williamlobdell.com

Nearly a year ago, I wrote about the 42 things I knew about the newspaper industry. Let’s see how much I really knew.

1. I made the right decision leaving the newspaper business. [Correct. I'm certain with the layoffs that have happened in the past year, I would have been one of those put on the street--with a severance package 50% less than what I got.]
2. That’s not to say I’m happy about breaking up with my one true career love. [Correct. I still feel the sadness.]
3. But the business model for newspapers is broken. [Correct. Not exactly news, but last year, people still were holding out hope.]
4. No one has figured out how to fix it. [Correct. Print newspapers will soon be extinct. No one with an IQ above room temperature is arguing otherwise in 2009.]
5. That’s probably because it can’t be fixed. [Correct. See above.]
6. The smaller the newspaper, the longer its life span in print (four exceptions: the New York Times, Wall St. Journal, Washington Post and USA Today). [Correct. The only papers will increases in circulation are some small, local papers. And the big boys are holding their own, for a variety of reasons.]
7. Technology has run laps around the print media — giving readers instant news, open-source journalism, no barriers to become publishers, and an infinite news hole. [Correct. Duh.]
8. The idea that your daily news is collected, written, edited, paginated, printed on dead trees, put in a series of trucks and cars and delivered on your driveway — at least 12 hours stale — is anachronistic in 2008. [See No. 7.]
9. As a friend told me last week, “Bro, face it. You guys are the 8-track cassette of news.” [See. No. 8.]
10. Other seemingly indispensable industries have been rubbed out by technology, leading to the unemployment of scribes, steamship captains, and the Pony Express riders. Why not newspaper reporters? [Correct. By the way, any out-of-touch reporter/editor who claims to be "surprised" by his/her layoff or newspaper shutdown should have been laid off or shut down long ago.]
11. Newspapers were unbelievably slow in embracing the Internet, even though younger reporters have been pleading with their bosses for years to embrace the Web. [Correct. This is now a historical fact that will be used when writing newspapers' obituaries.]
12. Amazingly, it took until 2005 for top editors at The Times to realize the Internet not only wasn’t going away but might lead to the demise of newspaper. [Correct.]
13. Prior to that, the Internet operation at The Times was used as a place to hide reporters and editors who had fallen out of favor. [Correct. The paper still doesn't have its best and brightest devoted to the Web.]
14. For a news operation filled with journalists with a mostly liberal bent, few people embrace the kind of progressive change necessary to save, or at least delay the fall of, the franchise. [Correct. This is one of the most amazing paradoxes that contributed to the fall of the newspaper. The industry was too conservative to be progressive.]
15. Business side of the paper was worse in recognizing the Internet’s potential and its threat to the newspaper business. I once suggested that, since Craig’s List had arrived on the scene, The Times should match that business model and give away most of its classified ads (since we were already losing it already) in exchange for Internet readership and premium ad prices for corporate advertisers (such as employers). The business people laughed. [Correct. Newspapers are still incredibly slow at understanding how to make money on the Web.]
16. Even after realizing the Internet was the future, newspapers are having a difficult time adapting to the Web. [Correct. Let's just talk about staffing. At the LA Times, the newsroom has about 600 journalists. The Internet advertising would support only a fraction of them, but The Times is hooked--like a junkie--on the dwindling supply of print advertising. It won't make the radical and needed shift until it's too late.]
17. You can’t just transfer a news gathering operation from print to the web. Revenue on the web is fractured (like cable TV) and a news web operation can support far fewer journalists and layers of editors. It requires a different mindset. [Correct. See No. 16.]
18. Entrepreneurs — for example, Kevin Rose at Digg — have developed news sites in just a few years that have drawn far more readers than the Los Angeles Times. Digg doesn’t feature original content, but The Times (and other newspapers) could have added a Digg element to its site. [Correct. Some newspapers have gotten religion on this issue. Others haven't. Some are still arguing that papers should make readers pay for content--OMG, people on the Internet don't even pay for porn anymore!]
19. And The Times, despite its journalistic credentials, has launched only one blog (Top of the Ticket) that has cracked the top 1,000 list. On this point, the mainstream media has gotten its butt kicked, repeatedly, by the Pajamas Media. [Correct. Nothing has changed.]
20. Sam Zell isn’t the ultimate villain. Though I originally thought he might be the kick in the ass we needed, I can’t stand the guy. But in the long run, he’s just an accelerator for a downfall that is happening naturally. [Correct. I think history has been written on this subject.]
21. For all his business acumen, Zell has allowed his executives to concentrate, at least publicly, on the stuff that needs the least fixing (editorial content and design). I’d argue that, for now, 100% of their effort should be given to increasing sales and readership — in print and online. [Correct. Zell's "visionaries" turned out to be huge douche bags who focus on the trivial and not on essential things like revenue.]
22. Maybe Lee Abrams could direct his memos to the sales, marketing and circulation staff. [Abrams' memos are still as bizarre as ever. I'm guessing 99% of Tribune employees dismiss the writings as bat-shit crazy.]
    
23. The fall of The Times had other accelerators. [Correct.]
24. First, the editorial department. We operated as though we had a monopoly on truth and great journalism for far too long. We didn’t listen to our critics and sometimes our readers. That cost us. [Correct.]
25. Second, the Chandler family. The heirs of Gen. Otis, wanting dollars in their pockets, cashed out and handed the family newspaper over to the Tribune Co. [Correct.]
26. Third, the Tribune Co. Its MBA-worshipping executives were great at managing a monopolistic enterprise that threw off a high profit margin. But they were completely baffled when faced with a business situation that required innovation and not textbook, budget-cutting measures. [Correct. There has no been no evidence emerge to the contrary.]
27. Fourth (and it pains me to say this), former top editors John Carroll and (and to a lesser extent) Dean Baquet. During their combined tenure, the local news operation was gutted in order to re-establish The Times’ international and national reputation. The result: shuttered Ventura and valley editions, a decimated Orange County edition (which had great reader demographics and tons of local advertising), and one reporter each left in the San Fernando and San Gabriel valleys. [Correct.]
28. Fifth, the business side of the newspaper. This is the gang that couldn’t shoot straight, especially evident in the revolving door of ad directors (and no one in that position since February, despite it being the most critical sales period in Times’ history). [Correct.]
29. Maybe that says something: that great salespeople don’t want to lead the Los Angeles Times at this time. [Correct. This is true. If you are a good salesperson, you aren't in newspapers.]
30. The paper also doesn’t have a publisher for the first time in its 125-year history. [Correct. Of course. But now it does, though the publisher, by most accounts, is an introvert who doesn't mix with the newsroom or Los Angeles in general. Not exactly the second coming of Otis Chandler, who the paper needs right about now.]
31. The Times could extend its lifespan significantly with some innovative leadership in sales. [Correct. But it hasn't happened.]
32. If I were publisher (a job I wouldn’t take, thank you), I’d explore a partnership with Google or, more realistically, Yahoo or another proven Internet company that would combine news gathering and advertising forces. [Correct (I'm guessing). But it hasn't happened.]
33. If I were publisher, I’d have a clear mission statement for The Times’ editorial department (if you ask 100 journalists at The Times about their mission, you’d likely get 100 different answers). [Correct. This still hasn't happened. In this crisis, everyone is running in different directions.]
34. I’d stop Lee Abrams from writing his dumb-ass memos that are supposed to inspire Tribune workers, but only serve to piss everyone off. It says something about Zell’s leadership that scores of great journalists — many wanting to embrace the future and lead the newspaper — have voluntarily walked away from their jobs/careers while Mr. Abrams continues to pull down a large salary. [Correct. Abrams, his huge salary and dumbass memos are still alive.]
35. I’d get realistic estimation on the size of The Times’ future work force and then make one large cut to get it there (good sources say another 150-200 layoffs are on the horizon). An internet operation can’t support a huge newsgathering operation, and morale would improve if everyone knew no more major layoffs loomed. People can deal with reality; it’s just this surrealistic no-man’s-land that make it impossible to move forward and has good people bailing out. [Correct. The Times still hasn't faced reality.]
36. I’d take the very talented journalists I had and develop a SERIES of websites that provided the best information for that beat/subject matter. The Web is all about niches. The Times, for instance, could have the premiere sites for every professional and college sports team in Southern California. It could be THE place to turn to for news on City Hall, Los Angeles Unified School District, and Los Angeles Police Department. Not to mention Southern California environmental issues, LAX and the coast. [Correct, I think. But The Times website still tries to be a mega-news site devoted to all things. This is not how people surf for news.]
37. These could run under the banner: Another Los Angeles Times website/blog. [Correct. But it hasn't happened.]
38. You could combine all these different blogs/websites under the www.latimes.com banner, but make it simple for readers to navigate to the sites they want to become attached/devoted to. [Correct. See No. 37.]
39. For The Times to survive — in print or even on the web as one of the nation’s top news sources — it’s going to take herculean efforts by all departments within the company.
40. I have no doubt my newsroom colleagues who I left behind can adapt to the challenges of the New Media environment. [Correct. But they haven't been give the chance. And probably won't.]
41. But I’ve seen no evidence that other parts of the company — especially the “leaders” — are willing, able and competent. [Correct. The proof is in the pudding. Where's the innovation?]
42. And this is ultimately why I left The Times. Though the paper has been in business for 125 years, it had become riskier to stay than to go. [Correct. See No. 1.]