LA Times (update) will cut 150 from newsroom, 250 overall

[clutchcargo]

Re: LA Times layoffs rumor

LA Times just like NY Times. Ultra-liberal paper with no objectivity and only purpose is to continually hammer away at Bush, Cheney, etc. for no purpose other than because they can. Bush and Cheney can be idiots plenty of times, but LAT demonizes them and all conservatives and traditional values while embracing Al Queda and those puked-out prisoners at Guantanamo, and they wonder why their readership and ad sales are nosediving.

These are tough times all around for print media, of which I am a member, and my heart goes out to anyone who loses a job, like the FW S-T folks last week. But considering just how bad things are at LAT, I"ve got to believe they bring a good bit of it upon themselves because they are out of touch with many of their readers

 

[Angola!]

Re: LA Times layoffs rumor

LA Times just like NY Times. Ultra-liberal paper with no objectivity and only purpose is to continually hammer away at Bush, Cheney, etc. for no purpose other than because they can. Bush and Cheney can be idiots plenty of times, but LAT demonizes them and all conservatives and traditional values while embracing Al Queda and those puked-out prisoners at Guantanamo, and they wonder why their readership and ad sales are nosediving.

These are tough times all around for print media, of which I am a member, and my heart goes out to anyone who loses a job, like the FW S-T folks last week. But considering just how bad things are at LAT, I"ve got to believe they bring a good bit of it upon themselves because they are out of touch with many of their readers

I've read plenty of dumb things on this site and I have posted plenty of dumb things, but this is one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever read.

 

[chigurdaddy]

Re: LA Times layoffs rumor

LA Times just like NY Times. Ultra-liberal paper with no objectivity and only purpose is to continually hammer away at Bush, Cheney, etc. for no purpose other than because they can. Bush and Cheney can be idiots plenty of times, but LAT demonizes them and all conservatives and traditional values while embracing Al Queda and those puked-out prisoners at Guantanamo, and they wonder why their readership and ad sales are nosediving.
These are tough times all around for print media, of which I am a member, and my heart goes out to anyone who loses a job, like the FW S-T folks last week. But considering just how bad things are at LAT, I"ve got to believe they bring a good bit of it upon themselves because they are out of touch with many of their readers

Dude, these are hard times all the way around. Agreed. But tying the print apocalypse to a left wing agenda is absurd.

 

[STLIrish]

Re: LA Times layoffs rumor

LA Times just like NY Times. Ultra-liberal paper with no objectivity and only purpose is to continually hammer away at Bush, Cheney, etc. for no purpose other than because they can. Bush and Cheney can be idiots plenty of times, but LAT demonizes them and all conservatives and traditional values while embracing Al Queda and those puked-out prisoners at Guantanamo, and they wonder why their readership and ad sales are nosediving.

These are tough times all around for print media, of which I am a member, and my heart goes out to anyone who loses a job, like the FW S-T folks last week. But considering just how bad things are at LAT, I"ve got to believe they bring a good bit of it upon themselves because they are out of touch with many of their readers

Classy.

 

[clutchcargo]

Re: LA Times layoffs rumor

Chigurdaddy---read the last part of my rant---yes, tough times all around, but the layoff numbers being bandied about for LAT, plus a readership that is plummeting at an alarming rate suggests factor(s) other than just the general print malaise are at work here. My opinion is its far-left bent to the point of being silly because it's so one-sided. I welcome other theories.

 

[clutchcargo]

Re: LA Times layoffs rumor

STL and Angola--precisely which part of what I said is so horribly wrong? Am I wrong in saying that the LAT is a far-left-leaning paper and that conservative and moderate readers are turned off by that?

 

[Angola!]

Re: LA Times layoffs rumor

Chigurdaddy---read the last part of my rant---yes, tough times all around, but the layoff numbers being bandied about for LAT, plus a readership that is plummeting at an alarming rate suggests factor(s) other than just the general print malaise are at work here. My opinion is its far-left bent to the point of being silly because it's so one-sided. I welcome other theories.

Well, pretty much every paper in America is seeing circulation figures free-fall, so does that mean every paper is left-leaning?

 

[Joe Williams]

Re: LA Times layoffs rumor

I agree with Clutch to this extent: I know of several major metros that are not very well-liked in their markets -- which is not the same thing as being widely read or not -- because of their liberal leanings. Joe and Martha Sixpack are fed up with that agenda, and the corporate community doesn't appreciate the frequent demonization, either, on the editorial pages.

Now that these papers are struggling, they aren't getting much sympathy, support or help from large constituencies in their markets who otherwise would be alarmed by the industry's woes. People who grew tired of the politics being forced on them under the guise of news coverage, and the outright editorial slant, can more easily yawn as the papers go down in flames or just whimper away.

It's one thing to alienate a corrupt City Hall or a polluting factory in your community because that's your job and somehow has to do it. But when you're so strident and shrill that you alienate huge segments of your users, you have earned your lonely plight. Some of them might even have the deep pockets to help remedy the situation, but they see little worth saving because the "public service" arguments now ring hollow. They have been replaced by "service to favored portions of the public."

These papers stopped serving those users, so those users don't feel affected by the woes crippling these papers. What goes around comes around.

 

[STLIrish]

Re: LA Times layoffs rumor

STL and Angola--precisely which part of what I said is so horribly wrong? Am I wrong in saying that the LAT is a far-left-leaning paper and that conservative and moderate readers are turned off by that?

You requested other theories for the LAT's troubles? Here's a few:
- Like every paper, it gives its product away for free online
- People don't read like they used to
- Many people are "too busy" to read the paper every day
- We're stodgy and bland in a media world that rewards innovation and pizazz
- The economy's in the tank
- Department store ads are evaporating
- The real estate market is in the ****ter, especially in a place like LA
- Car dealerships are even worse off these days.
- Craigslist is eating our classifieds lunch. Monster.com is having our dessert.
- And Zell took on too much debt to buy Tribune

Someone more familiar with the LA market could probably provide more examples.
But every one of those economic, technological and cultural factors has more to do with layoffs at the LA Times, and lots of other papers, than any perceived "far-left bent" at any of them.
Hell, NPR has a bigger perception of left-wing tendencies than any mainstream paper, and it's listenership is booming.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

Re: LA Times layoffs rumor

I've worked for papers whose editorial pages leaned extremely heavily to the right and others that went just as heavily the opposite way, and they're never conservative enough for conservative readers or liberal enough for liberal readers. They ***** no matter what because they want it their way ALL THE TIME and because they listen to the idiots (national and local) on talk radio instead of actually reading the paper and forming their own opinion. And on all those papers we knew we got it right when both sides bitched at the same time, which was most of the time. I expect it from non-journalists, but seeing it on a journalism board is insane.

 

[slappy4428]

Re: LA Times layoffs rumor

STL and Angola--precisely which part of what I said is so horribly wrong? Am I wrong in saying that the LAT is a far-left-leaning paper and that conservative and moderate readers are turned off by that?

You requested other theories for the LAT's troubles? Here's a few:
- Like every paper, it gives its product away for free online
- People don't read like they used to
- Many people are "too busy" to read the paper every day
- We're stodgy and bland in a media world that rewards innovation and pizazz
- The economy's in the tank
- Department store ads are evaporating
- The real estate market is in the ****ter, especially in a place like LA
- Car dealerships are even worse off these days.
- Craigslist is eating our classifieds lunch. Monster.com is having our dessert.
- And Zell took on too much debt to buy Tribune

Someone more familiar with the LA market could probably provide more examples.
But every one of those economic, technological and cultural factors has more to do with layoffs at the LA Times, and lots of other papers, than any perceived "far-left bent" at any of them.
Hell, NPR has a bigger perception of left-wing tendencies than any mainstream paper, and it's listenership is booming.

Pretty thorough list, unfortunately.

 

[clutchcargo]

Re: LA Times layoffs rumor

Joe Williams expressed it eloquently.

I get a kick out of the reactions I get when I post like I did about an hour ago, going on my left-wing-aimed rant. There are folks here who go bananas whenever political slant, left or right, is brought up on these pages, yet to think that strong political slant one way or another doesn't adversely affect readership is turning a blind eye to the realities of our business.

My rough guess is that most papers' print circulatuion has dropped 5-8% in the last year. Yes, that is alarming. What's the latest figure on how much the LAT has dropped in the last year? If it's much more than, say, 8%, then there has to be other ftactors than just the good list that STL offered. I just hapen to think that a paper's out-of-touch political slant could be one of those other X factors.

 

[OTD]

Re: LA Times layoffs rumor

What's the latest figure on how much the LAT has dropped in the last year? If it's much more than, say, 8%, then there has to be other ftactors than just the good list that STL offered. I just hapen to think that a paper's out-of-touch political slant could be one of those other X factors.

I'd like to see your evidence that the Times has an "out-of-touch political slant." Its publisher is a former Reagan administration official.

And please show your work. That is, I don't want to hear what you read in Michelle Malkin's column. I want to see stories that ran in the Times' news page that show a left-wing bias.

 

[Double Down]

Re: LA Times layoffs rumor

Sorry Clutch, by Frank and STL pretty much served up the truth and dismantled your argument. Whether it's a right wing or left wing, people like, apparently yourself, don't really want objective coverage. They want things that confirm their leanings. So anything you don't agree with is seen as "left-leaning." Truth is no longer important. Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Hannity and their ilk have convinced people that anything that does not endorse the conservative POV is liberal propaganda. And that's ridiculous.

As OTD said, show some examples. I bet you cannot.

 

[Angola!]

Re: LA Times layoffs rumor

My rough guess is that most papers' print circulatuion has dropped 5-8% in the last year. Yes, that is alarming. What's the latest figure on how much the LAT has dropped in the last year? If it's much more than, say, 8%, then there has to be other ftactors than just the good list that STL offered. I just hapen to think that a paper's out-of-touch political slant could be one of those other X factors.

My guess would be that you are off the mark with your assertation because large swaths of the country really dislike George W. Bush and **** Cheney. Check out W's approval ratings and tell me that the LA Times' "left-leaning" bias is the cause of its layoffs.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

Re: LA Times layoffs rumor

I'd like to see your evidence that the Times has an "out-of-touch political slant." Its publisher is a former Reagan administration official.

Exactly. And in Southern California, the OCR and San Diego have been swooning, too, and you would have to be a card-carrying Bircher to describe either as liberal. The OCR is libertarian and thinks GWB is far too liberal and San Diego used to be run by Nixon administration people. I don't think you would find many liberals who would describe the LAT as liberal.

 

[WriteThinking]

Re: LA Times layoffs rumor

I don't usually disagree with Joe Williams, but here goes: The LAT does more important, issues-oriented stories, and more projects and on-site reporting for the sake of public service than just about any other newspaper in the country.

And a circulation of some 800,000, or so, does not indicate that nobody is subscribing, or reading. Certainly, fewer people are reading the print edition than in previous decades, but obviously, the paper's audience is still there, and it's potential to grow is probably greater than at most places, if the paper can get the formula for success figured out.

Furthermore, the value and high regard of the LAT within this business probably cannot be overstated. Even now, I would wager that there are very few on this board -- not even clutchcargo -- who would turn down a chance to work there, in almost any capacity, if it were offered.

The Times' problems these days parallel those of other newspapers, only they are being experienced on a larger, more visible scale, precisely because it is a heavyweight in the industry.

Depending upon whether or not this paper finds the formula for success in today's changing landscape, there is both more to gain, and more to lose.

And let's not forget a couple other issues that probably are having an effect on the Times these days:

*Zell is not a newspaper man, and doesn't see the intrinsic value of them.

*Even underneath Zell, the powers that be at the paper are radio people, not newspapermen.

*And all of them are in it to make (more) money -- more money than can probably be brought in, especially considering all the debt, something that was cited previously.

*As is true of a lot of places, the Times is now offering less in its print product than it used to, and still not enough on the Web. To think that readers don't notice or care about this has been the dumbest of all the dumb moves and mindsets that have occurred at newspapers.

 

[fishwrapper]

Re: LA Times layoffs rumor

Here are a few problems unique to L.A.:
*$13 billion in debt.
*No city center; a sprawling circulation that covers over 500 square miles. Making it a very difficult city to cover locally.
*Loss of aerospace and automobile manufacturing centers.
*Changing demographic. Nearly 40% of the city is ESL (English Second Language).
*A real estate market in shambles (a high-advertising sector). Foreclosures in many of the literate parts of the county.
*No central mass transit system which limits rack sale opportunities.
*The list goes on for many more bullets...Append the aforementioned to the industry's woes and we have a media structure in peril.

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

Re: LA Times layoffs rumor

Speaking of bullet points, Recovering Journalist presented some that make a lot more sense than the political nonsense.

Let's be clear: Newspapers brought these problems on themselves. Yeah, the economy's a mess, which is exacerbating the situation. But what's happening to the industry is a massive structural change that might have been avoided–or at least reduced–by smarter management and an understanding of how the Internet is changing the business. The ways in which newspaper managements have screwed up over the past decade or so to lead to this state of affairs are manifold and simply put:

* Failing to understand the power and impact of the Internet.
* Failing to be creative about business models to fully monetize Internet content.
* Failing to be creative about working with advertisers to find new online ad models.
* Failing to take seriously powerful new competitors like Craigslist, Monster and Google.
* Failing to provide readers with enough relevant, compelling, can't-get-it-anywhere-else content–especially local coverage.
* Failing to understand that 20 percent profit margins aren't a divine right.
* Failing to move quickly enough to rein in costs and find efficiencies throughout the business.
* Failing to move quickly enough, generally.

http://recoveringjournalist.typepad.com/recovering_journalist/2008/06/death-of-almost-1000-cuts.html

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

Re: LA Times layoffs rumor

STL and Angola--precisely which part of what I said is so horribly wrong? Am I wrong in saying that the LAT is a far-left-leaning paper and that conservative and moderate readers are turned off by that?

This massive recession is at the feet of right leaners.

Remotely arguable?