Content Marketing Today

Another Nail in the Newspaper Coffin: LA Times Axes Editor

Circulation down.  Revenues down.  Headcount down.

As yet another symptom of the downward spiral print newspapers are suffering, the Los Angeles Times fired its third editor since 2005. 

The decision was related to editorial quality–but not in the way you might be thinking.

Editor, James O’Shea, was fired because he rejected management orders to cut $4 million from the newsroom budget.  This is particularly notable because he had originally been brought in as a budget cutter after his predecessor was similarly fired for refusing cost-reduction mandates in 2005. 

The implications, not just for the Los Angeles Times, but for the entire print newspaper industry are dire. If a large and prosperous city such as Los Angeles cannot generate enough readership to support a high quality newspaper, one can only imagine what’s in store for smaller communities.

Another one bites the dust.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way.  As the Associated Press reported about O’Shea’s 2006 arrival:

At the time, he asked the news staff not to see him as “the hatchet man from Chicago” and promised to fight to ensure the Times would “remain a major force in American journalism.”

“If I think there is too much staff I will say so,” O’Shea told the paper’s editors and reporters in 2006. “And if I think there is not enough I will say that, too.”

The current management body count since 2005 is three editors and one publisher.  All were axed for the same reason: they refused to cut costs and fire people when ordered by management.  This is particularly notable because when the Tribune Company was taken private by billionaire Sam Zell in April 2007, he indicated according to the AP that continued budget cuts were a “dead-end”. Unfortunately, it appears that continued budget cuts may be the only end.

In fact, the print publication has already been substantial shrinkage of the newsroom staff from more than 1100 people in 2000 to less than 900 today.  That shrinkage mirrors the plunge in daily circulation from 1.1 million to less than 800,000–that’s a drop of roughly 33%.

O’Shea sounded an ominous note in a Wall Street Journal quote:

“The way out of this problem is not retrenchment. If you don’t invest in good, solid, accurate, fundamental journalism, you are going to just continue the decline and fall. You’ll get to a point where you won’t be able to reverse it.”

LA Times print versus online editions

One can infer a certain amount of schizophrenia within the LA Times organization by observing the dramatic differences between their print edition and their online edition.

The front page of the print edition for January 21, 2008 delivers a serious lead story about unsafe trucks streaming out of Los Angeles ports. This feature is accompanied by a big graphic which illustrates the point of the story.  The front page also highlights the election issue relating to the GOP versus independent voters.  Another above the fold story focuses on the Bush administration’s shrinking foreign ambitions. They also cover the departure of their editor on the front page.  There is not a single lighthearted story on the front page.

Online–Entertainment takes the lead

Although Los Angeles and Hollywood are the entertainment capital of the world, it seems obvious that the online editorial team realizes that the demographic of print readers is looking for something very different from online visitors.

The feature that gets your attention as to do with the Sundance film Festival with a big pictures of Hollywood stars in attendance.  And in the upper right, you get lots more entertainment stuff.

The unsafe trucks story is above the virtual fold but appears second to the politics feature. The headline is in a relatively small typeface and has no accompanying picture.  Also above the fold is a story about networking Santas with a picture of lots of jolly old gentleman with long white beards.

Print versus online–microcosm of the shifting newspaper demographic

From all appearances, the print version of the newspaper is still trying to appeal to a serious crop of readers who are aging and shrinking.  This is a smart company but it sure seems to lack a strategy to regain circulation and grow revenues–other than by reducing quality. A further reduction in quality will simply speed the downward spiral.  Thus, the firing of yet another capable editor is indeed another nail in the coffin of the venerable Los Angeles Times.

At this point, it’s hard to say whether the online product can be a successful stand-alone replacement. In fact, without the print reporting staff providing content, the LATimes.com might have little to offer its visitors other than a lot of frothy entertainment reporting.

The budget hits forced upon the Los Angeles Times foreshadow a time when we will have many fewer world-class newspapers, read by many fewer people, and coveted by many fewer advertisers.  Sadly, we are looking at the passing of a wonderful era filled with hundreds of excellent print newspapers.