers, I fail to see how quality journalists will agree to give away their work and all rights to it into perpetuity. It is Global Post's right to make money from freelance writing to sustain themselves, but in the end, the brands consistent with quality content will survive. This requires negotiating with freelancers to come to terms that are fair and equitable to both sides, not just one. The idea that Global Post is somehow different from the corporate media, based on the terms that were offered to me, is simply inaccurate.
#4 Posted by Kristen Gillespie, CJR on Thu 12 Mar 2009 at 02:34 AM
As a former Brazilian correspondent in Washington, DC, and now a journalism and new media reporting lecturer at the University of Miami School of Communication, I find this initiative one of the best opportunities for all journalists, young and old. Check my full comments @http://newmediareporting.com
#5 Posted by Chris Delboni, CJR on Wed 18 Mar 2009 at 03:46 PM
Well, good luck. But if your site is anything like your article, nearly three pages about yourself and virtually nothing about your editorial product or financial progress, it must be very thin soup. Enquiring minds want to know: are you making it or not? Are papers and others paying for your product or not? How can you advise those of us with jobs to "break out" if you don't give us the facts? Just the facts.
#6 Posted by Stuart, CJR on Fri 24 Apr 2009 at 11:41 PM