Well, it might not just be philanthropist Eli Broad buying up the LA Times, but he does have an idea. "We can't afford to lose good newspaper journalism, investigative reporting," he said in New York City this week. "I would like to see our foundation and others join together to own the LA Times... I am not sure it can be a national paper, or have the same aspirations it once had... Newspapers ought to be owned by foundations, not look for great financial returns... If several foundations are involved there is likely to be journalistic freedom." Related: VoiceOfSanDiego.org is already a foundation and donor supported online city newssite that focuses on in depth journalism. KCET's SoCal Connected did a great feature on them a few weeks ago, watch it below.




What's offensives about the LA Times is that after hundreds of layoff, right-wing hack (and ex-Laura Bush press secretary) Andrew Malcolm still has a job there:
http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200903100008?show=1
PLEASE SAVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's the last thing we need is for Eli Broad to control one more thing in town. Do you really think that the paper could be critical of city government (not that it is now) with Broad owning it?
Broad is a guy who gets his way even if with multiple foundations. If this happens, the Times should not be viewed as legitimate.
The Times' failing is it's own fault, not the Republicans, Kevin Roderick or anyone else. They could have adapted, but they chose to be lazy.
Let it die.
Great vid!
I fully support anything that will save the Times, but saying media companies only work as philanthropy projects is crazy -- newspapers still make a ton of money.