On the other side of the planet right now yet another American newspaper is struggling for survival in the Land of the Free.

The New York Times Company’s Boston Globe is one of that nation’s biggest and most respected and it’s sinking fast and loud, with media commentators the planet wide over analyzing every single tiny development.

For the last few months keeping tabs on the situation has been like watching the Wicked Witch of the West melting, plenty of screaming and arms waving but taking forever to actually hit the floor.

Here’s what happened, the 137 year old publication was bought out by the New York Times Co. in 1993 when newspapers were still profitable. As is the case at many newspapers the world over, the family who had owned it for most of its existence publicly listed the Globe in 1973 and sold the last of their shares at the dawn of the new millennium.

Following the advent of the internet, the demise of print advertising and then last year the Global Financial Crisis, The Boston Globe started to crumble. In 2008 circulation dropped 8%.

On April 2^nd the New York Times Co. declared it would need to find millions of dollars in savings to keep the paper afloat. Interestingly enough it decided that a key part of this money saving venture should be to request staff accept a pay cut, initially of 8.4% — which the Globe’s unions rejected. The cut request then traveled northwards somewhat with the Times chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. yesterday saying the paper will not survive without staff accepting pay cuts of 23%.

Unfortunately this announcement was simultaneously met with plans to sell the paper off - provided there’s a buyer. One allegedly interested buyer is a real estate company — and by all accounts it seems they’re more interested in the properties possessed by the Globe than continuing the glorious traditions of the fourth estate.

As far as Crikey is aware this salary cuts approach is rather unique amongst the dead and dying media organizations of the United States, or in fact the world. Usually the company will just fire stacks of journalists and sub-editors, making sure to keep their managers on board a la News and Fairfax circa GFC.

The staff of The Boston Globe look pretty doomed no matter what happens to their paper at this stage in the piece — all of those pain staking union negotiations appear close to worthless. But the sad tale of woe befalling the Globe begs the question, how reasonable is it for the mangers of media companies to request their employees accept massive pay cuts to ensure its continued survival?

Assuming the quality of the content of The Boston Globe is not the reason the company is falling over and regardless of whether this plays a part, it is surely the job of management to - well you know, manage?

The failure of newspapers to adapt to the online era, to find a workable solution to paying for content, to retain their major income earners in classified and other advertising, cannot be solely rested on the shoulders of employees who are only doing the jobs set before them.

Will Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and his family be trimming down their own income?

There is enough musings on the demise and future of traditional media to fill an ocean, but in the case of The Boston Globe it must be asked how the New York Times Company reached such a pivotal stage in collapse where it was left with nothing to sacrifice but labour costs? How do they justify requesting such personal sacrifice?