marccooper.comAbout MarcContactMarc's Video Blogs


The editor BUY CLOXAZOLAM NO PRESCRIPTION, former editor of L.A. CLOXAZOLAM images, Weekly, Laurie Ochoa, cheap CLOXAZOLAM no rx, Buy cheap CLOXAZOLAM no rx, took over the paper in 2001 voicing her dream of turning America's largest metro weekly into "a New Yorker." She leaves today with the Weekly reduced to little more than a Pennyshopper.

[caption id="attachment_2734" align="alignleft" width="200" caption="Ochoa and Gold Toasting His Pulitzer"]Ochoa and Gold Toasting His Pulitzer[/caption]

The official statement from "corporate" is that she and the paper will now "part ways."

It's rather obvious that Laurie was pushed out by chain owner Mike Lacey who showed up in the office today, CLOXAZOLAM duration, CLOXAZOLAM reviews, took her to lunch and returned to tell an editors' meeting that Laurie is gone now. (Hat tip to Goodfellas), fast shipping CLOXAZOLAM. CLOXAZOLAM cost, The miracle is that she lasted the nearly four years since the Weekly was taken over by the New Times chain which since changed its name to Village Voice Media.  It's been pretty nuch a non-stop massacre of the paper ever since  the "merger" (I was cut in November, thank God and wrote this lengthy obituary for a paper that was no longer), CLOXAZOLAM interactions.

A lot of us scratched our heads for a couple of years wondering why they hadn't axed Ochoa, BUY CLOXAZOLAM NO PRESCRIPTION. Buy cheap CLOXAZOLAM, Whenever you catch Lacey in a sober moment, you might ask him, buy generic CLOXAZOLAM. CLOXAZOLAM without prescription, My theory is rather simple: the L.A. Weekly was the one property that had the potential to rebel against Lacey's takeover, comprar en línea CLOXAZOLAM, comprar CLOXAZOLAM baratos. Purchase CLOXAZOLAM, Laurie, to her credit, CLOXAZOLAM coupon, CLOXAZOLAM samples, tried to protect as many people as she could from the constant downsizing and trashing of the product.  To accomplish that end, she avoided any open conflict with her bosses, where can i buy cheapest CLOXAZOLAM online. BUY CLOXAZOLAM NO PRESCRIPTION, This was, of course, a double-edged sword. CLOXAZOLAM price, coupon, Ochoa's effort to salvage what she could from the fiasco also allowed her to keep the peace for the company while the paper continued to make money for the chain. But now with profits down and virtually everyone from the Old Guard axed out of the paper, CLOXAZOLAM photos, Where can i find CLOXAZOLAM online, Ochoa's time (and serviceability) had expired.

Her exit pretty much forecloses any possibility of anybody "slipping in" any truly worthy copy into the Weekly, CLOXAZOLAM dosage. CLOXAZOLAM recreational, The search for her replacement is now supposedly open, but everyone knows that real power at the Weekly is now in the hands of the dubious Jill Stewart (about whose egregious non-talents you can read in my obit linked above).  The paper is merely a wrapper, CLOXAZOLAM images, Cheap CLOXAZOLAM, patiently awaiting its final edition (which can't be more than a year or two from now -- on the outside).

Ochoa is a friend, BUY CLOXAZOLAM NO PRESCRIPTION. She's a fine and compassionate and wholly decent person with a great passion for good writing and she richly deserves this liberation from New Times Hell, CLOXAZOLAM from canadian pharmacy. CLOXAZOLAM dangers, She will be fine. The city will be a little worse off, doses CLOXAZOLAM work. Online buying CLOXAZOLAM, What does continue to amaze if not slightly nauseate me is the continuing silence of the L.A. Times BUY CLOXAZOLAM NO PRESCRIPTION, on the slow and marked decline, and effective death, of L.A. Weekly.  Media writer James Rainey has not touched the subject even though there has been one upheaval after another at the Weekly for the last 4 years.  I have constantly prodded him to do no avail, online buying CLOXAZOLAM hcl. CLOXAZOLAM treatment, And while he has publicly twisted his knickers several times over the future of print journalism, it doesn't seem to occur to him that the Weekly just might have something to do with that subject!  As late as last Friday, CLOXAZOLAM photos, just hours after the top editor and the top three writers of Los Angeles Magazine had "parted ways" with their own respective management, Rainey published a school--marmish rule book on when it's OK (with him) for media to out gay politicians (yawn).

So with the two most important outlets for L.A. writers and journalists (beyond the LATimes) decapitated in the same week, does anyone want to bet that the Times will get around to noting any of this?  Maybe it will. But talk about late to the party!  If the Times had given any sort of fair report to the butchering going down at the Weekly, it might have roused some public pushback against VVM managment, BUY CLOXAZOLAM NO PRESCRIPTION. But that's if you believe the Times had any interest in helping to secure the life of any print pubnlication except its wilting self.

Good luck, Laurie. And congrats on being sprung from that hell hole. Anything will be better,

P.S. BUY CLOXAZOLAM NO PRESCRIPTION, The only suspense left in the Weekly story (apart from its final pub date) is the fate of Ochoa's husband, Pulitzer-Prize winning food writer Jonathan Gold. There's been some speculation that Jonathan is headed for the NYTimes but without any confimation. There's always been those who thought that Lacey kept Ochoa around, precisely, to retain Gold on staff.  But I don't think so. Because I don't think that Lacey's crew gives a damn about anybody -- Pulitzers or otherwise.

P.P.S.  There's one more dangling piece of suspense I forgot to mention. Namely, what will Jill Stewart's NEXT job be after the Weekly formally folds, BUY CLOXAZOLAM NO PRESCRIPTION. A betting pool anybody. Here's the earlu line direct from the Palms Sports Book:

1) a corproate henchman for the company, flying from state to state to terrorize the newbie hires replcing the revilved Christine Brennan. Odds 6 to 5.

2) A hired flack for some sad sack local reactionary pol...Dennis Zine. Odds 2 to 1.

[caption id="attachment_2737" align="alignleft" width="140" caption="Jil Stewart Pseudo Editor"]Jil Stewart Pseudo Editor[/caption]

3) A bag lady   4 to 1

4) A regularly published columnist and journalist   175 to 1.



  1. Insider Says:

    I had heard that one of the primary reasons they didn’t oust her sooner was because of Jonathan Gold–that they didn’t want to lose their golden goose–and without her, he’d surely follow. I also think that maybe it’s just that Lacey was too drunk to get around to it.

  2. Geoff Schumacher Says:

    I don’t pretend to know what’s happening at L.A. Weekly, but it’s interesting, I think, that until recently, alt-weeklies generally thought they might actually benefit from the decline of the major metros. After all, they are free and their advertising rates are much cheaper. But in fact, the alts have been anything but immune from the ravages of the economic downturn and readers fleeing print for the web. It’s unfortunate, because unlike the major metros, many alt-weeklies have been innovative and provocative in recent years, as opposed to arrogantly set in the ways of the past. Readers who have become bored or turned off by the big dailies apparently aren’t turning to the free weeklies in the numbers that we hoped, or that they should. God knows what Mike Lacey thinks of all this, but rest assured he knows no secrets of success in this brutal climate.

  3. Michael Turmon Says:

    It’s clear that the good writers are leaving the Weekly. I said in an earlier thread that there’s little reason to pick it up, ever, and the reasons are getting littler by the week.

    In saying that, I was thinking about feature stories and columns. But, looking the www site over again, I recognized another aspect of this — the deterioration of the culture, arts, music, and “scene” coverage. It used to be thoughtful, and directed at stuff that matters and is interesting on a reasonably deep level. Stuff like FarmLab, Machine Project, or the Tom of Finland “museum”.

    The coverage now is just of ephemeral scenesters and club kids. A lot of it (on the web) is photos of people. It’s like they think the creative, out-of-the-mainstream cultural work going on in LA needs to be pitched to readers as some kind of joke, a krazy circus for people to gawk at.

  4. Woody Says:

    5) A host on Fox and Friends

  5. Sergio Says:

    Thsi just gets worse and worse, Marc.
    Maybe Il Duce Obama can nationalize the Weekly?

  6. bunkerbuster Says:

    Do you really need to slag Stewart like that? Makes you look so small-minded.
    Blaming VVM for destroying the paper is just dumb, when the entire industry, even the mighty NY Times that might even hire Gold, is in such deep doo doo.
    Does anyone, even you Marc, really believe that better management would have prevented the cratering of ad revenue?

    Thought so. You’re ready to slag those who try, but no ideas on how to do it better, other than demanding that no one dare steer the Titanic in another direction…

  7. Thirdcharmer Says:

    Strange day, Cooper and I on the same page: slag away.

    That said, the Weekly is somewhat better than he says. It’s all features (middle to lightweight) now, with zero sense of the community the Weekly once had. But not bad killing- time- on- the-bus fare.

    So where is Soros or some liberal sugar daddy who can see that the old style Weekly, done well, would be a money maker in a city like L.A.? You know, that’s a city thats kinda LIBERAL……

  8. Marc Cooper Says:

    Bunkerbuster: Get a life, soon.

  9. Larry C Says:

    Here’s my theory: Jonathan God, I mean Gold, was hired to replace Bruni at NY Times. So then Laurie Ochoa broke the news to her boss, who replied, “We don’t need you anymore.” Buh buy.

  10. Marney 0 Says:

    Up here in Heaven we all pray that Bruce Brugmann will soon collect his well-earned $16 million from Lacey’s pink, pickled hide and drive him out of business permanently. After New Times killed me, I decided to write a bit of bile sometimes so that you absinthe-swilling, misogynist fucks know I am watching. Fortunately, when your livers give out, you NewTimers will be inhabiting the Other Place, you know, the hot room where you will be forced to recite a Jill Stewart or Rick Barrs column over and over and over–for eternity.

    Kiss off,


  11. bunkerbuster Says:

    Marc, Get a wittier insult.

  12. Danielle Steel Says:

    So Michael Lacey’s not responsible for the “the cratering of ad revenue,” but he is responsible for the terrible decline at LA Weekly. The Village Voice needed help, but Lacey’s made that worse, too. He’s almost as bad as that douchebag who screwed up the Chicago Reader and Washington City Paper. If you want to be profitable, you can’t get there from here.

  13. bunkerbuster Says:

    If you’ve got good ad revenue, it doesn’t take much to keep a great newspaper good. If you don’t have the revenue, it’s virtually impossible to do that, no matter who you are.

  14. zzyzx Says:

    Lacey, or more likely his minions, are pretty damned responsible for the cratering of ad revenue. When you fire or lay off the writers and editors who know how Los Angeles breathes; when you cut the promotions budget to zero, when you seed the ranks with drones prized more for their word-counts than for their ability to actually say anything; when you cancel TV coverage, fire film writers and fire the drama critic in a town dominated by the industry; when the last person who knows how to report a news story or suss out the alliances in local politics is gone, what else is there? Some of the ad revenue is gone with the recession – the ads for downtown condos, most of the plastic surgery, most of the banks – but the vast bulk of it depends on buzz. Which the NT people couldn’t find if it were the last bottle of Early Times in Mike Lacey’s desk.

  15. dogtown Says:

    how come “God” Jonathan Gold didn’t put his considerable foot down over Jill Stewart’s appointment? with his clout, he could have forced her out. For that matter, how come Laurie Ochoa and Marc Cooper stayed on as long as they did and did what they were told to do? when do all the people that sold out at the LA Weekly get the blame? it wasn’t just Lacey who sold out at the LA Weekly.

  16. bunkerbuster Says:

    It has always been a one-way street for Marc.
    He rails against publishers who lack loyalty to veteran writers. Then he brags about how he happily deployed his talents at other better-paying publications after making his name at the L.A. Weekly.

    Z: don’t kid yourself. If ad revenue relied on “Buzz” as you say, surely there would be some newspapers capable of capturing it. But there just ain’t. The data are in, ad revenue is way down across the board at all newspapers.
    it’s the recession and the internet.

    Not saying VVM is great, or even competent, just pointing out that Marc, and Ochoa and Gold, etc. were happy to collect their paycheck and sit back while the LAW failed. Good for them. I’m sure they have lives outside their work, just as the VVM people do, and their agreement was to edit the paper, not keep it alive.

    But Marc’s unwillingness to accept that his own disloyalty might have contributed to any decline in overall talent at the paper and his haste to condemn fellow journalists like Steward is just sad…

  17. bunkerbuster Says:

    and without taking so much as a crumb away from Gold, it is worth recalling that he writes about sandwiches for a living.
    Absolutely nothing wrong with that, but it does tell you how seriously to take any LAW claims to playing an essential journalist role in the community.

  18. Bob G Says:

    Stewart is kind of a parody of journalism. She hired herself out to KFI to host the radio marathon dedicated to recalling Gov Gray Davis (“Total Recall”) — you can agree with her position or not, but it was a totally partisan act on her part, without resort to anything approaching objectivity. Joining with talk radio in a political stunt does cross several lines. Her writings in the old New TImes Los Angeles looked like they were meant to be outrageous, but I can’t for the life of me remember anything she ever said other than her diatribes against Gray Davis. Mainly what she communicated was a lot of malice.

  19. dogtown Says:

    Stewart should have been (should be) hanged!

    so why did all these liberals sit back and do nothing while Stewart destroyed their paper? not only sit back, participate.

  20. zzyzx Says:

    If you dissent at a NT paper, you’re fired. Period. Lacey and minions brook no dissent. What Ochoa tried to do was put out the best paper she could with one hand tied behind her back, and to the extent possible, she succeeded. Marc’s dismissal probably was the last straw. With him gone, there was literally nobody left on the news side of the paper with either the strength or the experience to dissent from Jill’s party line.

    Ochoa could have resigned when Alan was fired or Stewart was shoved down her throat – I rather think NT was expecting her to – but it wouldn’t have slowed the paper’s strangulation even a smidgen.

  21. bunkerbuster Says:

    If the pre-VVM LAWeekly concept was viable but failing only because of mis-management, people like Ochoa or Gold or Marc could have and probably would have been able to get backing for starting a rival paper.
    The history of journalism is full of examples of individuals within one publication becoming unhappy with management then leaving to start a rival that becomes successful.
    The fact that that didn’t happen here means one or all of three things:
    1. The LAW concept just isn’t viable in today’s newspaper market.
    2. VVM isn’t the essential problem and/or isn’t as incompetent as Marc suggests.
    3. The stars/veterans of the LAW aren’t as talented and/or committed to the LAWeekly concept as Marc portrays them as being.

    If none of those were true, you can be confident there would be a rival to the LAW up and running, and winning, by now.

  22. Weinstein’s Cash Problems to Trouble “Basterds”?…And the Genesis of a “Hangover” Says:

    [...] about her in the wake of some of the mean things she’s written in her still extant column for the quickly crumbling L.A. Weekly. But the fact remains that her blog is absolutely invaluable and mostly avoids the sort of [...]

  23. Marc Cooper Says:

    Bunkerbuster… I think you should work at LA Weekly! What a great idea. Your IQ level seems to be about perfect… 98.6

  24. Emily Henry Says:

    I am genuinely mourning the LA Weekly’s decay… although I still pick it up week-to-week, it’s getting harder to find anything worth reading. A few years ago, the heartfelt journalism happening at the LA Weekly was motivation to become a reporter. Now, although Gendy Alimurung is a great writer (witty and colorful) and I have no idea how she manages to write almost everything in the entire paper… the content of the LA Weekly is just plain vapid. And Laurie’s departure is a huge blow. She’s an inspiring, smart and creative woman who always seemed open to ideas, no matter how humble their beginnings.

    [Admittedly, I don't understand the deep-seated hatred for Jill Stuart. All I can say is that, in my meager experience, she's a good editor. And I'm not sure anyone deserves being relegated to bag-lady status. You have quite a bite!]

  25. Terry McCarty Says:

    Bob G wrote:
    Her writings in the old New TImes Los Angeles looked like they were meant to be outrageous, but I can’t for the life of me remember anything she ever said other than her diatribes against Gray Davis. Mainly what she communicated was a lot of malice.

    Plus a lot of love for Richard Riordan.