One reader asked what I thought about the announcement earlier this week that the Los Angeles Times was turning over its magazine to the newspaper’s business side, and would no longer produce it in the newsroom.
Last year we published a story noting that California was one of the top 10 states from which people were moving to Wichita. I’m assuming this question came from a displaced Californian who hasn’t been weaned from the news from home. I haven’t read many details about the magazine change, but the reason cited is familiar to every newsroom of every size in the country – in an era of tightening resources in newsrooms, what is the best and most effective way to deploy your staff and carry out your core mission, however you define it?
In our newsroom, that’s covering local news and providing better watchdog reporting of institutions and authority. Granted, the L.A. Times has a mammoth staff compared to ours, but nevertheless, the decisions have to seem just as difficult. What do you give up to do better at what’s most important? Newsrooms today have to be clear about how they define their core mission. Most can no longer do everything – so what is most important?
I see the magazine move as a case of doing just that. I can run through news industry Web sites and in 15 minutes cite dozens of examples of media redirecting resources – either people or technology or ink/paper (the biggest expense for print media next to people). And I include magazines in that, not just newspapers and broadcast media.
We are truly living in a media revolution. People use media in ways that have changed dramatically and continue to do so at a stunning pace. The options for the media navigating the seas of change are to figure out how to adapt or get left behind. Incidentally, Howard Weaver, VP for News at our parent company, pontificated on this recently on his blog.