Last modified: Sunday, June 7, 2009 2:12 AM EDT BRISTOL: Why the Globe should stick with the New York Times When The New York Times bought The Boston Globe some 15 years ago, Globe people were pleased and proud. Today, the Times Co. is threatening to shut the Globe unless its unions accept major cuts to wages and benefits. Globe people are decidedly less happy with the Times now, just how unhappy we'll learn Monday when the Boston Newspaper Guild votes on contract concessions. There's great resentment among Globe staffers over these gun-to-the-head negotiations, along with uncertainty and tension over just how vulnerable the paper is to shutdown. (The Globe is a money-losing operation.) In the long run, however, the Globe may discover that its best hope of survival is in its ownership by the Times, and that New England's premier newspaper is actually in a fortunate position. That's because the Times is committed to quality journalism, and the Times is the best newspaper in the country. The Times itself is also a money-losing operation right now due to its debt, the recession and changes in the industry. But because of its unique position there's reason to believe the Times will survive and return to profitability. It can pull the Globe out of the mire with it. This matters a great deal to people all over Massachusetts. The Globe is the biggest and best newspaper in the state and one of the top regional newspapers in the country. Its reporting is the basis for coverage of public affairs, business and sports by other media. It effectively sets the table for public discussion of important issues. The Times tried to sell the Globe a couple of years ago to help save itself. It wasn't able to do so, and now there appears to be no prospect of a sale. Therefore, the Times will probably have to keep the Globe. It will probably also want to keep the Globe going, not shut it down, because of the Globe's importance to the region and the damage a shutdown would do to the Times' reputation. The Times can save the Globe as it cuts the operating costs, even beyond the $20 million in contract concessions that it's demanding. It will be a different Boston Globe. The day is gone when there was a reason for regional daily newspapers to each cover the world and nation. Once unavailable from other sources, that coverage is available anywhere and everywhere today. Luckily for the Globe, it has access to the very best of that coverage from The New York Times. The Globe has to abandon its own ambitions to cover anything beyond Massachusetts. The Globe's staff would provide state coverage, and that's about all. This would be a smaller newsroom, and a less-well-paid news staff, but the paper can be as good and influential as ever with the coverage of the wider world by the Times. To accomplish this, the Times and the Globe will also have to charge more for their content. The Times is developing a means for this. It is shifting more of the cost of publishing from advertisers to subscribers (as is just about every newspaper including the Globe). It is also creating in-depth content for its best-in-the-nation Web site, content for which it can charge. The Globe can and should do this too. That is the future. Who knows, the Times may be able to save not only The Boston Globe but some other troubled regional dailies as well. That would be one great thing for the media and, more importantly, the people who depend on newspapers for the soundest coverage of public affairs. NED BRISTOL is a member of The Sun Chronicle Editorial Board and a former editor of the newspaper.