As Mr. Friedlich noted, excellent and very well reported, without plunging into journalism-tribe wonk. I've enjoyed how your writing style has maintained its confidence while becoming more conversational - which helps it reach across our own echo chamber. I would love to see more discussion and acknowledgment of this point on a broader scale: "I do think we all need to be less credulous, and more attentive, when people offer themselves up in the role of savior." I am weary of talk of saviors. Our industry - in all of its flawed and beautiful forms - is riddled with such talk, with (forgive me) every generation throwing another hero up the pop chart. Billionaire owners are saviors. Going nonprofit is a savior. Content marketing is a savior. "What's our OTT strategy?" is a savior. I don't believe in saviors in general and especially not when it comes to journalism. Instead - and this will show my Midwestern bias - I prefer people, strategies and efforts that work the problem. And I believe talk of saviors is shorthand for shrugging personal responsibility that these problems are ours to be worked, not rescued.
Excellent, instructive and well-reported: “What happened in LA…is not so much a refutation of the notion that rich people can save important publications as a reminder that it matters which rich people are involved.” I would add Philadelphia to your list of cities where wealthy owners have stepped in very much for the good.
Fascinating. Thanks- this is a great read. Cloud computing, AI etc — much like blockchain- are solutions to problems journalism doesn’t face. Oh well! I’d be excited to see the new Journo models you mention might hopefully emerge now. Great piece
Dick, your three points are spot on. There are two others.
First, as many people working there now - as I did for 12 years in the 70s and 80s - have pointed out there's never been a strategic plan. Everything is ad hoc.
Second, except for real estate and entertainment, the paper is pretty much devoid of ads. I read the e-replica. On many days the front section has virtually no advertising, a complete reversal from the late 20th Century when weekday papers would run 144 pages and the just the Sunday classifieds, where the big profits are, would run 100 pages.
There are far more column inches of advertising in my local Gannett daily, than in the LA Times, or for that matter, the San Jose Mercury, or the San Francisco Chronicle, or the Sacramento Bee, at least, in the main news sections.
The number one need to support a vibrant news staff is advertising revenue.
I don't see any sign of a serious plan to increase display advertising, and if possible, bring back some classifieds.
Well said, thank you. If as a retired Times man I can add anything it is that the newsroom itself has a role in this decline. The Times these days is too left-leaning even for many of its liberal Democratic readers. Staff members who signed the pro-Hamas letter two months ago would have been fired two decades ago. They were instead slapped on the wrist--and long-time readers canceled in droves. (Merida had encouraged activism by reporters, saying it was possible to be both a journalist and an activist on issues. Not in any newsroom in my 44 years of journalism.) The news columns have too many columnists who seem to specialize in lecturing rather than listening. The ultra-liberal West Side of Los Angeles grew fed up with homeless encampments four years ago, drove out a progressive city council member in favor of someone who promised to curb the problem. Yet with rare exception, the Times still doesn't write about the plight of the homeowners and renters who had to live with these dangerous and unhealthy encampments. Instead, the coverage day after week after year was about the plight of the homeless. We all sympathize with it. But the solution isn't simply more sympathy. So yes, ownership is an issue. But it is not the only one.
Yeah, ownership failure. The people who can build Amazon, Saleaforce, and other wildly successful companies can’t overcome the fact that news is toast because it’s lost its intersectionality with ads.
Reporters should thank the rich owners who prop so much unwanted stuff.
OY!! This makes this LA native sad. I remember in 2008 when my parents finally stopped subscribing to the LA times and then resubscribed when they began staffing up again. Now they're annoyed by the drama! Interesting to see how the internal dynamics of a big local paper and how it's perceived publicly influences buying patterns of readers.
Thanks for this, and for mentioning John Carroll. You might be interested in a good tale about journalism—a biography of John’s father, Wallace Carroll, also among the best in the field. The book is Century’s Witness, the Extraordinary Life of Journalist Wallace Carroll. You left out Norm Pearlstine in your story about the LA Times; another who worked to make the paper noteworthy. Cheers.
As Mr. Friedlich noted, excellent and very well reported, without plunging into journalism-tribe wonk. I've enjoyed how your writing style has maintained its confidence while becoming more conversational - which helps it reach across our own echo chamber. I would love to see more discussion and acknowledgment of this point on a broader scale: "I do think we all need to be less credulous, and more attentive, when people offer themselves up in the role of savior." I am weary of talk of saviors. Our industry - in all of its flawed and beautiful forms - is riddled with such talk, with (forgive me) every generation throwing another hero up the pop chart. Billionaire owners are saviors. Going nonprofit is a savior. Content marketing is a savior. "What's our OTT strategy?" is a savior. I don't believe in saviors in general and especially not when it comes to journalism. Instead - and this will show my Midwestern bias - I prefer people, strategies and efforts that work the problem. And I believe talk of saviors is shorthand for shrugging personal responsibility that these problems are ours to be worked, not rescued.
Excellent, instructive and well-reported: “What happened in LA…is not so much a refutation of the notion that rich people can save important publications as a reminder that it matters which rich people are involved.” I would add Philadelphia to your list of cities where wealthy owners have stepped in very much for the good.
Terrific column, Dick!
Brilliant graphic.
And true, we would all like to know a bit less.
Fascinating. Thanks- this is a great read. Cloud computing, AI etc — much like blockchain- are solutions to problems journalism doesn’t face. Oh well! I’d be excited to see the new Journo models you mention might hopefully emerge now. Great piece
Dick, your three points are spot on. There are two others.
First, as many people working there now - as I did for 12 years in the 70s and 80s - have pointed out there's never been a strategic plan. Everything is ad hoc.
Second, except for real estate and entertainment, the paper is pretty much devoid of ads. I read the e-replica. On many days the front section has virtually no advertising, a complete reversal from the late 20th Century when weekday papers would run 144 pages and the just the Sunday classifieds, where the big profits are, would run 100 pages.
There are far more column inches of advertising in my local Gannett daily, than in the LA Times, or for that matter, the San Jose Mercury, or the San Francisco Chronicle, or the Sacramento Bee, at least, in the main news sections.
The number one need to support a vibrant news staff is advertising revenue.
I don't see any sign of a serious plan to increase display advertising, and if possible, bring back some classifieds.
Well said, thank you. If as a retired Times man I can add anything it is that the newsroom itself has a role in this decline. The Times these days is too left-leaning even for many of its liberal Democratic readers. Staff members who signed the pro-Hamas letter two months ago would have been fired two decades ago. They were instead slapped on the wrist--and long-time readers canceled in droves. (Merida had encouraged activism by reporters, saying it was possible to be both a journalist and an activist on issues. Not in any newsroom in my 44 years of journalism.) The news columns have too many columnists who seem to specialize in lecturing rather than listening. The ultra-liberal West Side of Los Angeles grew fed up with homeless encampments four years ago, drove out a progressive city council member in favor of someone who promised to curb the problem. Yet with rare exception, the Times still doesn't write about the plight of the homeowners and renters who had to live with these dangerous and unhealthy encampments. Instead, the coverage day after week after year was about the plight of the homeless. We all sympathize with it. But the solution isn't simply more sympathy. So yes, ownership is an issue. But it is not the only one.
Yeah, ownership failure. The people who can build Amazon, Saleaforce, and other wildly successful companies can’t overcome the fact that news is toast because it’s lost its intersectionality with ads.
Reporters should thank the rich owners who prop so much unwanted stuff.
OY!! This makes this LA native sad. I remember in 2008 when my parents finally stopped subscribing to the LA times and then resubscribed when they began staffing up again. Now they're annoyed by the drama! Interesting to see how the internal dynamics of a big local paper and how it's perceived publicly influences buying patterns of readers.
Thanks for this, and for mentioning John Carroll. You might be interested in a good tale about journalism—a biography of John’s father, Wallace Carroll, also among the best in the field. The book is Century’s Witness, the Extraordinary Life of Journalist Wallace Carroll. You left out Norm Pearlstine in your story about the LA Times; another who worked to make the paper noteworthy. Cheers.
Terrific column, Dick! Depressing situation in my home state.