Boot Drop At L.A. Times
The expected boot-sized shoe has just dropped over at the L.A. Times. I can hear the thud out here in the San Fernando Valley 30 miles away. The paper is cutting 85 newsroom jobs. The official word is take a buy-out offer in the next ten days or risk getting laid off.
Pity poor Dean Baquet – the earnest, new editor-in-chief. A man surely committed to excellent news coverage. But promoted just in time to manage a massacre of his own staff.
Baquet’s trying to put the best face on it. His grim memo announcing the editorial slash says: “Despite these cuts, nothing will keep us from chasing the biggest stories.” Nothing except 85 reporters, editors and researchers fewer than the Times has this week.
Look out now for a continuing vicious cycle. Circulation decline—drop in ad revenue—editorial cuts—decline in quality—more circulation fall-off.
Meanwhile, in some short time frame the merger of the New Times and the L.A. Weekly will be formally consumated. Ever hear of a merger that didn’t include job cuts?
November 16th, 2005 at 3:14 pm
Could the L.A. Times be positioning itself to becoming part of Open Source Media?
See. I’ve been saying that the Times is simply cutting costs. It’s all business.
It’s like a lot of successful businesses that turn out quality products and then they start using plastic instead of metal and pretty soon the product is as sorry as it can get. Then, the Asian countries take their slave labor to turn out the same junk for less. In either case, people still buy it. So what if they sell 20% less. They cut costs by 50%. Profits go up! I wouldn’t be surprised if the Times didn’t out-source its reporting to a bunch of Chinese–or illegal Mexicans. The fact that Marc is still writing for them indicates that he’s being underpaid. It’s probably not a good time to go in and demand a raise.
Here’s a serious question…. Does the paper have any union problems that it’s trying to solve with these terminations?
November 16th, 2005 at 3:18 pm
Ever try to use a new can opener these days? Hint: they need to be stronger than a can. Anyone who’s attuned to the newspaper biz these days knows that cirucaltion and cutbacks for reporters have been the trend for the last ten years or so.
You’d know that if you tried to get a job as a reporter all too well.
November 16th, 2005 at 3:31 pm
Unions, Woody? What union? The LATimes editorial side is non-union. Get out ur history book and look at the great 1905 (1910?) bombing at LA Times. That killed off the union — so to speak.
November 16th, 2005 at 4:53 pm
I had never heard anything about the bombing of the LA Times. I looked it up and…
this history lesson follows:
———-
On October 1, 1910, in the middle of a strike called to unionize the metal trades of the city, the Times building was dynamited. …There was a loss of life of at least 20, and about the same number were injured, some of them permanently. In an unusual move the mayor hired a private investigator who was able to implicate a number of men in the bombing. These included Ortie McManigal, James B. McNamara, and his brother John J. McNamara (secretary-treasurer of the International Union of Bridge and Structural Iron Workers). McManigal agreed to testify against the McNamara brothers. Organized labor, in turn, saw this as an all-out attack on the unions and labor in general. http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/100110_LATimesFire/100110_TheLosAngelesTimesFire_usc-edu.htm
—–
Eighty-seven labor union bombings of non-unionized construction projects and businesses were recorded between 1906 and 1911. The Los Angeles Times and its owner and publisher, Harrison Gray Otis, were outspoken opponents of the labor movement and the closed shop. The Los Angeles Times downtown plant was bombed early in the morning of October 1, 1910, murdering 20 people. http://www.fraudfactor.com/ffunionfraud001.html
—–
Another bomb exploded in the home of Harrison Gary Otis, the owner of the Los Angeles Times, and a third bomb was found at the home of the secretary of the Merchants and Manufacturers Association. The third bomb was made safe and the police were able to trace the dynamite to James B. McNamara, of the Typographical Union, and the brother of Joseph J. McNamara, the secretary-treasurer of the International Union of Bridge and Structural Workers.
The two brothers were arrested and charged with murdering the twenty-one workers at the Los Angeles Times. Some believed that it was another attempt to damage the reputation of the emerging trade union movement. Charles Darrow, who had successfully defended, William Hayward, the leader of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), when he had been falsely charged with the murder of Frank R. Steunenberg, in 1906, was employed by Samuel Grompers, head of the American Federation of Labor, to defend the McNamara brothers.
Although many trade unionists believed the brothers had been framed, Charles Darrow discovered that the police had a considerable amount of evidence against the men. Darrow became convinced that the men would be found guilty and would probably be executed. After much discussion, the brothers agreed to admit their guilt in exchange for a prison sentence. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USACbombing.htm
———-
Well, this was 95 years ago. But, it sure spells out the labor attitudes of the paper and why unions may not have thrived there.
One point that isn’t clear is why did the bombing occur?
(A) The unions try to make it look as if the paper did them to frame the unions.
(B) The paper said that the unions did it to attack the paper for its stance.
(C) But, then I noted that the bombers were from a different union than that of the workers killed, so was this as much a feud between unions?
While the paper and unions had violent disagreements, I think the least likely of the scenarios is that the paper bombed itself–especially, since another union’s officers were caught and convicted.
Maybe it was the union itself that was responsible for the bombings, the deaths, and killing chances of representation with the paper because the union chose violence as its tool.
In any event, I’m very sorry for the people today who have lost their jobs because of the paper’s problems.
======
Footnote: My mom’s master’s thesis was on Bill Haywood–not too nice of a labor leader himself and also charged with (and beating the charge of) murdering former Idaho governor and strike breaker Frank R. Steunenberg.
======
November 16th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Wow. Terrible for Los Angeles (at least in the short term). I read your headline and hoped that the Boot was named Max. Alas.
November 16th, 2005 at 5:22 pm
That’s a wonderful trip back to the early progressive era. Businesses have always been against unions, but I don’t know of any in editorial divisions either. Now the printers are another matter. The printing and truck loading workers was what this little history lesson was about. This has nothing to do with union labor in any way, so this lede is an irrelevant conclusion. A paper’s support for unions is another matter.
November 16th, 2005 at 5:32 pm
That’s CLARENCE Darrow Woody and he was charged with Jury Tampering. He was defended by Earl Rogers, the great LA defense lawyer who invented the “Temporary Insanity” Defense when he defended Col Griffith J Griffith. Darrow was aquited. Later Rogers told his daughter, Adela Rogers St John, that Darrow was guilty. St, John, by the way, went on to be one of Willie Hearst’s top reporters - a model for the Rosalind Russell character in HIS GIRL FRIDAY. And Jerry Geisler, of Pantages, Flynn, and the Lana Turner/Cheryl Crain cases, started in Rogers’ office as a law clerk. Met him once, a very affable midwesterner who was the antithesis of the sharp, Hollywood, lawyer. That’s why “Get me Geisler!” was the cry of every Hollywood bigwig who ever got in trouble.
November 16th, 2005 at 6:53 pm
Dreadful news about the Times. Are they in some competition to ‘dumb-down’ a la the Daily News?
November 16th, 2005 at 7:39 pm
And with the shoe soon to drop at the WEEKLY where do we go? In New York the NYT does have the POST and NEWSDAY and the NEWS to keep them honest as well as the WSJ and WaPo. And the OBSERVER competes with the VILLAGE VOICE. But now the nation’s number two city is reduced to a provincal backwater. Hell, Philadelphia and Miami both have better sheets - oh wait, that’s right, Knight-Ridder is cutting back too. Guess American Journalism is in a real slump these days. Any clues on fixing it? No I didn’t think so.
November 16th, 2005 at 8:29 pm
Geez, I went to school recently with a current Daily News part time writer. She was so young and already completed jaded and droned out.
November 16th, 2005 at 9:42 pm
Deeply depressing news. Have been doing my best to ignore it all day.
(But at least Mavis made me laugh with the “boot” joke.)
November 17th, 2005 at 12:26 am
Did you expect anything else to happen? This has been the trend for a long time - where is Jimmy Hoffa when you need him?
Thugs reside in suits as well as in back alleys. What do you think they faced in the early unions? Why did they turn to certain sources? Now there is nothing left, and the bastards with the bucks will run over everyone with a steam roller! With both the blessing of the law, legislation, and unbridled authority - just like they bomb the hell out of other countries with impunity. When you have no press you have no representation for the people, you have no truth.
Why don’t you display the current ugly twin in the televised media? PBS, which was always somewhat compromised but is now not worth dick - not to mention almost any major media source. Media in this country does not have a track record of thinking out of the box anyhow, so there is no great loss - now there is blatant exposure in the place of subtle activity.
This government, coupled with corporate interest in bed with the current media sources is like an incestuous relationship - it will produce nothing but severely retarded offspring! But what the hell do I know, I am just a riotous radical. Some may retort “it’s just business as usual, why the alarm?” Because it is business as usual.
November 17th, 2005 at 7:47 am
Virgil, sometimes business as usual is nothing more than achieving a sufficient return on investment so that shareholders will fund the business. Without the returns and without the shareholders there is no business and there are no jobs–period. Perhaps cutting these jobs saved the rest. If the Times did nothing, try to project where it would be in five years. Probably closed.
What choices did they have? Would you and everyone else be willing to pay twice the newstand price? Should advertisers be concerned with editorials when they just want people to read their ads and have other choices for their ad money? Do you cut the size of the daily paper? Do the employees take across the board cuts to save the jobs of others? Finally, do you think that management wanted to do this?
(Honestly, as I extend my thoughts, this is simply liberals wanting something but wanting someone else to pay for it. “We want OUR editorial board and all our reporters, but we want YOU to pay for that with your money and losses. It’s the same pattern as in many areas.)
Everyone’s complaining. Put yourself in the shoes of the owners. Pretend that you’re the Times management for one day but you have to live with the consequences of your decisions for years. Your decisions affect the lives of many others. What do YOU do?
I’m not an expert on the newspaper industry, but we may be witnessing something similar to that of buggy whip manufacturers. Either adapt to changes or go out of business. This is likely what people should be addressing if they want to save the jobs of those who are left.
—–
rlc, I know that it’s Clarence and not Charles. I did a quick cut-and-paste without making corrections or indicating errors with sic. But, I’m glad that you pointed it out to avoid any confusion.
November 17th, 2005 at 9:24 am
Anyone else read Jonah Goldberg’s inagural column this morning? Boy he sure set me straight. The Bush/Chaney deceit. if any. over Iraq was justified since it was in a noble cause: ridding the world of Saddam and spreading the benefits of democracy to the Middle East. Now, aren’t you glad that they replaced Robert Scheer for this?
November 17th, 2005 at 7:05 pm
I thought “Boot dropping” meant booting Boot, too — glad they added Jonah. Kind of good to see how FDR “promised” to keep America out of the war … but “lied” / broke his promise.
“Any clues on fixing it?”
How to fix a Newspaper? On sheet “hardball” Cross-Fire: write up the debates in black and white. Have Leftists write their best anti-Rep stuff/ pro-, um, er, what is it they favor (”no genocide”, whether folks are dying or not) while some Reps write their best defense.
Argue, in print, with each other.
The NYT should hire Donald Luskin and publish his Krugman critiques right next Paul K.
November 17th, 2005 at 9:10 pm
TG: Kind of good to see how FDR “promised†to keep America out of the war … but “lied†/ broke his promise.
That’s truly a stupid comment…please refrain from such pathetic crap. Do you have some twisted need to be pissed on and dismissed as a total idiot ????
November 20th, 2005 at 7:55 am
LOL, it’s called Left wing Rags that provide no viable service!! Hell, a comic book is much better!
Free Enterprise, Ain’t it GREAT!!:)
July 25th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Ein Schloss, Ein poker Wurst, Ein Kopf !qjv