Austin Beutner is out as L.A. Times publisher

[TigerVols]

...no, I didn't come up with that somewhat aggressive-sounding headline; his own paper did.


Austin Beutner is out as L.A. Times publisher

Too bad, as he seemed to be pushing the LAT in the right direction.

But apparently that direction is too far away from Chicago.

Austin Beutner out as LA Times publisher in Chicago power play*

 

[YankeeFan]

 

[WriteThinking]

Here are Beutner's parting thoughts, in their entirety, as he posted on Facebook.

It's a really good, surprisingly open and heartfelt farewell, and I'm saddened by this firing. It seems he was a good one for the paper.

 

[BDC99]

Damn. Never heard of this guy until now, but it sounds like quite a mess. Wish Tim Ryan luck, I suppose. Sounds like he's going to need it.

 

[WriteThinking]

Austin Beutner, the former publisher of the Los Angeles Times who was recently ousted by Tribune Company, is now free to speak his mind about the future of newspapers and journalism. He remains hopeful and positive about it, with the right approach, which he believed he was implementing with his former employer.

Does local journalism have a future? (Opinion) - CNN.com

 

[Fredrick]

Read his farewell note there and you'll see this person did indeed have a clue. Hmmm, engaging the advertisers and making progress?? Progress with advertisers? Hmmm. I thought that couldn't be done. Some of his other programs he implemented sounded workable and positive as well.

 

[Riptide]

Damn. Never heard of this guy until now, but it sounds like quite a mess. Wish Tim Ryan luck, I suppose. Sounds like he's going to need it.

Ryan came up inside Trib, right? They won't go with an independent thinker for that job now.

 

[steveu]

That book "The Deal from Hell" that James O'Shea, the former Times and Tribune editor, wrote had a telling line. The publisher James worked under at the Times said "the future is in cutting back."

And they wonder why newspapers are in the shape they are now.

 

[LanceyHoward]

Tribune Company is in danger of becoming a rich man's toy. The stock price since the IPO has gone from 25 to eight. The company has a market cap about 215M. Long-term debt is 300M. If someone offered $15 a share they could buy the company. That would be a total cost of about 700M. Which would be affordable to Eli Broad, who is worth seven billion, especially if, as rumored, he partnered with someone like David Geffen, who is also worth seven billion.

 

[wicked]

Tribune Company is in danger of becoming a rich man's toy.

At this point, it wouldn't be such a bad thing.

 

[BTExpress]

That would be a total cost of about 700M. Which would be affordable to Eli Broad, who is worth seven billion, especially if, as rumored, he partnered with someone like David Geffen, who is also worth seven billion.

Yeah, I'd say it's affordable, seeing as Tribune turned down a $2 billion all-cash offer for the L.A. Times ALONE from Geffen nine years ago.

 

[WriteThinking]

Yeah, I'd say it's affordable, seeing as Tribune turned down a $2 billion all-cash offer for the L.A. Times ALONE from Geffen nine years ago.

I think that's when we all knew things were really going to go downhill. There had been some excitement at the prospect of that possible deal, and when it didn't happen, there was a tangible mood shift to real discouragement.

 

[Bronco77]

The company has a market cap about 215M. Long-tern debt is 300M. If someone offered $15 a share they could buy the company. That would be a total cost of about 700M. Which would be affordable to Eli Broad, who is worth seven billion, especially if, as rumored, he partnered with someone like David Geffen, who is also worth seven billion.

Makes a lot of sense. The main snag I see is that Broad also would have to buy the non-Southern California Tribune Publishing papers -- which he has shown little interest in doing. So he'd probably look to unload the other papers, and I'm not sure how many potential buyers are out there, even at highly distressed prices. No doubt a Chicago version of Eli Broad would buy the Tribune as a matter of civic duty, but what about the others? The Florida papers (which are still marginally profitable) and a few others, such as Newport News, could wind up in the hands of private equity firms or with a bottom-feeding outfit like GateHouse.

 

[BTExpress]

It's tough to do anything with the individual Tribune Company papers. So much of their copy comes from a centralized desk in Chicago that you'd pretty much have to rebuild a desk and find a wire service to subscribe to (Tribune dropped AP a while back). Can't imagine anyone that would find that worth the trouble just to buy one (or more) of them without buying them all.

 

[LanceyHoward]

Makes a lot of sense. The main snag I see is that Broad also would have to buy the non-Southern California Tribune Publishing papers -- which he has shown little interest in doing. So he'd probably look to unload the other papers, and I'm not sure how many potential buyers are out there, even at highly distressed prices. No doubt a Chicago version of Eli Broad would buy the Tribune as a matter of civic duty, but what about the others? The Florida papers (which are still marginally profitable) and a few others, such as Newport News, could wind up in the hands of private equity firms or with a bottom-feeding outfit like GateHouse.

I think it is probably getting harder to break up chains because of the centralized production. But look at the real estate values. I would guess the broadcasting company kept the Tribune tower but how much is the LA Times building worth? I would also think some of the other papers sit on some pretty valuable real estate they could sell off.

 

[Bronco77]

I believe that when the publishing group was spun off, the terms of the deal were that the broadcasting company kept all real estate. For example, the publishing company owns the Fort Lauderdale paper's suburban production plant and the land it sits on, and the Sun Sentinel pays rent to use the facility.

As for centralized production (and incidentally, Tribune did add AP back earlier this year), it's obviously a problem if, say, a private equity firm buys an individual paper. But I'm not sure it's a huge deal if a newspaper company already has a central desk that could do the same type of work as the folks in Chicago. Let's say GateHouse buys Trib's Florida papers (not implausible because GateHouse has been on a buying spree in the state). GateHouse has an "economically efficient" (underpaid, overworked) central copy desk in place in Austin, Texas. No reason for the papers to rebuild their copy desks -- the editing and design functions simply would be shifted from Chicago to GateHouse's operation.

 

[Fredrick]

I think it is probably getting harder to break up chains because of the centralized production. But look at the real estate values. I would guess the broadcasting company kept the Tribune tower but how much is the LA Times building worth? I would also think some of the other papers sit on some pretty valuable real estate they could sell off.

Yeah, we're to the point we're only thinking about real estate when discussing newspapers. What a joke and sad state of affairs. Everybody, even journalists, realize this profession is dead and the newspaper is unnecessary to daily life in 2016 (because of the misdeeds of the owners/publishers/editors/consultants. The only thing worth anything is the land and (maybe) the building on the land, lol.

 

[BTExpress]

I know we scold ourselves for "devaluing" our product and our work, but let's face reality --- in most instances, it really is less valuable.

100 years ago, when the Titanic sank, a newspaper was the sole way anyone could find out information. The accuracy of the reporting was crucial to making sure people found out what happened, because where else would they get this information from?

That is no longer the case. Today the first tweet would come seconds after the iceberg was hit, and photos and videos would be shared during the sinking. There is simply nothing vital that a print product could provide 24 hours later that would be relevant. If no newspaper anywhere reported ANYTHING on the sinking, people would still get all the important information elsewhere. Thus, we are less valuable.

And that's not the "suits'" fault. It really isn't.

 

[JayFarrar]

The value isn't the information, it has been the way it is collected, packaged and presented in an easy to follow, and easy to understand format that explains and helps the reader understand the news.

The other value is that it gives a common place to start and then expand the conversation about the news of the day.

None of those things have to be in print, but the ad money, as diminished as it is, follows the print version, at least for now.

 

[BTExpress]

Print worked because it was a shopper that had a high enough percentage of editorial content to call itself something else.

When it could no longer be a shopper, it no longer became economically viable.