L.A. Times shoves out Al Martinez; PLUS: Phoebe Flowers

Big deal. Company sold for $8 billion.

 

These cuts were coming one way or another. You have to know that cost-containment was part of the negotiations to make this deal in the first place.

Note that Phoebe isn't being let go; she's being reassigned. But from a newspaper standpoint -- and hers -- it's still just like losing a position.

We've been dripped and drabbed with this stuff for so many years now, it's easy to forget just where the L.A. Times (under Times-Mirror) and Tribune company were 12 years ago, and just how far things have fallen.

 

Cut that time frame in half, SF.

Los Angeles Magazine had a story on this a couple months ago. Half of the people who worked at the Times in 2000 -- when Tribune took over -- are no longer with the paper.

I'm on the road, so I don't have the article with me. But that stat stuck with me.

 

This is probably it:

http://www.lamag.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=14D5B253DB1D499F9AD38F459D8E926A&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=3FCA3E8B1E7D48C59A5C37B3EC0D0317

 

That would be the one, SF. Thanks for that.

I assigned my J-100 class that article and had them write an analysis on what THEY would do to save the Times. Figured if anyone could come up with something, it would be the generation that is ignoring the titan of West Coast journalism in droves.

 

So nobody knows if the laid off people at the L.A. Times all were people who where offered buyouts? I'm curious if that's the case or if some of the people laid off weren't offered buyouts?

 

I believe it's out there -- didn't take the time to look it up -- that there were a handful of involuntary separations.

 

Birdscribe:

So what did your class come up with?

 

Maybe I'm not asking my question very well. I knew that there were only a few involuntary separations. Here's my question: Were all of the people "involuntary separated" offered buyouts but declined? I'm asking if people were laid off who weren't among the people offered buyouts.

 

This was probably the best of the lot, done by my best student this past semester. He goes into detail on each one of these items, but you get the gist of it here.

: (1) Sam Zell’s recent acquisition of the Tribune Company should include a plan to sell back the Times to local owners; (2) Guerilla marketing should be implemented as a grass roots local marketing campaign to re-establish subscriptions; (3) Re-structure the carrier delivery program; (4) Re-design and reduce daily and weekend sections; (5) Introduce a Times recycling system; and (6) redesign the web site.

 

My guess -- only -- would be that it would be a mix.

Martinez would have been offered a buyout and declined but made to take it.

But there were likely a few people who weren't eligible who were laid off anyway.

 

What's an involuntary buyout?

Boss says: "You should think about the buyout."

No-longer-wanted reporter says: "Thanks, but I'll pass."

Boss: "No, really. Think hard about it."

Reporter: "OK, but I know I'll decline."

Boss: "Let me be more clear. You're getting the buyout. Your last day is Friday."

The reporter in this example could refuse to take the buyout and refuse to sign the paperwork saying he won't sue for age or gender or racial discrimination. But most people in this situation figure a lawsuit would be fruitless and take the cash.