Our Shrinking Times

by Jim Washburn

My Sunday Los Angeles Times arrived yesterday with its plastic bag holding sample bottles of shampoo and conditioner, both bearing question marks. It’s a mystery, see? The text on the Times’ plastic bag asks, “What’s the hair care secret that had salon brand users considering a switch?” Horse tranquilizers is my guess, but you can use the free goop and make your own guess at the SecretToGreatHair.com website, where truth will be revealed by Stacy London on Nov. 24, two days after the 45th anniversary of the still rather unsolved Kennedy assassination. JFK knew the secret of great hair. Let’s hope Stacy gets to share hers before the salonistas take her out.

The question nagging at me though, is “Has the once-great Los Angeles Times now become little more than a shampoo delivery system?” The paper as it exists today has very few advantages over online news sources, but one is that it can be bundled with tangible items, sort of like home-delivery Cracker Jacks with a free prize in every paper.

The shampoo was yesterday. Today, the free surprise was that the LA Times came with even less LA Times, specifically on the front pages of several sections, where for the first time content has been supplanted by banner ads running across the bottom, even on the formerly sacrosanct front page. What that means is from now on historic headlines like OBAMA WINS! will be eclipsed in size by SHOE EXPLOSION AT BIG 5!

That’s assuming the Times has a future. I had a very sobering talk over drinks recently with a longtime staffer who expressed serious doubts that there will even be a Los Angeles Times in two years. With owners who seemingly don’t give a hang about the paper’s legacy or the crucial function news serves in a free society, it’s become a daily battle against attrition there. Sagging readership and ad revenues lead to even more staff cuts and fewer pages, giving people even less reason to read or advertise in the paper, leading to ... The model that has carried the Times through 127 years has fallen apart, and there may be no putting it back together.

On October 21 the front section had a wrap-around page with a letter from editor Russ Stanton, trumpeting a new look for the paper, with “changes designed to better match our coverage to your lifestyles and reading habits.”

Meanwhile, I’m thinking, “God damn, my paper shrank again.” Along with having ever-fewer pages, the paper has physically shrunk its dimensions in recent years, and my handy ruler confirmed they have again made it a little smaller, matching my diminished lifestyle by giving me ¼” less paper, from left to right.

It’s no great loss, since the Times saved that ¼” by smartly cutting down their page margins rather than text. If they’re that interested in saving paper, though, why do they persist in running a huge, kissable pinup of Geoff Boucher seemingly every other day? Geoff is one of the best arts-side writers the Times has, and he is certainly plugged into the comic book culture that rules our media, but how long is the paper going to be flouting it? Marvel produces sequels more frequently than the Times updates its house ads.

Other innovations Stanton announced on October 21 included redesigned indexes, cleaner typography, and a different color at the top of each section front to help you better identify them, for, as one reader quipped, those who can’t work out the inch-high letters saying SPORTS and BUSINESS.

But the real change at the paper? Exactly a week after Stanton’s wraparound reach-around, on page 3 of the GREY-GREEN-MEANS-BUSINESS section was a headline reading “Times lays off 10% of editorial staff,” meaning another damn round of staff-cutting: 200 persons total, 75 of them editorial.

The Times’ former rival, the Orange County Register—sorry, you don’t count as rivals when you’re both cowering in your caves—has not only been laying folks off like crazy but, in a bold move that’s sure to put them back in the black, the Reg’s cafeteria is now charging employees five cents for a little squishy-pac of ketchup. 

Let’s see: the state’s on fire; the nation’s heading into a historic power-shift after the most bracing election of our lives; the Bush administration’s shenanigans continue unabated; we’re fighting two wars with enough corruption and incompetence for seven; the entire world is in economic freefall; scientists have discovered new planets; Guns n’ Fuckin’ Roses has a new album out, yet publishers can’t figure out how to sell newspapers?

Here’s a hint or two: Try acting like it matters. Report stories so thoroughly that you’re not leaving readers with a this-guy-says-but-that-guy-says conclusion. As Bill Moyers noted, to look at a set of facts and draw the obvious conclusion isn’t bias: it’s reporting. Truth exists. There is a discernable perspective—apart from left, right or the faux impartiality newspapers espouse—known as the public interest. Serve it.

It isn’t like there aren’t compelling stories to be told. If the sort of corruption and profiteering that has pocked the Iraq war had occurred during World War Two, papers would have reported the story thoroughly and compellingly, holding the guilty parties’ feet to the fire until justice was served. If today’s papers can’t do the same job, they deserve to go out of business, and, not surprisingly, they are.

Comments

Comments closed.