Earlier this week the Los Angeles Times had to say goodbye to editor, James E. O’Shea. O'Shea left the LA Times after refusing to follow through with budget cuts. The budgets of American newspaper companies have hit rock-bottom since sales of newspapers have fallen. In response publisher David Hiller demanded to cut cost, this didn't sit well with O'Shea obviously. Have budget cuts cost newspapers their souls? I think so, if editors and journalists lose control over their content to accountants and publishers. The Tribune newspaper executive Samuel Zill doesn't feel that cost cuts are the correct route either, but still sides with Hiller's decision on the matter of financial costs. If sales continue to drop what is to become of the newspaper? It would be a shame if this is a sign for the future.
link to article (Click Here)
4 comments:
I think it showed a great deal a character to make a stand like O'Shea did. I also think that this article shows what is slowy beginning to happen to newspapers. Now that we are so dependent on the internet, we will soon no longer need newspapers. You can acess almost any newspaper from your computer, for free, and with more and more people using Blackberry's and other handheld devices that can acess the internet, carrying a paper is almost troublesome.
I think O'Shea did the write thing by standing up against the Tribune. If newspapers like the L.A. Times are cutting costs, then the paper we know of today will soon to be gone.
We are so adapt to technology that we tend to loose sight of the traditional ways of how we get our news. These days it is easily accessible to read newspapers on the internet. Also, we get our curent news from TV news rather than a newspaper.
Maybe the newsaper is fading, but in my opinion I think it should stay. Some people don't know how to surf the web for news or watch TV. It might just be better to keep the newspapers alive for the sake of old fashioned people.
I think that the people working for the newspaper will eventually reflect the financial the budget of the paper- thinned out too much to hold up to constant use.
I tend to agree with O'Shea. If more is what the paper wants, then more staff needs to be added, not cut.
Once the cuts are made, the people left behind will be run so ragged; this due to picking up the slack for all of those let go.
Meanwhile, I would be willing to bet the CEOs and VPs of the Tribune are not going to be affected in a financial manner.
Maybe if the upper-echelon of the company streamlined their spending, by, oh let me see, not driving cars that cost as much as my mortgage, then perhaps cuts wouldn't need to be made.
The budget cuts, that are not necessary, should have the "trickle down" mentality. Start at the top and see how quickly they will change their minds.
Sadly, it seems like everywhere writers are dealing with issues of budget cuts. The writer's strike in Hollywood is a great example of writers trying to do something about getting the pay they feel they deserve all while companies shorten their budgets exceedingly. It was admirable that O'Shea did stand up like she did. Hopefully journalist will find a way to help boost the popularity of newspapers before our world goes paperless moving onto other forms of media.
Post a Comment