I wrote about the former L.A. Times editor Jim O'Shea's basically being ousted from the paper because he refused to make budget cuts that would effect their capabilities to "report" and at the heart of the cuts would be their presidential coverage. LA Observed is carrying his entire comments to the newsroom which are very illuminating:
One thing I want put on the record, though, is that I disagree completely with the way that this company allocates resources to its newsrooms, not just here but at Tribune newspapers all around the country. That system is at the core of my disagreements with David. I think the current system relies too heavily on voodoo economics and not enough on the creativity and resourcefulness of journalists....
Lastly I want to make it clear that I didn’t quit. Anyone in a top newsroom management job during tough times always wrestles with a crucial question: Where is the line? At what point do you go from “I can deal with this” to “this is simply wrong. ”
We need to tell readers more about Barack Obama and less about Britney Spears...read his full statement.
The LA Times is a very important institution to the country and that's why I focus on it so much. In O'Shea's eyes the paper has made tremendous strides and he proves it with some hard facts so why is Hiller cutting the coverage of this all important presidential race news and not the tabloid junk? To keep coverage of important issues down which are then subject to more opinions than real facts in the media---which in turn has the effect of distorting the issues to the public. Sometimes it's a simple as that.