Los Angeles Times Editor Is Fired After 14 Months on Job, Source Says

Los Angeles Times editor James O'Shea was fired just 14 months after he assumed the post, over a budgetary disagreement with publisher David Hiller, according to a person familiar with the situation.

Mr. O'Shea's exit comes little more than a month after the Times' parent company Tribune Co. was taken private in a $8.2 billion buyout. Chicago real estate magnate Sam Zell won effective control in the buyout and became chairman and CEO of Tribune. The Chicago-based company owns several newspapers, including the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune and Newsday, as well as a chain of TV stations. A Tribune spokesman couldn't immediately be reached for comment.

Mr. O'Shea, who had been editor of the LA Times since November 2006, is the third successive editor of the paper to leave over budgetary issues.

In case you are interested, there is going to be some discussion on this on KCRW’s Which Way LA at 7pm Pacific Time Monday The editor of LA Observed will be on. There is a live feed on the NPR station’s website. Actually, there will probably be a podcast available later on too.

O’Shea’s message follows

I made these farewell remarks in the newsroom today and I wanted to share them with everyone in case they took off the holiday and were unable to attend. I wish all of you the best and thank you for all of the help you’ve given me over the last 14 months.

By now I am sure you have all heard I am leaving the Los Angeles Times after 14 months as editor of the paper. I will never forget the day that I walked into this newsroom, which was furious about the firing of my predecessor, Dean Baquet. As I entered the Globe Lobby, the security guard handed me a pass. It was good for one day. I remember thinking this was going to be one of the toughest days of my life. Actually, today is probably a little tougher. I am leaving here after making many great friends and before I got a chance to do everything that I wanted. But that’s life and I accept it.

I know there’s a lot of talk about why I am leaving so let me set the record straight. In discussions about the current and future budgets, it became clear that Publisher David Hiller and I didn’t share a common vision for the future of the Los Angeles Times. In fact, we were far apart. So David decided he wanted a new editor. As I’ve said on numerous occasions over the past 14 months, I intended to stay here and lead this newspaper to the greatness it deserves. But David decided he wanted to terminate my employment and get another editor. I wish the new editor the best.

Although I didn’t really accomplish all of the goals that I set when I arrived, I know that this newsroom today is better off than when I walked into the door, and I am proud of all that we did together. We’ve accomplished a lot in just 14 months. When I came to this newsroom, I pledged to maintain the quality of the LA Times, and I did, even though I had to cut budgets and shrink the staff.

Despite those cutbacks, we successfully transformed this place into a true interactive newsroom with a web site that is far more successful than when I came. In fact, traffic on LA Times.com was up by a staggering 187 million page views over December 2006, an extraordinary achievement and one that should generate pride in our ranks. Our coverage of the fires that’s truly worthy of a Pulitzer Prize is just one example of why record numbers of print and online readers depend on this newsroom. During my tenure, we also turned around a Sunday magazine that was drowning in red ink when I arrived; it’s now rebounding and is in the black. With a modest investment in new resources, we created a new fashion section that generates millions in new print and online ad revenues and a successful new Calendar weekend section.

The formula for success? A small investment in new resources more than pays for itself with added revenues. We also created a new multi-media Guide section and web site; we redesigned Travel; we stopped the bleeding in circulation by being one of four papers in the country whose daily circulation was up in the last reporting period; and we broke news, the heartbeat of a newsroom, lots of it. The Sheriff Corona story; the diversion of U.S. anti-terrorism aid in Pakistan; I could go on and on. The quality of the paper under my time as editor didn’t decline. I am proud of that given the financial pressures we faced.
And most important, there’s a talented stable management team in place that cares about the news that flows out to the public under the name of the Los Angeles Times.

This is an incredibly talented newsroom and I’ve really enjoyed getting to know many of you. I think Steve Lopez is the best daily newspaper columnist in the nation, one of a few that I would compare favorably to Mike Royko. And that’s saying a lot for someone from Chicago. There are lots of others who I could name but I don’t have the time. I didn’t get the time or opportunity to get to know some of you better and I regret that. One criticism I accept is that I spent too much time in my office and not enough time in the trenches, where I belong. So I apologize if I seemed a bit remote. As anyone who knows me well will tell you, that is not like me. I didn’t make enough time to do what I’m really good at: rolling up my sleeves and editing a story.

This is a tough time in the company and the industry. I understand that. I spent much of my career covering business and economics. I understand the realities of the bottom line. I am not some naïve, starry-eyed journalist who can’t accept economic reality. I know you have to cut back in hard times. I’ve done that more often than I care to mention. I also know this is a time of transition with change sweeping throughout the industry. But when you don’t agree with the future course of the newspaper it’s best to simply move on. There are plenty of other challenges out there for me and I don’t intend to sit around idle. There are bike rides to be had, books to write and hopefully another opportunity or two to make a difference. I am not a quitter.

One thing I want put on the record, though, is that I disagree completely with the way that this company allocates resources to its newsrooms, not just here but at Tribune newspapers all around the country. That system is at the core of my disagreements with David. I think the current system relies too heavily on voodoo economics and not enough on the creativity and resourcefulness of journalists. We journalists have our faults, but we also have a lot to offer. Too often we’ve been dismissed as budgetary adolescents who can’t be trusted to conserve our resources. That is wrong. Journalists and not accountants should seize responsibility for the financial health of our newspapers so journalists can make decisions about the size of our staffs and how much news remains in our papers and web sites.

The biggest challenge we face — journalists and dedicated newspaper folks alike – is to overcome this pervasive culture of defeat, the psychology of surrender that accepts decline as inevitable. This mindset plagues our business and threatens our newspapers and livelihoods. I believe that when Sam Zell understands how asinine the current budgetary system is, he will change it for the better, because he is a smart businessman and he understands the value of wise investment. A dollar’s worth of smart investment is worth far more than a barrel of budget cuts.

This company, indeed, this industry, must invest more in solid, relevant journalism. We must integrate the speed and agility of the Internet with the news judgment and editorial values of the newsroom, values that are more important than ever as the hunger for news continues to surge and gossip pollutes the information atmosphere. Even in hard times, wise investment — not retraction – is the long-term answer to the industry’s troubles. We must build on our core strength, which is good, accurate reporting, the backbone of solid journalism, the public service that helps people make the right decisions about their increasingly complex lives.

We must tell people what they want to know and – even more important — what they might not want to know, about war, politics, economics, schools, corruption and the thoughts and deeds of those who lead us. We need to tell readers more about Barack Obama and less about Britney Spears. We must give a voice to those who can’t afford a megaphone. And we must become more than a marketing slogan. I know I can rely on this newsroom to do this.

Lastly I want to make it clear that I didn’t quit. Anyone in a top newsroom management job during tough times always wrestles with a crucial question: Where is the line? At what point do you go from “I can deal with this” to “this is simply wrong. ” When I was Managing Editor of the Chicago Tribune, I always thought my line was 600 newsroom employees. If the publisher demanded cuts that would take the newsroom below that level, I would leave because I felt staffing would slip to a level that would not allow me to sustain the quality newspaper that the community deserved. The Trib had 610 people in the newsroom when I left.

So when I got here, I wondered anew: Where’s my line: Would it be a newsroom of 800 people? 700? But then I realized the folly of that kind of thinking. I’d been around the accountants and their “metrics” too long. The line you draw is this: Do I believe in the course we’ve set for the future? If the answer is Yes, if I thought the LA Times could resolve its problems by getting smaller and smaller, by being gradually diminished, then I would stay. If not, (and I don’t) then I told myself to take a stand and say enough is enough. If you have to consider closing foreign bureaus and cutting back in other parts of the paper to free up the money needed to cover the Olympics and the most historic political campaign in modern times, well to me that’s no plan for the future, that is not serving the interest of readers.

It is simply stupid. Even though we face tough and demanding times and I sympathize with those who face daunting revenue challenges, I don’t believe that we will succeed long term by giving up; by taking steps that I think will gradually diminish newspapers. I decided to take my stand and say: Change the way we do things. I made that decision and I will live with the consequences. And when I walk through the Globe Lobby for the last time, I can guarantee you that I won’t regret taking that stand. I believe history will prove me right. When this industry stops relying so much on cuts and starts investing in Journalism, it will prosper because it will be serving the best interests of our readers. That’s when we will prosper. I wish you all the best and with that its time to say of my tenure here.

http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=13068

View Forum Post
Topic: Letters Sent to Romenesko
Date/Time: 1/23/2008 12:51:38 PM
Title: LAT editors and Yankee managers
Posted By: Jim Romenesko

From GARY DRETZKA: When Tribune Co. purchased Times-Mirror, news executives in the Tower [in Chicago] took it as gospel that the LAT was hideously bloated and the last bastion of journalistic feather-bedding. Even if LAT reporters no longer were allowed to fly first-class to assignments, the image of its editors and other news brass dining under Picassos and being picked up at airports in limousines induced apoplexy among their Tribune counterparts.

As anyone who had spent time at the Tribune in the last 20 years could predict, TRB would open the check book for Carroll-Baquet, if only to demonstrate how benevolent and public-spirited a conglomerate it could be. Then, it would pull the financial rug out from under them. Just weeks after the big Pulitzer haul, it did just that.

In the wake of such a huge honor, John and Dean probably were surprised by the orders to start slashing and burning. After John split, Dean inexplicably thought he could succeed in saving jobs and resources where his former boss couldn’t. Of course, that didn’t happen. By comparison, the departures of the publishers for the same reasons — a.k.a., drinking the west-coast Kool-Aid — were far more ominous.

Jim O’Shea knew the deal, and presided over the mass slaughter of 57 employees that followed. In his letter to the staff, dated May 24, 2007, he wrote:

“Some highly talented people are leaving the staff and I hate to see them go. No one enjoys going through something like this, least of all me. This is a time of wrenching change at our paper and in our industry. I wish those leaving all the best. I pledge to do anything I can to help them with their futures. Now it is time to move forward and meet the huge challenges ahead. Even after this reduction, we have a strong, large and talented staff eager to tackle the industry-wide problems that have made staff adjustments an unfortunate reality in nearly every paper in the nation.”

Within days of eliminating tenured staff, Hiller gave O’Shea the green light to hire younger and less benefit-laden employees in key positions. Everything seemed right in their heaven.

That more cuts would be demanded was obvious. Someone had to compensate for the much-touted investment in the Internet (hits cost money, too), even if the freelance personnel on some projects were hired at below-minimum wages. Like the gloating TRB execs of yore, Mr. Zell must see fat where others saw lean. Hiller and O’Shea couldn’t possibly have been that far off the same wavelength.

Cutting 4 percent, even in an Olympics and election year, could have been realized by consolidating Tribune-chain resources (long resisted by LAT editors) or eliminating perqs and redundant news brass, of which there remain several too many. Or, trim using the time-honored last-hired/first-fired policy. They might even have considered charging employees for parking privileges or taxing bag lunches.

Martyrdom probably was the more attractive option for a guy with strong Chicago roots and a natural revulsion for show-biz nonsense and bureaucratic pinheads. John and Dean are no worse for the wear, after all.

Is it conceivable that rumored replacements John Arthur and Russ Stanton would accept the editor’s job, believing they could succeed where Jim’s most recent predecessors failed? Can they believe the worst is over, and the future is lined with seashells and balloons?

If so, they are far too delusional to serve in such a position. Being an editor at the LAT has become the newspaper equivalent of being manager of the Yankees at the height of the Steinbrenner era. Imbibe a strong shot of hubris, then just sit back, enjoy the ride and carry a golden parachute. Waiting for the pie-in-the-sky ESOP to pay off is far too iffy a proposition upon which to hinge a career ... unless you’re young, unattached and extremely gutsy. The odds against are huge, but the potential payoff is worth the risk ... er, investment.

Remember, though, don’t mess with the Envelope and other awards tomfoolery. The Olympics and White House are important, but the Oscars are far too important to put under the microscope.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.