Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Dragon: 2 ... Saint George: 0

Back in September (the 22nd if you're curious) I did a couple of newspaper article posts dealing with the situation at the Los Angeles Times. The publisher and editor of the Times were standing up to TPTB (in this case the paper's Chicago-based owner The Tribune Co.). The fight was about significant job cuts that Tribune was insisting be made; the publisher, Jeffrey M. Johnson, and the editor, Dean Baquet, both opposed the cuts, saying that they would damange the paper. The common belief in the journalism world was that neither Johnson nor Baquet would survive. Well, as the subject line might have already told you, common wisdom was right. Johnson was replaced last month, and Baquet's last day at the paper is tomorrow. Right now Tribune Co. is saying that any job cuts at the Times will come from attrition, but I don't think anyone really believes that. The word on the street is that the cuts (probably primarily in the areas of national and foreign news coverage) are just being delayed. So, if you're an L.A. Times reader interested in something other than state and local news, a good paper is likely to become less good, and you'll have to find other sources for your news. If you don't care what's going on in other parts of the country, to say nothing of all those foreign places with the strange-sounding names, then I guess you shrug your shoulders and don't see what all the fuss is about, and you renew your subscription. Because a newspaper that cuts expenses and saves money without impacting those all-important sports and entertainment stories must be a well-run paper, right?


Nov. 10th, 2006 12:08 am (UTC)
That's terrible news. It seems very convenient that there will be less coverage of national and foreign news - I think that you're less likely to challenge the status quo when you don't know what's happening.

At least people will still be able to read all about Pierce Brosnan protesting against oil refineries in the ocean in front of his house or whatever he's doing. -_-;;
Nov. 10th, 2006 11:42 am (UTC)
Well, this is the land of the film industry, remember, and we're all a little narcissistic. And since we go our own way politically, with the rest of the nation following us rather than Washington on a lot of things (car emission standards, stem cell research, the computer industry, etc.), I guess the thought is that news about what's going on in other parts of the country is less important than what's going on in our state. After all, we've even got a Republican governor who avoids Bush like the plague whenever he can. (And he's foreign-born, an actor, and married to a woman from the Kennedy clan to boot.)

As to foreign news coverage, perhaps the idea is just to realign it to be more in sync with our concerns as the 9th largest economy in the world (I think that's still how California ranks). Less interest in Europe and Russia and the Mideast, and more focus on Asia and Latin America.

Hey, don't knock the anti-drilling people. Nobody here wants offshore drilling, and it's out of environmental concerns, not because drilling platforms would spoil our ocean views.
Nov. 11th, 2006 09:04 am (UTC)
Gosh, I'm not criticising people who don't want offshore drilling. My knowledge is meagre in this particular situation, but it doesn't sound like an environmentally friendly plan. I'm more concerned that political causes often don't appeal to the mainstream media unless it's endorsed by a celebrity (in particular I'm thinking about Bono and Bob Geldof at the G8, ColdPlay and Colin Firth about FairTrade).

I've heard sixth largest economy. ;)