Politics Central: Heads on Platters at the LA Times

By Catherine Seipp, Special Correspondent to PJM, Media

I have no idea whether the Los Angeles Times should cut even more staff positions or not. On the one hand is the odd notion that a 20% profit margin is somehow not enough. On the other hand is Times features columnist Al Martinez’s tirade the other week when he discovered blogs… and his remaining readers discovered that Martinez himself is still mysteriously occupying one of those coveted staff positions.

Specifically, Martinez learned that “blogs are largely the habitat of unemployed writers, enraged misanthropes, retired teachers, aging journalists and people who normally pass their time doodling or making obscene telephone calls.”

Although an aging journalist and enraged misanthrope himself, Martinez is apparently also still an employed writer, and if I were a Times shareholder I don’t think you could blame me for wondering why. What annoyed him was former Timesman Ken Reich’s incredibly lame blog, which tried to be funny by imagining a conversation between Martinez and Oliver Stone.

Now I don’t know anyone who reads Reich’s online musings, so I don’t know why Martinez got quite so worked up, except that like so many old newsprint hands he really seems not to understand the difference between blogs that people read and those they do not. I wonder whose writing has less readers at this point, in fact: Martinez’s or Reich’s? And how important is it, really, that one is printed on paper and the other isn’t?

These are the sorts of questions now being seriously considered by an L.A. Times team of three investigative reporters and six editors, which last week began a months-long “Manhattan Project” (as the thing is unfortunately named) dedicated to finding out why so many readers don’t consider newspapers necessary anymore.

Even within the paper, the enterprise is being mocked as ill-conceived and badly assigned. My friend Matt Welch, formerly an associate editor for Reason and now an assistant Times opinion editor, has been dutifully asking for suggestions over at the Times’ opinion blog - even though I know one of the things that drives Matt craziest is the very notion of these hand-wringing, time-wasting ‘Concerned Journalist’ committees. So far, ideas for engaging readers have included: Fire all staff writers over (or under) 30 who try to write humor; eliminate first-person writing; correct the paper’s liberal (or conservative) bias….. or… [Insert pet peccadillo here.]

I remember during the last wave of Times cutbacks I was standing in the lunch line at some press conference when another journalist there asked what I thought about the cutbacks. I’m typically less horrified about them than some of my colleagues, because as a freelancer I generally see too much fat in these heavily staffed media institutions anyway. Getting rid of people who are paid no matter how little (or badly) they write, and replacing them with people who don’t get paid unless they work themselves up into something worth reading usually strikes me as a pretty good idea.

But then, of course, that’s what I would say.

“As a former staffer and once-a-week contributor, I think the Times is one of the finest papers in the world!” the guy said huffily, standing up very straight while balancing his plate of free food. “Look at all those Pulitzers!”

Yes, just look at them. But I suspect journalists are far more impressed by Pulitzers than readers, who tend to remember (and subscribe to a paper because of) an old-fashioned “Hey, Martha!” human interest story than the kind of worthy prize-grabbing thing that wins accolades from peers.

A basic problem at the Times, for instance, is the continuing weakness of the features section - home of the funnies and advice columns and so traditionally looked down on by the rest of the paper. But this is the section where kids first develop a daily paper reading habit, and I don’t think you need a team of investigative reporters to learn that tolerating weak feature writing and editing in features is the surest way to alienate young readers for life.

Nor do you need to arrange a series of Deep Throat-style meetings in underground parking garages to realize that many Times staff writers turn in very little copy - Spring Street considers once a week reasonably productive - which means they’re paid around $2,000 per mediocre, grudging piece. Wouldn’t it be better to spend that money instead on freelancers, who, if they can’t work themselves up into something worth reading, don’t get paid?

Let the heads roll, I say. In fact, that reminds me: Where’s my knitting?

PajamasMedia Special Correspondent CATHERINE SEIPP writes the weekly “From the Left Coast” column for National Review Online, a monthly column for Independent Women’s Forum and freelances other places, such as the Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal op-ed pages. She previously wrote columns for: Buzz, Mediaweek, UPI, New York Press and Salon. Her work has also appeared in Reason, Penthouse, TV Guide, the National Post and Forbes.

———
Return to Pajamas Media homepage

Comments (6)

John :

I could care less if the LA Times disappeared tomorrow. As the newspaper of record in Los Angeles I rarely read it.
As an independent voter it is way too liberal in it's editorial content for me. Also, over the years due to it's politicasl correctness, it has failed to report on the problems facing this city whether it be the public schools, racial tensions that did not include whites, and other pressing problems until even the most politically apathetic person was aware of them.
Who needs it?

John

Oct 19, 2006 10:16 AM

andrewdb :

It's been all downhill since Jack Smith quit (well, not actually, there was that wonderful gal from Pasadena who took his place for a bit). You are spot on about the Features section, however.

Another issue may be their reflexive leftist bias towards the Palastinians - has anyone noticed that the Westside, a large LA Times market one would think, probably trends the other way?

Oct 19, 2006 03:25 PM

Dick Mansuetto :

The operative part of the word Freelancer is FREE. Writers outside the constant control of their editors are far more likely to write what is the news, not just the news that fits the policy of the paper.

I try to be a regular reader of the on-line version of the L.A. Times but find that reading the New York Times (except for local items of interest) completes the intended picture of news slant.

Being paid by the piece suited my immigrant grandmother who helped feed and cloth her children sewing buttons for two-cents each. Productivity for pay can be cost efficient as well as providing the employer with a much larger writing staff providing more information about more subjects.

Oct 19, 2006 04:12 PM

NahnCee :

The thing I always wanted from the LA Times, and never EVER got, was reporting that told me what was going on in the streets around me.

Why did the metro close down last week and there were a bunch of cops milling around downtown? Was it a test or a bomb threat or what?

Were those gunshots in the night at 3:00 in the morning next door, and if so, who did what to whom?

In the accident on the freeway that I edged past last week, there were six smashed-up cars, two of them flipped on their tops. Who was driving them? What happened? How many were illegals without insurance?

Three ambulances went screaming by on the street yesterday evening - where were they coming from and what happened?

In fact, what has to happen before an ambulance puts its sirens on, since so frequently traffic is backed up to the point where it'll make very little difference any way in the speed of the ambulance getting there. Where do ambulances take squished people in freeway accidents? How long does it take on average if you *are* in an accident on the freeway to get you to a hospital?

These are the things that matter to me, personally, and what I got instead from the LA Times was "undercover investigations" of Arnold's groping back in the day, BusHitler diatribes from *all* of their columnists, and story after story after story telling me how stupid and uninformed I am for not voting Democrat.

Hell, if they just printed some of the really good Hollywood gossip that I *know* they must have access to, it would be an incentive to read them. But gossip must not be "good Pulitzer journalism", and they've farmed out their classified sections for both car sales and apartment rentals so there is NO Los Angeles angle at all to them ... so why bother? I can surf the internet and find what I want in the world, and since the LA Times refuses to tell me what I want to know about Los Angeles locally *and* insists on telling me how stupid I am at the same time, nuts to 'em.

I'm very much enjoying the spectacle of them flopping about like a fish on dry land gasping for ideas, while simultaneously going bankrupt. Yum! Maybe someone will write a Pulitzer story about the demise of journalism in America in the next few years, after both the LA Times and the NY Times have finished their self-inflicted hara kiri.

Oct 22, 2006 10:20 AM

Quantum :

agreed. Los Angeles Times is completely worthless. They believe that if anything is interesting, it surely must be beneath them. What LA needs is the NY Post -- in LA of course.

Oct 22, 2006 12:14 PM

Bill Perron :

The L. A. Times has suffered from the same liberal illness that all liberals suffer from, they are so sure they are right that to even question their perspective is totally unthinkable. The Times has not changed with the times, people want a paper that prints the news not one that tries to "make" the news. Just look at how they tried to undermine Gov. Arnie, now they praise him, they are such transparent hypocrites, the public has lost respect for the rag.

Oct 22, 2006 11:31 PM


	Found in: Article ; Media Central ; Old Media October 18, 2006 6:27 PM Heads on Platters at the LA Times By Catherine Seipp, Special Correspondent to PJM, Media I have no idea whether the Los Angeles Times should cut even more staff positions or not. On the one hand is the odd notion that a 20% profit margin is somehow not enough. On the other hand is Times features columnist Al Martinez’s tirade the other week when he discovered blogs… and his remaining readers discovered that Martinez himself is still mysteriously occupying one of those coveted staff positions. Specifically, Martinez learned that “blogs are largely the habitat of unemployed writers, enraged misanthropes, retired teachers, aging journalists and people who normally pass their time doodling or making obscene telephone calls.” Although an aging journalist and enraged misanthrope himself, Martinez is apparently also still an employed writer, and if I were a Times shareholder I don’t think you could blame me for wondering why. What annoyed him was former Timesman Ken Reich’s incredibly lame blog, which tried to be funny by imagining a conversation between Martinez and Oliver Stone. Now I don’t know anyone who reads Reich’s online musings, so I don’t know why Martinez got quite so worked up, except that like so many old newsprint hands he really seems not to understand the difference between blogs that people read and those they do not. I wonder whose writing has less readers at this point, in fact: Martinez’s or Reich’s? And how important is it, really, that one is printed on paper and the other isn’t? These are the sorts of questions now being seriously considered by an L.A. Times team of three investigative reporters and six editors, which last week began a months-long “Manhattan Project” (as the thing is unfortunately named) dedicated to finding out why so many readers don’t consider newspapers necessary anymore. Even within the paper, the enterprise is being mocked as ill-conceived and badly assigned. My friend Matt Welch, formerly an associate editor for Reason and now an assistant Times opinion editor, has been dutifully asking for suggestions over at the Times’ opinion blog - even though I know one of the things that drives Matt craziest is the very notion of these hand-wringing, time-wasting ‘Concerned Journalist’ committees. So far, ideas for engaging readers have included: Fire all staff writers over (or under) 30 who try to write humor; eliminate first-person writing; correct the paper’s liberal (or conservative) bias….. or… [Insert pet peccadillo here.] I remember during the last wave of Times cutbacks I was standing in the lunch line at some press conference when another journalist there asked what I thought about the cutbacks. I’m typically less horrified about them than some of my colleagues, because as a freelancer I generally see too much fat in these heavily staffed media institutions anyway. Getting rid of people who are paid no matter how little (or badly) they write, and replacing them with people who don’t get paid unless they work themselves up into something worth reading usually strikes me as a pretty good idea. But then, of course, that’s what I would say. “As a former staffer and once-a-week contributor, I think the Times is one of the finest papers in the world!” the guy said huffily, standing up very straight while balancing his plate of free food. “Look at all those Pulitzers!” Yes, just look at them. But I suspect journalists are far more impressed by Pulitzers than readers, who tend to remember (and subscribe to a paper because of) an old-fashioned “Hey, Martha!” human interest story than the kind of worthy prize-grabbing thing that wins accolades from peers. A basic problem at the Times, for instance, is the continuing weakness of the features section - home of the funnies and advice columns and so traditionally looked down on by the rest of the paper. But this is the section where kids first develop a daily paper reading habit, and I don’t think you need a team of investigative reporters to learn that tolerating weak feature writing and editing in features is the surest way to alienate young readers for life. Nor do you need to arrange a series of Deep Throat-style meetings in underground parking garages to realize that many Times staff writers turn in very little copy - Spring Street considers once a week reasonably productive - which means they’re paid around $2,000 per mediocre, grudging piece. Wouldn’t it be better to spend that money instead on freelancers, who, if they can’t work themselves up into something worth reading, don’t get paid? Let the heads roll, I say. In fact, that reminds me: Where’s my knitting? PajamasMedia Special Correspondent CATHERINE SEIPP writes the weekly “From the Left Coast” column for National Review Online, a monthly column for Independent Women’s Forum and freelances other places, such as the Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal op-ed pages. She previously wrote columns for: Buzz, Mediaweek, UPI, New York Press and Salon. Her work has also appeared in Reason, Penthouse, TV Guide, the National Post and Forbes. ——— Return to Pajamas Media homepage digg this del.icio.us comment email print x Email this link to: Your email address: Message (optional): Comments (6) John : I could care less if the LA Times disappeared tomorrow. As the newspaper of record in Los Angeles I rarely read it. As an independent voter it is way too liberal in it's editorial content for me. Also, over the years due to it's politicasl correctness, it has failed to report on the problems facing this city whether it be the public schools, racial tensions that did not include whites, and other pressing problems until even the most politically apathetic person was aware of them. Who needs it? John Oct 19, 2006 10:16 AM andrewdb : It's been all downhill since Jack Smith quit (well, not actually, there was that wonderful gal from Pasadena who took his place for a bit). You are spot on about the Features section, however. Another issue may be their reflexive leftist bias towards the Palastinians - has anyone noticed that the Westside, a large LA Times market one would think, probably trends the other way? Oct 19, 2006 03:25 PM Dick Mansuetto : The operative part of the word Freelancer is FREE. Writers outside the constant control of their editors are far more likely to write what is the news, not just the news that fits the policy of the paper. I try to be a regular reader of the on-line version of the L.A. Times but find that reading the New York Times (except for local items of interest) completes the intended picture of news slant. Being paid by the piece suited my immigrant grandmother who helped feed and cloth her children sewing buttons for two-cents each. Productivity for pay can be cost efficient as well as providing the employer with a much larger writing staff providing more information about more subjects. Oct 19, 2006 04:12 PM NahnCee : The thing I always wanted from the LA Times, and never EVER got, was reporting that told me what was going on in the streets around me. Why did the metro close down last week and there were a bunch of cops milling around downtown? Was it a test or a bomb threat or what? Were those gunshots in the night at 3:00 in the morning next door, and if so, who did what to whom? In the accident on the freeway that I edged past last week, there were six smashed-up cars, two of them flipped on their tops. Who was driving them? What happened? How many were illegals without insurance? Three ambulances went screaming by on the street yesterday evening - where were they coming from and what happened? In fact, what has to happen before an ambulance puts its sirens on, since so frequently traffic is backed up to the point where it'll make very little difference any way in the speed of the ambulance getting there. Where do ambulances take squished people in freeway accidents? How long does it take on average if you are in an accident on the freeway to get you to a hospital? These are the things that matter to me, personally, and what I got instead from the LA Times was "undercover investigations" of Arnold's groping back in the day, BusHitler diatribes from all of their columnists, and story after story after story telling me how stupid and uninformed I am for not voting Democrat. Hell, if they just printed some of the really good Hollywood gossip that I know they must have access to, it would be an incentive to read them. But gossip must not be "good Pulitzer journalism", and they've farmed out their classified sections for both car sales and apartment rentals so there is NO Los Angeles angle at all to them ... so why bother? I can surf the internet and find what I want in the world, and since the LA Times refuses to tell me what I want to know about Los Angeles locally and insists on telling me how stupid I am at the same time, nuts to 'em. I'm very much enjoying the spectacle of them flopping about like a fish on dry land gasping for ideas, while simultaneously going bankrupt. Yum! Maybe someone will write a Pulitzer story about the demise of journalism in America in the next few years, after both the LA Times and the NY Times have finished their self-inflicted hara kiri. Oct 22, 2006 10:20 AM Quantum : agreed. Los Angeles Times is completely worthless. They believe that if anything is interesting, it surely must be beneath them. What LA needs is the NY Post -- in LA of course. Oct 22, 2006 12:14 PM Bill Perron : The L. A. Times has suffered from the same liberal illness that all liberals suffer from, they are so sure they are right that to even question their perspective is totally unthinkable. The Times has not changed with the times, people want a paper that prints the news not one that tries to "make" the news. Just look at how they tried to undermine Gov. Arnie, now they praise him, they are such transparent hypocrites, the public has lost respect for the rag. Oct 22, 2006 11:31 PM Comments have been archived for this page.	Election Central Issues Central Media Central Freeranger Central Glenn & Helen Show The Sanity Squad Pajamas Media Politics @Squidoo Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers RSS Feeds RSS \| Atom Pajamas Media Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers Suggestion Box Subject: Message:

Heads on Platters at the LA Times