LAT goal: "A 24/7 operation that breaks news all the time online"

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-ex-oshea24jan25,0,6930822,full.story

And, yes. They will need more, not fewer, resources to pull it off.

 

Interesting. I think they're way ahead of the curve for all this.
Five years from now, I think a major news organization will sign a deal to provide exclusive content for Yahoo or AOL or Google or You Tube, or whatever the hot portal or device is. And the daily newspaper or prime time newscast will be more about investigative work, big picture analysis, opinion and well crafted features.

 

Wasn't there a recent agreement between the Singleton people and some Web dudes to do something similar to what Mr. Durden just said?

I also think the Times is wise to do this. The Orange County Register has many of its writers do podcasts for the sports they cover, while the Times has extra stories and blogs. The possibilities with the Web are enormous and go way beyond just posting stories and blogs; time for the Times to catch up to what others have done.

Yes, they'll need more resources. But at least they're giving their vets a chance to learn the new ways.

 

Won't happen. From the story:
"We will need to divert some resources to this effort at a time when no one is going to give us any more resources," O'Shea said. "If anything, we might be looking at less."

 

I wholeheartedly agree. You need more resources, and I have a bad feeling that most newspapers won't do that. To me, they should invest in this, and by invest, you put money into something to try to make it work the RIGHT WAY.
Otherwise, in some cases, you're going to have overworked people (24 hour shifts, anyone?) putting out something half-assed. The public will look at it like the floating turd that it is and go back to Yahoo and Google. I think what newspapers have going for them on the internet is their name, and that name represents reputable information. I think that's what some random blog can't really give you. They don't have that trust factor, but if newspaper companies nap, it won't be long before they catch up in that race.
Believe me, the Times is not "woefully behind" the competition. There are still places that are even farther back than they are in this race. I used to work at one of those places. I know it's going to take them at least three years to get to the point where some newspaper websites are now.
That's because they don't invest in anything either.

 

As someone who has never been in a union and knows nothing certain about them, I have this question to those who do know: At what point can a union step in and prohibit management from requiring print reporters from doing twice the work for the same pay? Is there any language in existing contracts that suggests this sort of movement is in violation? Again, I'm ignorant.

 

The LAT is actually way behind breaking news on its Web site. Some major dailies have been doing this for quite a while: WP, NYT, etc. From what I've heard, the LAT's brass has been seeking advice nationally for months about how to implement a stronger Web presence.

 

Union contracts specify how MANY hours an employee must work (otherwise, there's overtime, comp time, etc.). How full those hours are is entirely up to management. At the Herald, we were all routinely expected to do twice the work, be it writing or editing, as our better-staffed Globe counterparts.
A 24 hour news service requires three shifts of employees. This isn't going to happen. The Times is just throwing out corporate gibberish in the hopes of fooling someone.
Note: I actually think the plan the Times described is a good one. They're just not going to carry it out.

 

The head of our online operations (which are way behind the times -- and The Times) says the trick is have a publisher who throws away the eight-hour work shift and puts all employees on a 24-hour shift. She says that's how they operate. Essentially, you're on call, with the latitude that you don't have to be chained to a regular schedule or to your desk.

 

The LA Times is non-union.
I just had a vision of Otis Chandler spinning in the grave with the simple mention.

 

If you're on salary, isn't that just business as usual?

 

Sounds like people who work for AP.