XPost: alt.bankruptcy, alt.politics.media.latimes.bias, alt.jour   
   alism.newspapers   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns   
   From: yourdime@outlook.com   
      
   The Los Angeles Times has been around since 1881 and has survived enormous   
   ups and downs over the past 142 years. But one thing remained constant:   
   the LA Times could be depended on for trustworthy and timely reporting of   
   the news. Growing up in the San Fernando Valley, the 260-plus square mile   
   suburbs of Los Angeles, my parents were loyal Times subscribers. The paper   
   has enjoyed over a century of respect and popularity with its consumers   
   and even detractors; until now. Impending doom seems to have struck the   
   Times, with new reports of "brutal" layoffs and exodus of senior editors.   
      
   The Los Angeles-based newspaper started its downward slide in the late   
   2000s when it went through a series of calamities, including bankruptcy,   
   ownership changes, an abnormally high attrition rate when it came to its   
   editor and general staff, and with its biggest hiccup of moving from their   
   historic headquarters building in downtown Los Angeles to a newer building   
   in El Segundo which is located near the Los Angeles International Airport   
   and giving the Times a new nickname of "The El Segundo Times." The move   
   came after the Times was purchased in 2018 by a South African billionaire   
   and surgeon, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong.   
      
   Fast-forward to today and the news that comes with the day brings reports   
   of an institution in full panic and chaos mode. Tuesday's big news was   
   that the paper will be shedding a large percentage of the newsroom staff   
   and editors (115 people to be laid off), and two of the four remaining   
   senior editors (ironically they came from BuzzFeed) have called it quits.   
   This comes just a few weeks after Executive Editor Kevin Merida abruptly   
   left, citing differences with the paper’s owner.   
      
   Earlier this month, Kevin Merida suddenly announced that he was departing   
   his post as executive editor after less than three years on the job. Then,   
   news of forthcoming mass layoffs ensued, prompting the employee’s union to   
   stage a historic one-day walk out on Friday. The LAT’s Meg James reported   
   last week that management could slash upwards of 20% of the newsroom — or   
   roughly 100 positions — with the looming layoffs, though a person familiar   
   with the matter warned to me on Monday that it could ultimately end up   
   being “much worse” than that.   
      
   One of the two remaining managing editors, Julia Turner, tried to reassure   
   the newsroom staff of a continuing operation, but at the same time, not   
   sugarcoating the possibly grim future. In an email to employees, Turner   
   says:   
      
   “Scott [Kraft] and I are now responsible for all editorial operations, and   
   we’re advocating for editorial interests in conversations with the company   
   about the financial crisis we face.”   
      
   No one seems to truly know what is going on, or what will come, as several   
   employees are pointing their fingers or at the very least offering   
   criticism at the owner, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong. An anonymous employee   
   stated:   
      
   “We have a billionaire who doesn’t understand media and thinks he can cut   
   his way to success...”   
      
   The critique of the leadership does not come without merit. The Times has   
   lost roughly $30 million annually since he took over with his activist   
   daughter, Nika Soon-Shiong. The Times is shedding editorial staff and   
   general newsroom staff at an extremely concerning rate, whether by being   
   laid off or outright quitting; the media giant has a historic attrition   
   rate. But more to the point, the LA Times is losing big to its   
   competition. The paper's year-over-year digital traffic, much of which is   
   from paying subscribers, was down 38 percent in November 2023, a   
   staggering hit.   
      
      
   As our Managing Editor Jennifer Van Laar wrote:   
      
   This year-over-year decline in digital/mobile traffic for the L.A. Times   
   is massive, and seeing the number in comparison to outlets like the   
   Washington Post and the New York Times puts it into perspective. It's more   
   difficult to get advertisers when you're losing readers, and a 38 percent   
   decline in digital traffic for a publication where the overwhelming   
   majority of its pieces are for subscribers only is a very bad development.   
   It's also interesting that RedState's traffic is in the same universe as   
   the Los Angeles Times' despite having a very small fraction of the   
   resources (equipment, writers) the LAT has.   
      
   That is their sole purpose in life, to report the news and topics of   
   interest. The same goes for RedState, but there are some key differences   
   between RedState and the Times: our contributor staff is a fraction of the   
   size of the Times, as was pointed out; many of our contributors have other   
   jobs in addition to writing here, and we do this out of love of country   
   and the truth. We don't get paid exorbitant salaries or get fame or   
   fortune like they do. Yet we beat them at the very game they were a huge   
   part of creating, every day.   
      
   Besides the competition, the Times has another serious problem; they have   
   lost touch with reality and have taken a deep dive into being just another   
   partisan hack of the left. Decades ago, the Times used to have a solid   
   reputation for being truly independent in the face of politics, hitting   
   the right AND the left equally across the board. The same cannot be said   
   of the Times anymore, as they have become a stalwart member of the huge   
   media giant that coordinates with, supports, defends, and runs cover for   
   the leftist political and ideological machine.   
      
   For example, as Van Laar covered earlier Tuesday, LA Times had the nerve   
   to endorse LA's District Attorney George Gascon for his re-election. As   
   she pointed out, Gascon has never once in his professional time as a   
   prosecutor tried a felony case in court, is a far-left DA who refuses to   
   use maximum punishments, will not use weapon enhancements in most cases,   
   and is one of the most soft-on-crime DA's in the nation. With property and   
   retail theft and more running rampant in LA County, he continues to double   
   down on his horrible policies and the Times thinks he's deserving of a   
   second term.   
      
   READ MORE: Why Is the L.A. Times Losing $30+ Million a Year? This   
   Hilarious Endorsement Is a Big Indicator   
      
   Another prime example of tone deafness and ignorance in media reporting is   
   the editorial penned by Times editor Paul Thornton, which my colleague   
   Mike Miller properly skewered, asking "very nicely" for those Californians   
   leaving the state for better, safer, and cheaper places to live, to not   
   speak ill of the state. Even while admitting the real reason why people   
   are leaving, the words and tone of Thornton and the rest of the Times   
   staff are the perfect example of why the former paper giant is imploding   
   on itself.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)