Patterico's Pontifications

11/16/2005

L.A. Times Laying Off Employees Again

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 5:32 pm



For the second straight year, the L.A. Times is laying people off, according to Kevin Roderick. His post from this morning quotes an e-mail from editor Dean Baquet today, which began:

I very much regret to announce that The Times will have to lose about 85 newsroom jobs before the end of the year.

I pass this along for informational purposes and ask readers not to gloat or take joy in the news. We all want to see the paper improve, but I for one take no joy in seeing anyone lose their job.

23 Responses to “L.A. Times Laying Off Employees Again”

  1. No, no. Let’s gloat.

    Regret (27245e)

  2. The heck with that. Over at PrestoPundit it’s gloat city.

    PrestoPundit (c8886f)

  3. Can I write the headline? I wanna write the headline!!!!!

    Times Plays Scrooge

    Times Gives Pink Slips For Christmas

    antimedia (9da557)

  4. […] You can’t gloat here, and you’re not supposed to gloat here, so feel free to gloat here, instead. […]

    damnum absque injuria » Fewer Dogs to Train (38c04c)

  5. Here’s my headline:

    “85 Democrats Lose Their Jobs”

    PrestoPundit (c8886f)

  6. Patterico:

    We all want to see the paper improve, but I for one take no joy in seeing anyone lose their job.

    Uh… you seemed pretty cheery about this:

    I initially wanted to wait until it was official, but this is close enough: Robert Scheer will not be a columnist for the L.A. Times beginning in January.

    Maybe things really are turning around there.

    Let’s not go overboard with this “I take no joy” jazz; there are some people in whose misfortunes I take an extreme and nigh delerious joy! Why do you think the dour Germans invented such a wonderful word as schadenfreude in the first place?

    Dafydd

    Dafydd abHugh (f8a7be)

  7. Headline:

    L.A. TIMES LAYING OFF EMPLOYEES AGAIN
    WOMEN AND MINORITIES HIT HARDEST

    Justice Frankfurter (2dcd84)

  8. Question: if the Los Angeles High Times is laying off 85 newsroom employees, just how many can it have left? Unless they had 1,600 reporters, that starts to be a pretty huge percentage.

    Most reporters aren’t taking care of front page material, of course: you’ve got sports reporters and the people who cover the police beat and all sorts of municipal board meetings and stuff like that, but if the paper actually has any serious news coverage, something has got to suffer.

    We all remember the stories of the reporters in Iraq, just sitting in their hotels, waiting for someone to join them in the bar to tell them something newsworthy. If the Times is going to present the same amount of coverage with 85 fewer newsroom people, then each remaining person has to write more. That means more sitting in the newsroom, waiting for the phone to ring, and less getting out and actually reporting on things.

    Dana R. Pico (3e4784)

  9. Good riddance, they are going the way of horse groomers and candlemakers.

    Jakester (83c05e)

  10. Dafydd,

    First, Robert Scheer will still have a syndicated column and will still get money for it. Second, my memory is that Scheer is a dilettante who is independently wealthy and doesn’t need the money he got from the Times. I am happy to see Scheer go, but that doesn’t mean I take joy in hearing that dozens of random people who are almost certainly not as venal and dishonest as Scheer are going to lose their jobs.

    Patterico (4e4b70)

  11. But yes, maybe the word “anyone” was a bit too categorical on my part. Because I am indeed happy to see Scheer go.

    Patterico (4e4b70)

  12. You’re wise not to celebrate this layoff Patterico. The internet is taking its toll on a lot of newspapers across the political spectrum.

    A number of major dailies have resorted to buyouts or layoff in recent months as the industry struggles with circulation declines and rising newsprint prices. (http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001523361)

    For example, The Chicago Tribune plans a big lay off too (http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001523714 ).

    Because it is always yesterday’s news, I’m getting to where I’m not reading my newspaper.

    I’m also all for reading the news on the internet. But what concerns me is that a number of people will select their news sites based solely on their political bias and become even more extreme in their views.

    Tillman (1cf529)

  13. Why does that bother you?

    The ideal of an “objective” press is a very recent American invention.

    Do you think that, say, British government has suffered because of its press system, where the newspapers are explicitly aligned with the various political parties? I don’t.

    I mean, I refuse to read any newspaper besides the Wall Street Journal currently, and I know I’m not the only one.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  14. Clam, political extremism, on the left and right, seems to be growing. If people choose to ignore news and views that make them uncomfortable, they’re more apt to become clueless partisan hacks.

    Tillman (1cf529)

  15. “Seems to be?”

    I didn’t realize that it wasn’t like it was in the 1960s and 1970s, when radicals were literally shooting federal judges and conducting bombing campaigns (see, e.g., Angela Davis or the Weather Underground… I’ll leave off oddball stuff like the SLA) or the early-to-mid 1990s when there was serious talk of armed insurrection by white supremacists (Randy Weaver, Tim McVeigh, Michigan Militia, etc.) along with strings of abortion bombings, not to mention the looting that accompanied WTO riots on the left.

    Also, I think that you’re confusing NewsMax/Counterpunch “reporting” with, say, WSJ vs. NYT reporting when you say that it creates narrow minds.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  16. Let’s not be too quick to assume people’s opinions are nothing more than the sum of what they read. Or, to assume they seek out only sources of information they already approve. It just isn’t so.

    There are a great many viewpoints openly available on the wind, and mostly we can’t avoid being exposed whether we want the exposure or not. Individuals are free agents able to interpret information through the filters built up over a lifetime of experience.

    Individuals have their own unique ways, some valuable and some silly, of approaching current events and political posturing. I wouldn’t want it any other way, nor could I change it if I tried.

    Black Jack (ee9fe2)

  17. #5 – 85 LAT employees is 170 Democrat votes.

    perfectsense (024110)

  18. Clam, I didn’t mean to sound like I was ringing the alarm bell or anything. Yes, there have been times in our history when the political climate was even worse. But I still say it is a fairly bitter time right now – especially since the war in Iraq is not going well.

    I know people who only get their news from extreme sources; they have a narrow, misinformed view of the world. The internet makes it easy to avoid opposing views. But since most people read or watch MSM news, it doesn’t apply to them. I don’t see that this point is all that controversial. It is also a bipartisan statement, so I don’t see how it offends either you or Black Jack so much.

    Tillman (1cf529)

  19. I’m just not troubled to see the demise of the so-called “objective” media. The sooner everyone admits the truth, that reporting is not objective and that the major news organs lean leftward, the better off we’ll all be.

    The Angry Clam (a7c6b1)

  20. I’d like to see the daily newspapers go down. Not only are they an environmental disaster of epic proportions, but any news there is days old.

    Other than as a vehicle for ads, comics, and crosswords, America’s newspapers offer only pabulum for commuters, and liners for bird cages.

    MSM is about as necessary as the Milkman today. If MSM wasn’t making itself useful flaking for Lefty moonbats it would die on the vine of better, faster, more accurate, interactive, technology. You know, evolution, progress, that sort of thing.

    Black Jack (ee9fe2)

  21. They call me about once a month–usually at the dinner hour, which annoys me greatly–to thank me for my past subscription and cut me a “deal.”

    I used to give them the spiel as to why I don’t want the paper, but that extended the conversation more than I wanted.

    Now, my response always boils down to “don’t bother me; I’m eating,” whether I’m eating or not. That gets them off the phone.

    Juliette (278eb8)

  22. Juliette:

    You have heard of the National Do Not Call Registry, haven’t you?

    Dana R. Pico (a071ac)

  23. Dana,

    That’s why they call you before your subscription expires or, like my local paper does, fail to take your sub off the books. That gives then an end-around on the DNC Registry because they have a “business relationship” with you.

    Terry (3a75ce)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0763 secs.