Editor announces staff reduction

The memo from Editor Russ Stanton:

Colleagues,

     The growing economic downturn is forcing us to undergo another round of job reductions and cost cuts. I deeply regret to report that today, 75 of our friends, colleagues and capable staff members in Editorial will be told that they are losing their jobs. This is about 10% of our total staff and these cuts are comparable in scale to those made on the business side of The Times last week.

   The severance terms being offered to our colleagues are similar to those offered in the other reductions we've faced this year.
    I appreciate your patience, understanding and cooperation during this difficult period. Your department heads and the senior editing team, including John, Davan, Meredith and I, are available to hear your concerns and answer any questions.

Comments

[Vicki]

This is terrible news. I miss the full opinion and book sections. I hate "Image"--what a waste of resouces. I know you are facing economic challenges. But you are making yourself irrelevant to those newspaper readers who still remain.

[Claire]

That's too bad, but there may be a correlation between loyal readership and relentless partisanship. You keep the readers who agree with you, but lose all the rest.

The question is, why is that a risk you are willing to take?

[Gary M.]

The reductions will continue because the LA Times has decided that liberal editorializing is a better business model than reporting the news. This political season has proved that beyond a reasonable doubt.

They have selected their position, and the readers, subscribers, and advertisers have voted with their pocket books.

[OSweet]

Bummer. The victims of expanding media environment.

Possibly presumptuous, but brings to mind:

"A liberal is someone who wants change as long as it doesn't hurt them."

--James Baldwin

[Kirk McDonald]

I love the boilerplate that says "If you are under 13 years of age you may read this message board, but you may not participate."

Kinda sums up the newspaper industry as a whole, doesn't it? If you don't engage the younger readers NOW - and I mean the 15-30 age group - within a decade there won't be any print newspapers left.

Comments posted here seem to imply that readership is in decline because of a partisan bent, but the reality is that ALL newspapers across the country, regardless of political leanings, are suffering drops in circulation.

The leadership of the Tribune Company need to understand that the information that has been presented in the past continues to be relevant, but the media in which it's presented (print, web, podcast, etc.) has evolved and grown with the times. If the Times doesn't evolve and grow as well, then its future is bleak, indeed.