Reckless Disregard

Dean Baquet on the gutting of the Los Angeles Times.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Dean Baquet could not have foreseen his ascension to journalistic martyrdom when he left his job as national editor of the New York Times to become the second in command at the Los Angeles Times in 2000. Lured by the paper’s well-regarded new editor, John Carroll, Baquet also admired what seemed a true commitment by the paper’s new parent corporation, the Chicago-based Tribune Co., to oomphing the Times‘ national profile. But six years later, Baquet, like Carroll before him, resigned rather than cut mission-critical staff to boost shareholder return.

At first it seemed Carroll and Baquet would preside over a real renaissance. The Los Angeles Times was already the fourth-biggest paper in the United States, and they upped its wattage considerably, adding big-name bylines like Kevin Sack and Sam Howe Verhovek. During their tenure, the Times won 13 Pulitzers, more than any other paper but the New York Times. Operating profits were exceptional (for any sort of business) at 20 percent.

So why is Baquet or, for that matter, Carroll or publisher Jeff Johnson no longer overseeing the paper? When Tribune Co.’s strategy of cross-media ownership failed to deliver the returns promised investors, it demanded ever deepening rounds of cuts from its various properties. “Wall Street is incredibly shortsighted,” says veteran newspaper analyst John Morton. “It doesn’t care what happens to a company 10 years out. It only cares what happens next quarter, which is unfortunate for papers like the Los Angeles Times.”

Instead of recognizing that the Times eclipsed the Chicago Tribune as the company’s marquee franchise, Tribune executives flogged it in a fashion that even Joan Crawford would have found excessive. Though Carroll eliminated more than 200 jobs during his five-year reign, the company that Joseph Medill built wanted more. By 2005, Carroll had had enough, and left for Harvard.

With Baquet’s ascension to top editor—the first African American to hold such a job at a top-tier daily—things only got worse. Baquet and Johnson, a Tribune lifer, slashed another $10 million in 2005. Unsatisfied with their returns, investors demanded that Tribune put itself up for sale, and more layoffs were demanded. By now the Times had cut 25 percent of its 2000 staff level, and the strain was beginning to show, particularly, says Baquet, in suburban coverage, especially the “O.C.,” where the Times faces stiff competition from the Orange County Register.

Last September, a group of Los Angeles power brokers that included the head of the Urban League and former secretary of state Warren Christopher wrote a letter to the Tribune Co. beseeching it to either reinvest in the Times or sell it to a company that would. Soon after, Baquet took the issue public when the Times broke the story that he and Johnson would no longer bend to Chicago’s will.

Baquet says he was not opposed to sensible cuts nor, as some have said, to prioritizing resources to the paper’s website. The problem, he says, is “newspapers are in a panic—the cutting is not part of anything. It’s not moving toward anything. It’s not part of a plan. It’s to prop up margins that maybe cannot be propped up.”

“It’s popular now to say, and some people at Tribune have said, it’s easy to confuse resources and quality,” Baquet adds. “That’s bullshit. It just is. If you made a list of the finest papers in the country, I promise you there would be a relationship between resources and quality. It’s illogical to assume otherwise, and newspapers that try to convince themselves otherwise are kidding themselves.”

But the Tribune Co. did not want to listen to a voice of reason, and by mid-November it had jettisoned both Baquet and Johnson, sending a bleak message to newsrooms across the country. If this could happen to a high-profile paper with such exceptional profit margins, what in God’s name will become of the Richmond Times-Dispatch?

And what of the true role of the Los Angeles Times, or any other paper—its central mission of public service? “We are not a regular business,” notes Baquet. “We insist that the mayor and governor meet us when we want to meet with them. We insist that the military let us travel with them; we insist that the president has press conferences. There aren’t a lot of companies that can make those kinds of demands of the government or even private business. In return we’re going to act a little bit like a public-service institution. We can’t pretend we’re like just another private business, because we’re not. We get too many benefits from government and have too much responsibility to act like Microsoft.”

Read Pappu’s full interview with Dean Baquet.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate