Editor Baquet out*
L.A. Times Editor Dean Baquet was forced to resign last week, but the news (first broken today by the Wall Street Journal) wasn't supposed to be announced until Thursday. He'll be replaced on Monday by James O'Shea, managing editor of (none other than) the Chicago Tribune. Baquet's ouster follows that of former publisher Jeffrey Johnson, who was forced to resign last month by the Tribune Company over proposed staff cuts.
Links:
L.A. Observed
Editor & Publisher
* Update (via L.A. Observed): Excerpt from the note Hiller sent out to the staff, in which the publisher mentions differences over paper's direction with Baquet and future "levels of staffing":
When I came here four weeks ago, Dean Baquet and I agreed that we would work to get to know each other, for me to get to know the newspaper, and we would decide if we were on the same page in terms of the strategic and operating direction of the paper. After considerable discussion, we concluded that we have significant differences on future direction, and so Dean will be leaving. [...]
Part of that last point relates to levels of staffing and other resources, and how we allocate and re-allocate resources as our business changes, As I write this, I still do not have a definite view of staffing levels across the company, including in the newsroom. We are working through these issues in connection with the 2007 operating plan. I think it is very important, as I said in my note earlier, that all of these resource and staffing issues be decided within a framework of where we are leading the business for the long term.
It is also important that all of us be aligned on how we will approach these needed changes, and that we lead these changes positively and with confidence. I appreciate that not everybody will agree and choose to join in this direction, and that's ok. Smart and reasonable people can differ significantly. Everybody gets to choose whether this is a direction they can support, and do so with excellence and passion. But decide we all must, because the last thing we can stand is confusion on our mission and objectives. It's going to be hard enough as it is.
Mr. Baquet and Mr. Hiller were in preliminary discussions about staffing levels when Mr. Baquet gave a speech late last month in New Orleans in which he encouraged editors at other newspapers to "push back" more against owners who wanted to reduce the size of newsrooms.
Mr. Hiller was angered and disappointed at the New Orleans speech, according to people at the newspaper, especially as he and Mr. Baquet were trying to reach an accommodation over the budget for The Los Angeles Times.
AP:
Times spokeswoman Nancy Sullivan refused to allow an Associated Press reporter into the newsroom to hear Baquet speak, saying "it's an internal matter."
More -- Nikke Finke, Joseph Mailander, Mack Reed.
Still more -- Frequent Op-ed contributor Jaime Court and and former Editorial Board member Judy Dugan, who belong to the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, are calling for a boycott:
"Baquet was seen as the last line of defense for the newspaper's editorial integrity," said Court. "His removal is a sign that the hog butchers from Chicago will be slashing jobs in the newsroom of Los Angeles's only remaining major newspaper, even as local suitors seek to purchase the newspaper from the company at a fair price."
It's time for subscribers of the Los Angeles Times to unite and take their newspaper back, said FTCR. It asked subscribers to begin by sending a fax posted at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporate/subscriberrevolt, demanding that the Tribune either reinstate Baquet, rescind its next round of cuts and concentrate on building the newspaper's coverage; or sell it to local owners ready to pledge similar action before the end of the year. Without such changes, subscribers can threaten via the fax to cancel their subscriptions by Jan. 1. [...]
"This Election Day, readers who care about having a great Los Angeles newspaper should unelect the Tribune's management of the L.A. Times," said FTCR research director Judy Dugan, a former editorial board member of the Times. "Tribune's strategy is aimed at short-term improvement of the stock price and saving the hides of Tribune executives, not at reinforcing a great local paper."
Over at the Huffington Post, Court says "The Tribune company has pulled a page from Karl Rove's playbook."
I have been a loyal reader of the LA Times for God knows how many years. Like millions of my neighbors, reading The Times has become part of my morning ritual. That is about to change.
Like your former publisher and now your former editor, I have watched bitterly as The Tribune Company has hacked and hacked away at its editorial content. Today, I have decided I can no longer sit idly by and watch it continue. That is why I have cancelled my subscription.
Go on without me gray lady. For I fear that one day corporate hackers will hack the last drop of life right out of you and I will not watch you die, cut-by-cut, every morning on my dining room table.
From now on we will point and click to get our news and order the Sunday edition of the New York Times because we still want to be reminded what a great newspaper is really like – even if it is no longer the local one.
Posted by: John Heathcliff | November 09, 2006 at 07:09 AM
The LA Times was a premiere paper some time ago. But the loss of Ruth Riechl and Michael Ramirez [to name two] and the in house politics drove me to cancel my subscription. I get the NYT daily and am happy to pay more!
Posted by: Bev Van Citters | November 08, 2006 at 03:54 PM
I dropped my subscription to the L.A. Times when Jeff Johnson came in and started changing the editorial section to right-wing propaganda, i.e. Max Boot, Joanh Goldberg. I said I wouldn't renew until Johnson left. Well he left, but I'm still not renewing as they have replaced Johnson's right-wing bent with Rumsfeld's buddy with a neo-con bent--David Hiller. Sorry, Mr. Hiller, you ought to do what your buddy just did--- RESIGN. We want our newspaper back, not some propagand crap to support the Military-Industrial Complex and Big Business. You going to loose more than the 8% in subscriptions you recently lost.
Posted by: Hank McCann | November 08, 2006 at 11:10 AM
What a sad day for the once proud and noble Los Angeles Times.
From the very ugly USA Today type fonts and garish NY Post type headlines to the firing of a great editor, everything seems to be going bad for the LA Times.
I will say this to the greedy, clueless Chandler Family. Maybe they should learn something from their "black sheep" the Great Otis Chandler. Like taking pride in what you own. Treating the LA Times as an asset to the community not just another revenue generating device.
And as for the windbags from the windy city, i.e the Tribune Company, and their puppet editors, well..... If I printed what I thought of them, my post would get deleted.
Posted by: Edward Arrizon | November 08, 2006 at 10:44 AM
Strike the Times! Until the LAT is locally owned and operated, the only way we can effect the Tribune's decision is to boycott the paper. Loyal readers, STRIKE! Employees of the Times, STRIKE NOW! Advertisers, STRIKE THE TIMES!
ras/ Glendale
Posted by: Randall Starnes | November 08, 2006 at 09:34 AM
As a native Los Angeleno, I've read the LA times for most of my life. I'll sadly be cancelling my subscription in favor of getting the NY Times due to the Heralds obvious greed and lack of commitment to quality staffing and stories. I might return if there was a change of ownership, but as of now I'm voting with my pocketbook. Good luck to all the current staffers. The irony is that the Herald's actions will merely encourage people to find their news elsewhere online...
Posted by: Mario Noble | November 08, 2006 at 09:09 AM
A dark day for Los Angeles, and another example of greed trumping the common good.
Posted by: Eric Klusman | November 08, 2006 at 08:17 AM
Like it or not, and even if it's been coasting too long on its reputation, the LA Times is the best newspaper west of Chicago. The Tribune's horizon extends only as far as Chicago; they must think guacamole tastes like kielbasi. They are doing to one of the few great newspapers we have what Clear Channel did to radio: homogenize,computerize, simplifize.
News gathering and good writing take time, talent, and money. The suits in Chicago want obedience and quick profit. They should work for Fox. There, they won't have to deal with either news or good writing.
Posted by: Declan | November 08, 2006 at 08:13 AM
The Tribune Co. has shown who owns and is in charge of the LA Times, but we must remember that this latest onslaught was instigated the Chandler family and their concern over the price of shares and the family wealth. They were unhappy with the declining value of their stock and the profit margins of the company. Tribune Co. responded to that by turning to the Times where the profit margin has been running around 20%, a very healthy rate in most peoples' book. Tribune is looking to sacrifice the Times to juice the company's profits and share prices in order to satisfy the Chandlers. So what is next?
Dismantling Tribune Co. now looks to be the way to satisfy the Chandlers. Will that result in local ownership of the Times? That will require lots of money and properly controlled egos. Can you find local buyers with that balance? That remains to be seen.
Should anyone forget, newspapers are not run solely as a public service. They are almost always operated to make money. The pivotal question is just how much money. The Chandlers have gotten greedy in the past and almost destroyed the family legacy. Are they about to do it again?
Posted by: Gary St.Clair | November 08, 2006 at 01:11 AM
Sadly, my displeasure began with the Times with the firing of Robert Scheer and the hiring of some real goons for the Op-Ed. It is now, except one day or so a week, unreadable and worthless. I see the new redesign as being a typographer's nightmare. It's jarring, not classy. Looks like the Plano Enterpriser, not a major city newspaper.
I cancelled my subscription a month ago, after subscribing since I moved here in 1991. My decision is now officially justified. If the rumors are true, and Mr. Baquet will go to the New York Times, then that's what I'll subscribe to. The direction this paper is going in will result in a merger with the awful Daily News.
On a very exciting night, it's a sad day for the old L.A. Times.
Posted by: Jim H | November 07, 2006 at 11:23 PM
News and opinion are big expenses, a lot more expensive than the prices of subscriptions or newstands revenues. Worse, when they do stuff like make government officials mad or upset big advertisers, these can be really harmful to the fiscal well being of the corporations that own them. Advertising pays the big bucks and that's what these organizations need, big bucks.
Big corporations are run by people who don't care about anything beyond the next quarters earnings. That's why they make about a hundred thousand times more than the average person. They are making choices about news information that they can control in accordance with their priorities.
The big broadcasters and publishers are drifting into pumping out paid propaganda, advertising programs, and entertainment.
Over the next century the internet will become the preferred source of news and information for everyone. It's probably a good thing.
Posted by: Eric Bostrom | November 07, 2006 at 10:27 PM
Personally, I think this is a sad day for anyone who cares about newspapering in Los Angeles. When an editor of Dean Baquet's caliber tells you that more cuts will significantly hurt the quality of the product, you should believe him. My conclusion is that quality journalism is not what matters most to Mr. Hiller or his masters in Chicago. I've benefited from living in a city with a world-class newspaper. My fear is that that characterization applies to an era that ended today.
Posted by: Tim McGarry | November 07, 2006 at 09:35 PM
As a subscriber for many years, I am saddened and appalled. The loss of editorial and news staff, the hideous mishmash of ugly text fonts and now the forcing out of another editor because he resists gutting the paper - I will be looking at other options for my news.
Posted by: Gaylord Moss | November 07, 2006 at 09:17 PM
After blowing the classified government program this past summer, nothing that happens to Baquet could match what he deserves. If I believed in karma which I don't, I'd think this is a delicious example of it.
Posted by: John Thomas | November 07, 2006 at 08:54 PM
I am cancelling my LAT subscription and will be subscribing to the daily NYT. The LAT's over-the-top full color full page ads scream too loudly at the breakfast table. And now the loss of Baquet.
It saddens me greatly, this decision that clearly privileges profit over content.
Good luck to all hard working journalists everywhere, the future does not bode well.
Posted by: M. Thibeault | November 07, 2006 at 07:39 PM
This is a shame. A waste. When businessmen take over the news, it may make record profits, but the readers, and ultimately, any democracy will suffer. Since money is all that matters to the _Tribune Co_, they will get exactly the paper they pay for.
As for what we will get? That's not even a question they've bothered to ask.
Posted by: Benjamin Balthaser | November 07, 2006 at 07:36 PM
Well, it's just discounting the paper's sale value, isn't it? I'd call it good tactics (save a bit of money in the short term, and release the news on election day!), and bad strategy.
The amazing thing to me is how strong the LAT is, considering the collapse of the department stores on the one hand, and Craigslist on the other. As for the printers-pie redesign, well, Op-ed does make more sense in A, even if it's not worth reading anymore. I kind of miss LAT's old wood. It was chunky and graceless, but had a certain charm.
Good luck, Mr. Baquet!
Tim
Posted by: Tim Sassoon | November 07, 2006 at 04:09 PM
What a disgrace! What a slap in the face of Times readers and the entire City of Los Angeles. This great city deserves a newspaper owned and operated by people who care about the community and quality journalism, and not just excessive profit margin.
Posted by: JAMES MEDLIN | November 07, 2006 at 03:08 PM