la times coverage

socalogo.gif (8739 bytes)
SoCalHoops Media News

Good News, Bad News: LA Times To Vastly Reduce
Local Area Coverage--(June 20, 2001)

In a move that has been widely dreaded among local sports fans in the San Fernando Valley, but which doesn't come as much of a surprise now that the LA Times is "foreign-owned" (the Times was sold last year by Times-Mirror to the Chicago-based Tribune Co.), the Los Angeles Times has eliminated it's San Fernando Valley sports coverage, and several of it's staff writers have left the paper, taking a "voluntary retirement" package offered by the company.

We're not sure exactly who is staying and who is going, or what the LA Times Sports sections will look like in the future, but last Sunday was the last "Valley" coverage for the Times. As one staffer told us yesterday, "They are telling us that paper needs to become more profitable. Sports is going to suffer because of a bulked up "Metro" section. Someone has to get the short end, so local sports coverage is the first to be cut."

We spoke with several Times reporters, and they each told us that the Times' "new plan" is to go with a sports section that will cover the entire Los Angeles Region, and gradually phase out the local coverage sections like the San Fernando-Ventura edition, and possibly the Orange County edition. "We're not sure what it's going to look like, but the Valley sports section is dead," one long-time staffer told us on condition of anonymity. . "The paper will continue to cover high school sports, just not in the same way. The focus will now be on a region-wide scale." Another staff writer told us, "The guys in the metro area [the metro area of Los Angeles excluding the Valley] ought to love it, since now they get virtually no coverage. But it's really bad for all the kids and their parents in the Valley, and will mean much more diluted coverage," this same staffer told us.

Who is staying and who is going. Well for now, we know that Eric Sondheimer plans to stay, as does Mike Bresnahan; we've heard that Dave Desmond is leaving and perhaps others. Eric told us that he will now cover more region-wide events, and not just Valley-based sports. "I'll be seeing you more often at some of those City Section basketball games over the hill and at the Pump's tournaments," he said only half-jokingly, a reference to the fact that he's received a lot of criticism for not covering summer basketball. Of course, while the good news is that someone from the Times will now be out at such events during the summer, the bad news is that with limited space, the amount of coverage will be compromised. At least that's our take on the situation which is continuing to develop.

There's really no telling what the coverage is going to look like in the future until it gets started. As for regional coverage of areas like Palmdale, Lancaster, Ventura, or Orange County and the Inland Valley, we just don't know. And as for the Inland Empire, the Times long ago gave up on the Riverside-San Bernardino area.

Again, in all of this, there's a little bit of the "good news, bad news." The good news is that the paper may now publish the stats for not only the Valley area teams, but also those for the LA Metro region, which would be a big plus for those of us stat junkies who never get to see a box score from a Manual Arts, Fairfax or Westchester game, but instead have to rely on. . . well, we rely on ourselves to get most of those stats, but they're spotty at best.

Of course the bad news is that with the demise of the local area coverage, especially the San Fernando Valley (hey, is this a good reason to support the succession movement or what?) we have no doubt that the paper will also lose whatever sense of roots it has had in the community, alienate a lot of folks, and we're guessing that events like the Battle of the Valley All-Star Game (and other non-basketball sporting events) which have received a lot of sponsorship and support from the paper will have to look elsewhere both for financial support (to the extent they ever received it) and for their publicity.

If you're interested in the reasons and rationale for the impending changes, they were published in the Times this past week, as the paper announced the offer of early retirements and alluded to the restructuring. Here's the story:

The Los Angeles Times, blaming the economic slowdown, announced a voluntary retirement program for older employees Thursday as part of a cost-cutting effort by its parent corporation, Chicago-based Tribune Co. Tribune became the latest of several newspaper companies to reduce payrolls this year as the industry battles the effects of slumping advertising revenue and the rising cost of newsprint.

Officials at The Times wouldn't say how many jobs they hope to eliminate, but Tribune's goal is to cut about 6% of the 21,000 employees for its 11 daily newspapers. About half those are expected to result from employees taking the early retirement offer, and the rest from reorganizations and attrition. Including cuts already made, Tribune said that by year's end, it will have reduced its publishing division by 10% since it merged with Times Mirror and acquired The Times in June 2000.

At The Times, "fewer than 50" jobs will be eliminated involuntarily, said publisher John Puerner. Most involve changes announced last month in the circulation department. Puerner said that although he could "never rule out the possibility" of more involuntary staff reductions, he expects voluntary retirements to achieve "the objectives of the program."

More than 900 of The Times' total staff of about 6,000, who range from drivers and pressroom operators to advertising and marketing employees, are eligible for the early retirement offer. Not all will be permitted to retire early since department limits will be invoked, Puerner said, to "preserve the quality of our journalism and the integrity of our operations."

In the newsroom, Editor John Carroll said 171 of the editorial staff of 1,086 are eligible, but only 30 early retirements will be approved. All the newsroom retirements will be voluntary. Carroll said additional retirements might be permitted "if we feel it won't cause operational difficulties." During the economic downturn of the early '90s, The Times offered voluntary buyouts to a much larger number of employees and lost 981 full-time equivalent positions, 129 of them in the newsroom. In 1995, the paper eliminated the equivalent of 375 more full-time positions, including 90 in the newsroom.

"I believe that this program has been fashioned with care . . . I have every confidence that The Times will be an even better paper a year from now than it is today," Carroll said. The voluntary retirement program is available to those 50 and older with at least five years of service. Eligible employees will receive their pensions in a lump sum or as a full monthly pension beginning at age 50, instead of 65, and other inducements.

The Times exempted about 100 newsroom staffers who would have been eligible for early retirement but whose jobs were deemed essential. They include section heads and their deputies, news and copy editors, columnists, critics, foreign correspondents and their editors and various categories of reporters and bureau chiefs. Industry analyst John Morton said Wall Street probably would be "favorably disposed" to Tribune's moves. "Any time you cut costs, Wall Street likes it," he said, "no matter the consequences at the paper. It shows Tribune wants to bolster its [profit] margins as best it can in these difficult times."

The announcement was made after the close of trading. Tribune, which also publishes the Chicago Tribune, Newsday and the Baltimore Sun, cut its earnings projections Thursday for the second quarter. Tribune also owns several television stations. Tribune put its earnings estimate at 22 cents a share, versus a consensus estimate on Wall Street of 28 cents. Tribune stock closed at $40.63, down 64 cents in New York Stock Exchange trading.

Again, no one is sure what the paper will eventually look like, but one thing is certain. . . It won't look like the LA Times that we've all learned to love/hate over the past decades.