Comments on: L.A. Weekly Editor Gone Now *Updated

By: Terry McCarty

Terry McCarty — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 05:42:38 +0000

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.

By: Emily Henry

Emily Henry — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:17:49 +0000

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!]

By: Marc Cooper

Marc Cooper — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 06:10:28 +0000

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

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

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:12:54 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: bunkerbuster

bunkerbuster — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 00:59:27 +0000

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.

By: zzyzx

zzyzx — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 17:18:48 +0000

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.

By: dogtown

dogtown — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:57:12 +0000

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.

By: Bob G

Bob G — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 08:18:27 +0000

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.

By: bunkerbuster

bunkerbuster — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 05:38:40 +0000

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.

By: bunkerbuster

bunkerbuster — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 05:36:40 +0000

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…

By: dogtown

dogtown — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 03:17:21 +0000

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.

By: zzyzx

zzyzx — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 19:58:21 +0000

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.

By: bunkerbuster

bunkerbuster — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 06:41:30 +0000

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.

By: Danielle Steel

Danielle Steel — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 04:04:18 +0000

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.

By: bunkerbuster

bunkerbuster — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:18:48 +0000

Marc, Get a wittier insult.

By: Marney 0

Marney 0 — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 05:13:32 +0000

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,

By: Larry C

Larry C — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 04:20:03 +0000

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.

By: Marc Cooper

Marc Cooper — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 02:42:36 +0000

Bunkerbuster: Get a life, soon.

By: Thirdcharmer

Thirdcharmer — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 00:34:19 +0000

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……

By: bunkerbuster

bunkerbuster — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 23:47:17 +0000

Marc:
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?
How?

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…