Note from editor about Los Angeles Times Magazine

Here's the memo from Editor Russ Stanton.

Colleagues:

By now you've likely heard that the company is rethinking the future of the Los Angeles Times Magazine, which has lost money for years and is on track to post another significant loss in 2008.

I have come to the reluctant conclusion that, even as a monthly, the magazine is something we cannot afford to continue at a time of diminishing newsroom resources. So the editorial department will stop producing it after the July issue, and we'll be looking to find jobs for the magazine staff within the paper.

At the same time, the company has been looking at possible ways to continue to publish a magazine, but outside of the direction of the editorial department.
The Los Angeles Times Media Group publishes several other titles outside of our newsroom, including Hoy, MetroMix and the Times Community Newspapers.
Contrary to reports, it is my understanding that the group has yet to hire a staff for this publication, including an editor.

As a new business model for the magazine is developed, we have been in discussions with David Hiller and Jack Klunder about ways to make clear that the magazine is being produced outside of our own newsroom. We want to make sure that the public -- our readers and the subjects of the stories included -- are not confused about who is producing the content of the magazine.

We expect to get more details about this arrangement soon, which we'll share with you.

Comments

[ed]

As one of your readers, I guess the clause "the business department will put out the magazine" translates into that readers like me should no longer believe in the contents of this publication because it is not under unbiased editorial control. So much for a great newspaper magazine that I grew up with. Now how much else of editorial control is being transferred from editorial to business divisions?

[College Student]

Dear Mr. Stanton,

I've read the LA Times everyday since I was 10. As a 20 year old I've got 10 years of reading this newspaper and magazine under my belt.

This is heart breaking. Stop thinking bottom line and news content and subsequent readership will go through the roof. Take some risks.

Isn't worrying about profit the job of the Publishers? I think you need to reevaluate your purpose as Editor of one of the most well respected publications in the world.
I've heard you speak on NPR and around town about what is going on with the state of the newspaper industry and it's the same thing each time. Get a new tune like "no matter what happens I will work on behalf of the People."

Please the public -- what a novel idea, right?

For the past couple weeks the front page has been a disaster. My god, please don't let the Times go under.

LAT has turned into one of those old guys that struts stunner shades and says things like "cool dude."

QUIT IT! My generation can see right through that crap. We aren't stupid. We read. We are altruistic as hell.
If we wanted to read about Heidi from the Hills, we would go to the store down the street and pick up a filthy tabloid.

Oy vey.

[Jeff Prescott]

I've read every issue (except about 3) since 1966.......so, I have over 42-years with The Times in my daily life.
It's sad the paper can't sustain a magazine with the quality of The Boston Globe. But you can go back to "West" magazine or other versions and see it's been a problem for several decades.
I know the newspaper business model is changing, and it is Mr. Zell's money not ours. But, The Times should be the stallion of newspapers.......I put the brain trust on notice to figure it out----and don't let this paper dumb-down itself to death.
We don't need pie charts and lame graphs or even big photos.....we need an engaging, complete paper every day. You folks can do it!
I believe, sadly, at some point in time the old ink-on-paper model may leave us.....but with other media as dumb as it is out there...The Times can be relevant for many years to come before the presses stop forever.

[George Garrigues]

I didn't even realize the magazine had slipped back to a monthly, that's how inconsequential it is to my life these days. I published an article there back in 1970, and that may be the only issue I read cover to cover. Otherwise, Time, Newsweek and the Internet keep me well informed.

If the magazine can be turned into a profit center (like the raft of advertising inserts, all of which I dump immediately), it might help some friends and fellow journalists keep collecting paychecks for a bit longer.

The Times staff has enough problems without having to peenge about this dead horse, if you'll pardon my Scottish.

[Drex Heikes]

As the last editor of the Los Angeles Times magazine when it actually made money (barely, 4th Quarter, 2004), I had a great seat for understanding the financials. Sadly, as every editor going back to West in the 1970s can attest, the magazine failed solely because of a lack of support on the business side.

Specifically, it failed because the Los Angeles Times magazine was not sold by a separate ad staff. Instead, it was sold by the regular staff and over the years, those salespersons were given few if any incentives to break away from the daily newspaper gravy train and sell the weekly book.

West was a marvelous magazine. Over the years, the Sunday rag that replaced it was pretty damned good. We won the Penny Missouri and a host of other awards through the late 1990s until about 2005, when a number of us engineered our departures rather than undergo yet another redesign and refocus that the ad staff said it needed if the magazine was to sell.

A University of Oregon graduate student studied the demise of West in 1975. Reading her report today is a sad commentary. Nothing changed over the next three decades. As a result, another piece of what once was fine newspaper has disappeared.

[natalie]

If taking away what seems to be a monthly burden means more focus on the daily paper you all put out, than good riddance.

[steve miller]

Well, I miss the old West magazine - it was a kick in the 70s and 80s.

Sad that the replacement is going, too. It's all about the ads, and the ads weren't there. A business can't stay in business if its product loses money.