After watching their stock take a nosedive earlier this summer, the higher-ups at the Tribune Company are asking Los Angeles Times editor Dean P. Baquet to cut more jobs. But Baquet isn't toeing the line. In fact, he's stomping all over it. According to the New York Times, he's refusing to heed their request.
Baquet was quoted in his own paper, saying there was a "difference of opinion" with his Chicago bosses.
The paper’s publisher, Jeffrey M. Johnson, said he agreed with Mr. Baquet. “Newspapers can’t cut their way into the future,†he told the paper.
The number of jobs at stake is unclear but the paper, the fourth largest in the country, has eliminated more than 200 positions over the last five years from an editorial staff that now numbers about 940.
“I am not averse to making cuts,†Mr. Baquet told the paper. “But you can go too far, and I don’t plan to do that.â€
...
It is rare for an editor to go public with a position on internal budget battles and for the editor’s own newspaper to report on it. The decision by The Los Angeles Times to take its battle against Tribune public may signal that Mr. Baquet is trying to rally support on the paper’s behalf, at a time when Tribune is in turmoil and some local businessmen have expressed interest in buying the paper.
An editor at the paper said the article was prompted by a letter on Tuesday from 20 civic leaders, who called on Tribune to put more money into the paper or consider selling it.
It will be interesting to see how this unfolds. Staff cuts tend to be the first item on the docket in budget crises. But now editors are finally saying what everyone in the business already knows: Chopping the payroll doesn't necessarily help the paper make more money. It will only cause the quality of the paper to decrease and subscribers will notice.
For now LA Times reporters must be feeling good that their editors are finally standing up for what they believe in and aren't going to let the parent company, and their share holders, determine what happens in their newsroom.
Vanessa Kitchen @ September 18, 2006 - 2:31pm
In my opinion, the coverage by the LA Times, unsurprisingly, seems explicitly biased towards the editor and employees of the LA Times, with little to no in-depth coverage on the parent company's perspective. Is this unethical? Despite the fact that I take the side of the LA Times, are reporters not obligated to give unbiased overage to both sides of the story? The article should allow readers to make an informed decision whether to support the editor or the parent company--not tell the reader what to think!
»