Why You Should Care

 Earlier this week it was announced that the LA Times was cutting its newsroom staff – the paper’s journalists – by 13%. Now as most of you know, I don’t have any love for the LA Times; after all, it was the LA Times that purchased the newspaper where I used to work as an editor (the CV Sun) and four years after it purchased the paper it closed it – putting me out of a job.

Of course, the decision made to shutter the CV Sun resulted in my starting the CV Weekly – so I guess it wasn’t all bad.

But learning this week that 13% of the journalists were going to be out of a job was truly telling. The LA Times was started in 1881 and has covered big events over the years. Unlike TV news, which to me seems to be a series of sound bites with little content, or (god forbid) social media where anyone can write anything, the LA Times had the resources to give its writers the time needed to do in-depth reporting. It has won Pulitzers for public service, national reporting and more. As at the CV Weekly, if you walked into its offices and wanted a retraction, you’d better be ready to justify it; their people stood by their stories … and their writers.

The main reason given as to why the decision was made to lay off 13% of its newsroom staff centered on money. Let’s face it: advertising revenues are down for the behemoth newspapers and other like publications. Some didn’t survive COVID or were tottering on collapse prior to the pandemic.

I’m happy to report that CV Weekly is far from collapse. Since launching the paper in September 2009 the level of support – including financial – that CV Weekly has received from its readers has been incredible. I don’t know if readers discovered that without local news a vacuum is created within a community or they’ve realized that sources of reliable, local news are drying up. Whatever the reason, readers – and advertisers – are making sure to be a part of the CV Weekly.

Which circles us back to the question of why you should care if the LA Times loses 13% of its newsroom.

Aside from the 140-plus years of tradition that the LA Times represents, it has also been a reliable (though some feel biased) source of information that readers might not otherwise learn. To me, that’s the core of the issue: having information that might not otherwise be available. And, unlike social media, that information is backed by a newsroom of professionals willing to stand firm in their reporting.

Now that newsroom is 13% smaller.

To those who get laid off, let me know if you want to write. I may have a job for you here at the CV Weekly.