And now, a little more about us

So the top execs at Sam Zell's Tribune Co., parent company to us here at The Times, made news last week with (promptly leaked) memos about plans to cut space allotted to news and increase ad space until a 50-50 split is achieved.  Lots and lots of reaction to this, as well as to the fact that reporters are now to be judged on productivity -- a.k.a. byline counts.

Today's New York Times tries to get a handle on what the experts think and, while it can't muster much of consensus, it does manage some dire soothsaying:

The one thing everyone seems to agree on is this: Newspapers around the United States have tried a lot of approaches, newsy to fluffy, parochial to international, voluminous to sparse — and all are in trouble.

Also weighing in are The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post (which actually runs a somewhat odd blog post), the Tribune's competitor, the Chicago Sun-Times, and, of course, LAO.

Elsewhere in the blogosphere, it's a hot topic.

--Veronique de Turenne

Photo: Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[susan]

What does it mean to be paid by "byline counts?" Sounds like it will discourage reporters from researching stories thoroughly in favor or whipping them out fast, accurate or not. And they can't be investigative or meaty that way, more like snapshots of life. What kind of orchestral music would be have if composers were paid that way, and if musicians got paid by the note? They harpist and tuba player would get a lot less money than the violinist or cellist, for example.

We're seeing some of these more shallow stories already, like the one yesterday where some "reporters" sat at a a freeway intersection and photographed license plates, then boasted that they ran them through DMV databases to get the names and addresses of the subjects.

First, that sounds illegal and should be looked into by the authorities, NOT rewarded with more money by Zell because it's a quick job. Several comenters said this too, on the discussion board. This lack of respect for privacy of the victims of the story is really outrageous, and seems to reflect the "Do whatever it takes to get a story" mentality coming down from the top.

And turning the paper into basically an ad sheet, fully half ads/ half content, sounds just plain bizarre. Sure some people buy it just for the coupons and flyers, but to admit the paper is just writing some stories as a gimmick to hang ads on, seems really sad. And the bleeding heart stories from Anna Gorman about illegals are a turn-off to many, and won't get Zell the Laino readers he's clearly hoping for with this pandering -- they'll stick with La Opinion.

Sounds like Zell is doing everything exactly wrong: the best-respected papers have in-depth stories with analysis from experienced and vetted journalists, not this inane violation of privacy and pandering stuff from newbies on the cheap.

[SFCityGirl11]

I think it is a real shame that it has come down to a 50/50 split. There must be a better solution. We pay $4 for a iced latte in an economy that is losing jobs and foreclosing on homes. I know consumer priorities have gone awry, but there must be a way to balance the internet with the print media without jeopardizing news.

I don't buy papers anymore, so I wouldn't mind paying for an online subscription that is constantly updated and always streaming. I know the NYT charged for an extra section but since has scrapped that idea. But I think that was only the first attempt at charing online readers and should be tried again.

If all news outlets agreed on charging then web surfers wouldn't have a choice. So many of us working folks sit behind our computers through lunch, so why not tap this funding source? Of course there will be many who do not agree, but I would honestly rather pay for my news than filter through the adds.

[concerned citizen]

This is terrible, but I don't agre with SF Girl -- many people avoid online journals that require even a free subscription, while those like L A Business Journal that charge appeal to a select biz audience. If we had to pay for each of dozens of papers and mags we surf through, we wouldn't. -- Is there a demand for an extra "premium" service, like with cable? I don't know, cuz then Yahoo/Google etc. would just jump in and own that market for free.

I like the hard copy in my hands, the photos etc. People want more local content.