UCLA Students Take Over Building in Protest of Fee Increase Vote
Jason Segel Sings His Phone Number at the Swell Season Last Night
BART Cop Murder Trial to Move to Downtown L.A., Lawyer Predicts More L.A. Riots
-thumb-110x110-459458.jpg)
Bouchon Amuses Our Bouches
John Kerry's Daughter Arrested in Hollywood for DUI
The last stand-alone LAT Book Review, on July 27, 2008, with Doris Lessing on the cover
In the spring of last year, we lamented the shrinking of the LA Times Book Review. We waxed poetic about waking up on Sunday mornings to get our paper. We lovingly detailed thumbing through the big hulk of Sunday newsiness and adverstising to pull out our favorite part of the paper: the Book Review.
We were deeply saddened, all those months ago, by the merging of our favorite section with the Opinion section. It was rough-going, but at least we had a book section to read then.
Now, D-Day is upon us. Fling open your front doors and gather up your Sunday papers in quiet reverence, as today is the last day of the Sunday LA Times Book Review as we know it. From now on, book reviews will be published in the calendar section along with restaurant openings, happy hour listings and movie times. That's right - the paper that hosts the largest annual book festival in the world, is cutting its book review section down to a nub.
We have followed the latest news about the LAT cuts and firings in grim silence. We have read other LA coverage with much interest and hand-wringing, and we've carefully considered the detailed analysis of what it all means in Inside Higher Ed. We were even heartened by the letter from four former LAT Book Editors that chronicled all that is wrong with this ridiculous decision.
We are no longer wistful, we are no longer wishing for a better book review fate or wondering how it all went awry. We are angry and we will read today's last proper Book Review with the pages clenched tightly and our heads shaking furiously in disgust. We will be reminded of this important point, lifted directly from the letter that Steve Wasserman, Sonja Bolle, Digby Diehl and Jack Miles wrote a few days ago:
"Angelenos in growing number are already choosing to cancel their subscriptions to the Sunday Times. The elimination of the Book Review, a philistine blunder that insults the cultural ambition of the city and the region, will only accelerate this process and further wound the long-term fiscal health of the newspaper.We urge readers and writers alike to join with us as we protest this sad and backward step."
Say it with us: philistine blunder, philistine blunder, philistine blunder...
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
"...the paper that hosts the largest annual book festival in the world, is cutting its book review section down to a nub.
Callie, you summed up the ludicrousity perfectly.
Speaking of which did you see the page peel over the A section this morning with the "Don't hate us cause we're butchering things" note from Editor Russ Stanton trumpeting the five-part wildfire series and upcoming coverage of the Olympics and the national conventions as if COVERING THE NEWS (aka DOING THEIR JOB) is something to promote? GAH!
I'm not quite ready to cancel my subscription, but I'm getting closer with every misstep the Times makes.
It's sad to see the LA Times slowly dwindle into nothing. LA is such an important metropolitan area with such a cross-section of culture, one would think it would be ripe to be the epicenter for local, national (particularly the west coast) and international news (particularly asia and latin america which are often overlooked by other prominent news sources).
The business section is now two pages. It would be great if they even bothered to cover local biz (music/film) because they fail to cover real business. They've essentially ceded arts coverage to the LA Weekly and great blogs like LAist. Real estate coverage has shrunk.
It's unclear what Zell's end-game is here. If he keeps slashing like he does, they might as well deliver fortune cookies for the print subscribers. Eventually, he'll end up with an overpriced blog that cannot compete against the existing local online coverage.
It's a shame that Zell has destroyed what used to be a nice paper. It would have been one thing if he actually put his own coin at risk. Sadly, he leveraged the whole thing on the backs of the employees that he continues to let go. The employees have lost out on their livelihoods. LA has lost a cultural resource. Sam, well, he just lost out on the potential upside, but he's not out any of his billions.
Would have been interesting to have seen where Geffen, Burkle or Broad would have taken it. I suspect they would have recognized and reflected the cultural and intellectual growth of Los Angeles that has occurred over the last decade.
at least the Times is doing its civic duty in promising to supply less fuel for this year's wildfire season. Although I bet if you were inclined to advertise your company on a matchbook insert in the paper, Zell and buddies would be more than happy to oblige.
It's just unbelievable.
The challenge that this and other papers are having is a dwindling readership as a result of the Internet. With dwindling readership comes dwindling advertising revenue (the bulk of the revenue for newspapers), as advertisers want to put their money where the audience is. So with less revenues and rising costs (paper costs have sky rocketed over the past year and a half), the paper, unfortunately, had to make these tough calls in order to stay alive.
I highly doubt that Zell was happy to have to cut jobs and sections of the paper. But, he has to answer to his parent company, which is a public company. Like most public companies, they probably focus on quarterly revenues instead of long-term plans; hence, the cuts. Geffen, Burkle or Broad, on the other hand, might have applied their own money to support the paper, as is, while they re-invented the newspaper model in order to make it a more viable business vis-a-vis the Internet. But, who knows...they're businessmen, too; they would not have bought the paper as a philanthropic move.
As an advertiser, I hope that LA Times can make it work and that they can maintain their readership. As an LA resident, I hope the paper will thrive and successfully reflect the vitality of this great city and all its wonderfully diverse communities.
You make some good points tmjong, however one question that needs to be asked is why Zell even bought the paper in the first place?
Every businessman with half a brain knew years ago that the Internet would eventually undercut the newspaper industry completely, unless said paper could re-invent itself online. Did he really think by buying the LAT that he would be turning a profit at all?
It seems like he's giving up way too easily — not thinking of other solutions to the problem besides firing people. With the current situation, it seems any purchase of any newspaper will be seen as a 'philanthropic move' if there is any hope of quality journalism still being championed.
Tmjong, a couple of things.
Tribune is not a public company. It was taken private by Zell. He put up $300m out of the $8b purchase price. The rest was leveraged off of an employee stock option plan. So he paid for it with his employees. He owes them a greater duty. It is not a common acquisition scheme.
To your point that Geffen or Broad are businessmen and would not have bought the paper as a philanthropic move. I would not be so sure. Geffen and Broad are key players in the cultural advancement of Los Angeles. Media properties are unlike other business. Rarely do they provide the best ror. It's usually because of the sex appeal or own personal benefit that people get involved.
Advertising will shift. People who do read newspapers are demographically valuable if advertised to correctly (e.g., arts, travel, chartible requests). The business is going through a rough patch, but there will be a need for higher level journalism and reporting even in a digital age.
Zell's acquisition can be characterized as selfish and shortsighted and with the advantage of hindsight, an extremely bad move.
Callie,
Great post. What I really can't fathom is why the LAT chooses to cut a section that appeals to READERS. You know, book lovers. People who still pick up the paper and love to feel the newsprint in their hands.
I don't get it. At all.
Christine, because that's not his target audience. If you read some of the "innovative" missives sent out by Lee Abrams, it's clear that Zell and squad are looking to attract TeeVee viewers and those folks who get their news while standing in line at the supermarket. He wants people who spend their free time spending, not reading boring 'ol words.