LAist: The Day the LAT Book Review Died

db

Sun, 27 Jul 2008 20:50:04 -0800

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.

Christine

Sun, 27 Jul 2008 15:02:14 -0800

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.

lamusicguy

Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:38:34 -0800

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.

marc22386

Sun, 27 Jul 2008 12:43:23 -0800

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

Sun, 27 Jul 2008 12:11:12 -0800

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.

Elise Thompson

Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:45:35 -0800

It's just unbelievable.

Andy Sternberg

Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:22:41 -0800

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.

lamusicguy

Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:21:04 -0800

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.

Will Campbell

Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:06:26 -0800

"...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.