June
7
Nightmare Hits L.A. Times
The worst-case scenario is about to hit the L.A. Times, reports Variety and the NYT, where Sam Zell is about to wreck wreak havoc on the newsroom in order to help pay off his debt for acquiring Chicago Tribune Media. He wants to measure a newspaper staffer's worth strictly by column inches delivered. We all know that has nothing to do with quality. Every paper has their workhorses, their journeymen, their hacks, their pros, and their stars. Some write better, longer, and slower than others. Some can churn out the prose 24/7. It takes all kinds.
Looks like weekly Hollywood columnist Patrick Goldstein will be getting his blog under way in the nick of time. The LATimes links to me in various places on the site. But when Patrick links to me--my traffic goes through the roof. So that's another worthwhile measure.
The counterintuitive thing is to invest responsibly, make a good newspaper that people want to read, and sell ads. The worst case scenario is that Zell slashes and burns the LAT, turns it into something worse than USA Today, renders it unreadable and then kills it.
Here's an excerpt from the NYT:
James O'Shea, who was fired recently as editor of The Los Angeles Times for refusing to cut his newsroom staff, said Mr. Michaels's statements showed a misunderstanding of how newspapers work."The problem is the papers aren't producing ad revenue, and diminishing the journalism isn't going to solve that," he said. He said it was wrong to think that a paper could cut staff without reducing output and quality.
In his note to employees, Mr. Zell wrote that Tribune papers would be redesigned, beginning with The Orlando Sentinel, on June 22. Surveys show readers want maps, graphics, lists, ranking and stats," he wrote. "We're in the business of satisfying customers, and we will respond to what they say they want."
Subscribe to this blog's feed
The link isn't working, but I read the article and methinks it's worse than a nightmare. After Zell guts his papers he'll probably blame declining circulation on macro factors rather than himself. Amazing opportunity for the New York Times.
Posted by: mitkid | June 07, 2008 at 03:41 AM
Don't you think technology can cheaply save newspapers? Put a "sim" card in the newspaper and give away readers for free -- readers which can also read the news aloud to you (in computer voice) and be plugged into your computer so you can flip through the newsprint pages.
David Poland linked to the link of the whole memo in which the research also showed people want news.
http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/archives/2008/06/zeeeeeeeellllll.html#comments
Posted by: T. Holly | June 07, 2008 at 12:10 PM
It's "wreak havoc" not "wreck havoc." A wreck is what is left after havoc is wreaked.
Posted by: Brenda Bowen | June 08, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Anything that helps to sink that stinking rag and the bozos that crank it out is fine with me.
Posted by: Vanderleun | June 13, 2008 at 12:13 AM
A wreck is what is left after havoc is wreaked.
Wrought. (As long as we're being pedantic...)
Posted by: David Fleck | June 14, 2008 at 06:33 AM
Here's a flash for the big thinkers at the LAT. An English language publication requires English language readers. Given that your editorial policies have been solidly pro-immigrant at the expense of the native population your failure is predictable and welcome. Measure your writers output by whatever metric pleases you, profitablity will not return. I have to temper my schadenfreude with the knowledge that Los Angeles as a whole is circling the drain along with the media that helped make it all possible.
Posted by: Too Obvious | June 16, 2008 at 09:29 AM