Los Angeles Times cutting 74 positions

Maybe Merida was voluntold to make this move, but it sure doesn't seem or sound like anything voluntary to me.

And I'd bet it all comes down to missing financial projections.

It is a move that saddens me, because, reading that, it sounds like Merida did an awful lot of good things in a short time at the LAT. I would be curious to know how short of projections the paper fell, and I will be curious to see who it is thought could do better in the financial aspects that are becoming all that matters. The newspaper business -- formerly a public service in general and something of a calling to those in journalism -- has well and truly become just a business, because if nobody can solve that side of things, the industry will die.

But how to attract new consumers among a population that, frankly, doesn't read? And doesn't thoughtfully engage? And doesn't care?

 

Don’t be surprised to see him back at the WaPo.

 

They’ve just had their own round of executions. Maybe it’s a good time. I’d hope nobody could walk into another buzzsaw of corporate greed.

 

He's 67, time to call it a wrap and enjoy retirement after a successful career.

 

Kevin and I are the same age.

I'm still working.

Hope to see him back at the WaPo.

 

time to stop calling this a 'challenging time in the business.' The patient is deceased.

 

The business model is what's broken.

As demonstrated, even angel investors like Bezos and Soon-Shiong aren't the longterm answer. Nor are hedge funds.

People still want (and need) news and information. Local, national, global. Partisan / nonpartisan.

The question is how to pay for it.

 

Newspapers as we knew them are mostly no longer viable. The NYT maybe, because it has brand stature. But subscription + advertising alone doesn't cover costs.

We haven't figured out how to reliably scale online newsgathering for local markets. Patch, maybe, a little. Local/neighborhood microblogs. Same problem. $.

People willingly or unhappily or cluelessly pay for CNN and Fox etc. as part of their basic cable package. Slightly different model, but also faltering. Local broadcast television also bleeding advertisers.

For the last 30 years, people have been conditioned not to pay directly for news content. They think it shows up online or on their phone for free.

Substack works for individuals - at least those individuals who had some profile before they launched.

As to the absolute value and necessity of news and what people willingly pay for or not, no one buys medicine until they're sick.

One of the reasons I think non-profit is the way to go.

 

Non profit might be a way to go, but it depends on rich people donating money on a consistent basis to the cause. Patrons of the arts, if you will.

 

I've been hearing that since I was young and handsome. 375 years was a good run for the print product on this continent.

A change of language is needed. They need to stop insulting people's intelligence, or those who remain.