[ocman]

http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2007/06/11/daily6.html

With LA Times showing weakness, Phil Anschutz hopes to launch a paper by the end of the year. Hopefully, it's not launched as a FOX News version of a newspaper. No surprise. A few years back, I believe he bought the name "Los Angeles Examiner."

[ocman]

Correction. It'll be LA's own New York Post.

[RAlossi]

It'll be interesting to see what happens to the LA Times in the next few years. I have hope, but they really need to get their act together down there.

[tujunga]

Anythings better than the LA Times even Fox.

[SoCal]

i happen to like the LA Times. i can find out where all the sales are, and new products coming out, its very informative on new and exciting stores being built across town... :haha:

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Anythings better than the LA Times even Fox.

You're kidding me right? :rolleyes:

[StethJeff]

You're kidding me right? :rolleyes:

:tup: :tup:

Fox is an abomination. :yuck:

LA Times has its many problems but at the same time I'd hate to see them get muscled aside.

[dktshb]

Anythings better than the LA Times even Fox. Oh come on that's preposterous.

[tujunga]

Fox is interesting in that it gives it's political opinion with out a care of what people will think. It's a great place to see people in their true color whether you like them or not. I don't think it's fair to compare it to the LA time though. The time needs to be split into more local papers. I think it's losing readers because people are more interested in what's happening in their local communities, so they turn to local rags or the internet; they tune into CNN or Fox for national and world news. In my area there is community site where if you hear sirens at night you can log on and someone has the details of what's going on sometimes in real time. I listen the Rush sometimes even though I would like to set a cherry bomb off in his ass...not a good idea, he's full of sh*t the back flash would be too much to handle.

Hopefully this new paper will be a success, we need more choices in papers.

[StethJeff]

Fox is interesting in that it gives it's political opinion with out a care of what people will think. It's a great place to see people in their true color whether you like them or not. I don't think it's fair to compare it to the LA time though. The time needs to be split into more local papers. I think it's losing readers because people are more interested in what's happening in their local communities, so they turn to local rags or the internet; they tune into CNN or Fox for national and world news. In my area there is community site where if you hear sirens at night you can log on and someone has the details of what's going on sometimes in real time. I listen the Rush sometimes even though I would like to set a cherry bomb off in his ass...not a good idea, he's full of sh*t the back flash would be too much to handle.

Hopefully this new paper will be a success, we need more choices in papers.

:previous: Sadly, they barely even do that. The only place to get world news on TV is from Univision and BBC America.

[Vangelist]

can't believe no one has posted these. what does it all mean for the future of the LA Times? damn the Tribune

Los Angeles Editor Ousted After Resisting Job Cuts
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
Published: January 21, 2008

The top editor of The Los Angeles Times has been forced out for resisting newsroom budget cuts, executives at the paper said Sunday, marking the fourth time in less than three years that the highest-ranking editor or the publisher has left for that reason.

The removal of the editor, James E. O’Shea, by the publisher, David D. Hiller, mirrors the odd spectacle of a little more than a year ago, when the previous publisher, Jeffrey M. Johnson, was fired for refusing to eliminate newsroom jobs as directed by the paper’s owner, the Tribune Company. In each case, a longtime Tribune executive was expected to rein in costs at the paper, but instead sided with the newsroom and lost his job for it.

The departure of Mr. O’Shea appears to contradict statements by Samuel Zell, the Chicago real estate magnate who took over the company last month and is now its chairman and chief executive. Mr. Zell has criticized the previous regime of the financially troubled company for trying to improve the bottom line by cutting costs, and he has said that the path to profit lies in finding new revenue, not paring costs.

Calls to Mr. O’Shea, Mr. Hiller and a spokeswoman for Mr. Zell were not returned. A Tribune spokesman referred inquiries to Nancy Sullivan, a spokeswoman for The Times, who said, “I don’t have any comment for you.”

Officials at The Times said Mr. Hiller had ordered a $4 million cut in the newsroom budget. Some said he specifically sought to cut expenses related to covering the presidential campaign, a time when such expenses usually spike. Some editors and reporters said that Mr. Hiller told them in a meeting in November that he wanted to reduce staff somewhat by the end of 2008.

The shake-up came as a surprise to newsroom employees at The Times, several of whom said late last week that they had not heard about a clash between the editor and the publisher and did not have any indication that Mr. O’Shea’s job was threatened.

People at The Times said they did not know whether Mr. Hiller was acting on orders from company headquarters or on his own initiative; Mr. Zell has said he would allow each of the Tribune properties greater autonomy.

The Times had a newsroom staff of more than 1,100 people at the start of this decade, but the number has declined to below 900, officials say. Its weekday circulation has dropped to about 800,000, from 1.1 million.

Tribune, whose flagship is The Chicago Tribune, bought the Times Mirror Company in 2000, acquiring its crown jewel, The Los Angeles Times, one of the nation’s largest newspapers and long regarded as one of the best. The $8 billion price was widely seen as inflated, particularly after recession struck the following year and newspaper ad revenues began a long decline.

The relationship between the Los Angeles and Chicago offices has been troubled for much of the time since then. Chicago has demanded cost savings and higher profit — officials at The Times say the paper still makes a healthy profit, despite its troubles — and the view in Los Angeles has been that the new owners are slowly killing an asset they neither value nor understand.

Tribune first brought in two well-regarded editors from outside, John S. Carroll and Dean P. Baquet, to run The Times. But after rounds of job cuts and demands for more, Mr. Carroll quit in 2005, and Mr. Baquet rose to the top spot.

In late 2006, Mr. Johnson, the publisher, was fired along with Mr. Baquet for refusing to carry out more cuts. Mr. Baquet then rejoined The New York Times, which he had left in 2000 for the Los Angeles paper, as the Washington bureau chief and an assistant managing editor.

With Mr. Baquet gone, Mr. O’Shea, the managing editor of The Chicago Tribune, went to Los Angeles to run the newsroom.

Adding to the turmoil of the last few years has been the departure of two editors of The Times’ editorial page, Michael Kinsley and Andres Martinez, after short tenures.

It was not clear Sunday whether Mr. O’Shea’s successor would come from within The Times, or when his departure took place.

Tribune, one of the nation’s largest media companies, also owns Newsday, The Baltimore Sun and other newspapers, as well as two dozen television stations, the Chicago Cubs baseball team and other properties.

But as newspapers endure tough times, Tribune’s papers have suffered even more than the industry as a whole. Through the first three quarters of last year, its profit was 53 percent below the same period a year earlier.

Newspapers generally have been cutting staff in recent years, especially those in California, which have been hit hard by the downturn in real estate and, in turn, real estate advertising.

[Vangelist]

Farewell Remarks by Los Angeles Editor

Published: January 21, 2008
Following is the text of an e-mail message sent on Monday by James E. O’Shea after he was ousted as editor of The Los Angeles Times:

I made these farewell remarks in the newsroom today and I wanted to share them with everyone in case they took off the holiday and were unable to attend. I wish all of you the best and thank you for all of the help you’ve given me over the last 14 months.

By now I am sure you have all heard I am leaving the Los Angeles Times after 14 months as editor of the paper. I will never forget the day that I walked into this newsroom, which was furious about the firing of my predecessor, Dean Baquet. As I entered the Globe Lobby, the security guard handed me a pass. It was good for one day. I remember thinking this was going to be one of the toughest days of my life. Actually, today is probably a little tougher. I am leaving here after making many great friends and before I got a chance to do everything that I wanted. But that’s life and I accept it.

I know there’s a lot of talk about why I am leaving so let me set the record straight. In discussions about the current and future budgets, it became clear that Publisher David Hiller and I didn’t share a common vision for the future of the Los Angeles Times. In fact, we were far apart. So David decided he wanted a new editor.

As I’ve said on numerous occasions over the past 14 months, I intended to stay here and lead this newspaper to the greatness it deserves. But David decided he wanted to terminate my employment and get another editor. I wish the new editor the best.

Although I didn’t really accomplish all of the goals that I set when I arrived, I know that this newsroom today is better off than when I walked into the door, and I am proud of all that we did together. We’ve accomplished a lot in just 14 months. When I came to this newsroom, I pledged to maintain the quality of the LA Times, and I did, even though I had to cut budgets and shrink the staff.

Despite those cutbacks, we successfully transformed this place into a true interactive newsroom with a web site that is far more successful than when I came. In fact, traffic on LATimes.com was up by a staggering 187 million page views over December 2006, an extraordinary achievement and one that should generate pride in our ranks. Our coverage of the fires that’s truly worthy of a Pulitzer Prize is just one example of why record numbers of print and online readers depend on this newsroom. During my tenure, we also turned around a Sunday magazine that was drowning in red ink when I arrived; it’s now rebounding and is in the black. With a modest investment in new resources, we created a new fashion section that generates millions in new print and online ad revenues and a successful new Calendar weekend section. The formula for success? A small investment in new resources more than pays for itself with added revenues.

We also created a new multi-media Guide section and web site; we redesigned Travel; we stopped the bleeding in circulation by being one of four papers in the country whose daily circulation was up in the last reporting period; and we broke news, the heartbeat of a newsroom, lots of it. The Sheriff Corona story; the diversion of U.S. anti-terrorism aid in Pakistan; I could go on and on. The quality of the paper under my time as editor didn’t decline. I am proud of that given the financial pressures we faced. And most important, there’s a talented stable management team in place that cares about the news that flows out to the public under the name of the Los Angeles Times.

This is an incredibly talented newsroom and I’ve really enjoyed getting to know many of you. I think Steve Lopez is the best daily newspaper columnist in the nation, one of a few that I would compare favorably to Mike Royko. And that’s saying a lot for someone from Chicago. There are lots of others who I could name but I don’t have the time. I didn’t get the time or opportunity to get to know some of you better and I regret that. One criticism I accept is that I spent too much time in my office and not enough time in the trenches, where I belong. So I apologize if I seemed a bit remote. As anyone who knows me well will tell you, that is not like me. I didn’t make enough time to do what I’m really good at: rolling up my sleeves and editing a story.

This is a tough time in the company and the industry. I understand that. I spent much of my career covering business and economics. I understand the realities of the bottom line. I am not some naïve, starry-eyed journalist who can’t accept economic reality. I know you have to cut back in hard times. I’ve done that more often than I care to mention. I also know this is a time of transition with change sweeping throughout the industry. But when you don’t agree with the future course of the newspaper it’s best to simply move on. There are plenty of other challenges out therefor me and I don’t intend to sit around idle. There are bike rides to be had, books to write and hopefully another opportunity or two to make a difference. I am not a quitter.

One thing I want put on the record, though, is that I disagree completely with the way that this company allocates resources to its newsrooms, not just here but at Tribune newspapers all around the country. That system is at the core of my disagreements with David. I think the current system relies too heavily on voodoo economics and not enough on the creativity and resourcefulness of journalists. We journalists have our faults, but we also have a lot to offer. Too often we’ve been dismissed as budgetary adolescents who can’t be trusted to conserve our resources. That is wrong. Journalists and not accountants should seize responsibility for the financial health of our newspapers so journalists can make decisions about the size of our staffs and how much news remains in our papers and web sites.

The biggest challenge we face -- journalists and dedicated newspaper folks alike – is to overcome this pervasive culture of defeat, the psychology of surrender that accepts decline as inevitable. This mindset plagues our business and threatens our newspapers and livelihoods. I believe that when Sam Zell understands how asinine the current budgetary system is, he will change it for the better, because he is a smart businessman and he understands the value of wise investment. A dollar’s worth of smart investment is worth far more than a barrel of budget cuts.

This company, indeed, this industry, must invest more in solid, relevant journalism. We must integrate the speed and agility of the Internet with the news judgment and editorial values of the newsroom, values that are more important than ever as the hunger for news continues to surge and gossip pollutes the information atmosphere. Even in hard times, wise investment — not retraction — is the long-term answer to the industry’s troubles. We must build on our core strength, which is good, accurate reporting, the backbone of solid journalism, the public service that helps people make the right decisions about their increasingly complex lives. We must tell people what they want to know and — even more important — what they might not want to know, about war, politics, economics, schools, corruption and the thoughts and deeds of those who lead us. We need to tell readers more about Barack Obama and less about Britney Spears. We must give a voice to those who can’t afford a megaphone. And we must become more than a marketing slogan. I know I can rely on this newsroom to do this.

Lastly I want to make it clear that I didn’t quit. Anyone in a top newsroom management job during tough times always wrestles with a crucial question: Where is the line? At what point do you go from "I can deal with this" to "this is simply wrong. " When I was Managing Editor of the Chicago Tribune, I always thought my line was 600 newsroom employees. If the publisher demanded cuts that would take the newsroom below that level, I would leave because I felt staffing would slip to a level that would not allow me to sustain the quality newspaper that the community deserved. The Trib had 610 people in the newsroom when I left.

So when I got here, I wondered anew: Where’s my line: Would it be a newsroom of 800 people? 700? But then I realized the folly of that kind of thinking. I’d been around the accountants and their "metrics" too long. The line you draw is this: Do I believe in the course we’ve set for the future? If the answer is Yes, if I thought the LA Times could resolve its problems by getting smaller and smaller, by being gradually diminished, then I would stay. If not, (and I don’t) then I told myself to take a stand and say enough is enough. If you have to consider closing foreign bureaus and cutting back in other parts of the paper to free up the money needed to cover the Olympics and the most historic political campaign in modern times, well to me that’s no plan for the future, that is not serving the interest of readers. It is simply stupid.

Even though we face tough and demanding times and I sympathize with those who face daunting revenue challenges, I don’t believe that we will succeed long term by giving up; by taking steps that I think will gradually diminish newspapers. I decided to take my stand and say: Change the way we do things. I made that decision and I will live with the consequences. And when I walk through the Globe Lobby for the last time, I can guarantee you that I won’t regret taking that stand. I believe history will prove me right. When this industry stops relying so much on cuts and starts investing in Journalism, it will prosper because it will be serving the best interests of our readers. That’s when we will prosper. I wish you all the best and with that it’s time to say of my tenure here: Dash 30 Dash.


More Articles in Business »

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

i love the LA Times. ive been reading it since i was something like 5 years old, and i read it everyday, no matter where i am, whether im in Europe, Boston or home. It pisses me off more than anything that all these very good editors are leaving because some outside source has no idea how to run a great newspaper. i agree with the whole transcript and i wish to God that Zell sells to a local interest. I like the changes made in the last year, and my only remaining complaint is that there is too little local coverage and Los Angeles is not promoted like it should be.

[DJM19]

I cant wait for the day that LAT is out of the Tribune's hands

[sopas ej]

Fox is interesting in that it gives it's political opinion with out a care of what people will think. It's a great place to see people in their true color whether you like them or not. I don't think it's fair to compare it to the LA time though. The time needs to be split into more local papers. I think it's losing readers because people are more interested in what's happening in their local communities, so they turn to local rags or the internet; they tune into CNN or Fox for national and world news. In my area there is community site where if you hear sirens at night you can log on and someone has the details of what's going on sometimes in real time. I listen the Rush sometimes even though I would like to set a cherry bomb off in his ass...not a good idea, he's full of sh*t the back flash would be too much to handle.

Hopefully this new paper will be a success, we need more choices in papers.

In my opinion, news organizations aren't supposed to have political opinions, they're supposed to be unbiased. Yes, some individuals can do op-ed pieces, but that's it, they should be op-ed pieces. I always equated FOX News with the Wally George Show (remember him?).

It's true that LA needs more newspapers, though.

[sopas ej]

:previous: Sadly, they barely even do that. The only place to get world news on TV is from Univision and BBC America.

I like to listen to NPR.

I actually think the LA Times is a pretty good paper.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

The Times isn't perfect, but the writing is a lot better than some other papers (LB Press-Telegram and SF Chronicle, to name two).

[edluva]

LA does need more newspapers, but what it really needs is more news readers.

[WonderlandPark]

In my area there is community site where if you hear sirens at night you can log on and someone has the details of what's going on sometimes in real time.

Really? I am sort of in your area and never heard of it. (If you are indeed in Tujunga)

[dktshb]

Anythings better than the LA Times even Fox.

Oh I guess I already responded to this ridiculous comment. EDIT