LAT publisher who stood up to Tribune? Gone.

[Jersey_Guy]

Romenesko's got the news.

Can't say I'm surprised. If the Tribune suits actually let their publishers care about journalism, profit margins might drop below 25 percent.

 

[SF_Express]

I had high hopes on this, but I guess it wasn't very realistic, especially at the publisher (business) level. Story says Baquet will be asked to stay, but he's not going to have an ally anymore.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003221039

 

[slappy4428]

Yup, the way to stop circulation and ad revs from dropping is can the guy who stands up for the readers and the advertisers and says "We wont dilute the product any more..."
Assclowns... If that was the case, the Cubbies should have been sold in 1988

 

[slappy4428]

Shocking.

Yes, thoroughly expected

 

[JR]

Publisher of the LA Times is fired

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/business/media/06papercnd.html?hp&ex=1160107200&en=22e32d60f9e4b22c&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Sounds like Tribune Publishing is a swell place to work.

Love this:

In a memo to the staff this morning, Janet Clayton, an editor, wrote: “Sorry to tell you that we are told that Jeff Johnson is out as publisher of The Los Angeles Times.”

Editor needs an editor.

 

[EE94]

My guess is the guy knew was likely already targeted when he stood up to them. I would think it wasn't the first time he'd voiced his dissent, but previous times it would have been in a boardroom

 

[SF_Express]

Dean Baquet has told top editors he's staying, according to L.A. Observed.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

I think people of integrity have to ask themselves in these situations: "Is the paper, its employees, its readers and the business in general better off having me here or having me leave so maybe someone less principled can take my place?" It's great to take a stand, but what do you achieve if you can't be there anymore? The cuts are going to be done with you or without you. With you, they are done by someone who knows and understands the paper, staff and city; without you they are done by someone brought in from Chicago. Which is better?

 

[Sam Mills 51]

Re: Publisher of the LA Times is fired

Gee, what a surprise. He actually took a stand for journalism and the employees under his wing.

We kind of knew what would happen next. I hope this guy gets a chance somewhere else.

 

[BigDog]

Re: Publisher of the LA Times is fired

Good work, d_b.ca (for those of you who missed it, JR was just being JR. Carry on.)

 

[Sam Mills 51]

Good work, d_b.ca (for those of you who missed it, JR was just being JR. Carry on.)

Is everything a fight with you? Cripes ...

 

[SF_Express]

Nikki Finke, who has alway struck me as somewhat, well, nuts, refers to Dean Baquet as "gutless" here for not quitting:

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/la-times-chaos-current-publisher-fired-tribune-toadie-hired-baquet-battling/

That gives no thought to the possibility that at least for now, he's staying to continue fighting the good fight for his staff, rather than him and three other top editors leaving (because of a "suicide pact") and then getting a complete unknown as his replacement.

 

[deportes]

i know i'm probably outing myself, but just overheard that dean's left the building, bolting to the post.

 

[SF_Express]

i know i'm probably outing myself, but just overheard that dean's left the building, bolting to the post.

Well, you give us a location, not much beyond that. It's a big place. But you're serious? That's huge news if true.

 

[Ace]

I think people of integrity have to ask themselves in these situations: "Is the paper, its employees, its readers and the business in general better off having me here or having me leave so maybe someone less principled can take my place?" It's great to take a stand, but what do you achieve if you can't be there anymore? The cuts are going to be done with you or without you. With you, they are done by someone who knows and understands the paper, staff and city; without you they are done by someone brought in from Chicago. Which is better?

Frank is right.

Sometimes you have to take a stand. Other times you do it knowing you put your head on the block and your replacement will be all about pleasing the bean counters.

 

[SF_Express]

i know i'm probably outing myself, but just overheard that dean's left the building, bolting to the post.

A Times friend of mine just e-mailed me to say that as of an hour ago, this was definitely NOT the case.

Gittery times, man, even anonymously, be careful what you're posting here.

And if it turns out to be true, apologies. But doesn't sound like it...

 

[Gold]

I think people of integrity have to ask themselves in these situations: "Is the paper, its employees, its readers and the business in general better off having me here or having me leave so maybe someone less principled can take my place?" It's great to take a stand, but what do you achieve if you can't be there anymore? The cuts are going to be done with you or without you. With you, they are done by someone who knows and understands the paper, staff and city; without you they are done by someone brought in from Chicago. Which is better?

Interesting, and you have a legitimate point.

However, if you are in that position, at what point do you say "I can't be a part of this. Because of this circumstance, I can't be a leader in the newsroom."

I don't know the answer, but what effect can Baquet have now? It sounds like a lose-lose situation.

 

[sartrean]

I can't believe some of the responses on this thread. Not singling anyone out, but what the **** do you guys think? It isn't about news, it's about making a ****ing dollar. It hasn't changed any from last year, five years ago, 10 years ago, 50 years ago...

Money makes the world go round and everything else, values, integrity, ethics, takes a backseat.

I see why the guy stood up. If I were in that situation, I'd make those money-grubbing ****ers fire me first, so I wouldn't be the one firing a bunch of other helpless suckers. I mean, there ain't no friggin altruism involved in the guy's decision. His "stand" was probably "gutlessness."

 

[awriter]

I think people of integrity have to ask themselves in these situations: "Is the paper, its employees, its readers and the business in general better off having me here or having me leave so maybe someone less principled can take my place?" It's great to take a stand, but what do you achieve if you can't be there anymore? The cuts are going to be done with you or without you. With you, they are done by someone who knows and understands the paper, staff and city; without you they are done by someone brought in from Chicago. Which is better?

I may be wrong, but I think he oversaw a few rounds of cuts and finally reached a breaking point. So it's not like he snapped the minute the company asked him to scale back.

 

[Editude]

When Johnson arrived, he was thought of as a Tribune lackey and became an ally to the newsroom. Baquet needed (needs) to balance what he could accomplish under another bean counter with taking an ambiguous stand, and the choice (for now) seems to be to keep fighting the Times-still-matters fight. I did hear, though, that the new publisher met with some tough talk among the top managers.