Take on the Trib and LAT? Not so fast.
In recent days, writers from many publications have asked me what SPJ has to say about the management shakeups and staffing decisions being hashed out between the Los Angeles Times and its owner, the Tribune Co.
In a word: Nada.
These are tough issues for an organization such as SPJ to address. We do our best not to engage in "personnel and labor matters." At the same time, we're all about the improvement and protection of journalism -- and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the relentless cutting of newsroom staff we have seen across the country has harmed (and is harming) quality journalism.
But the bottom line here -- at least so far -- is that SPJ hasn't issued any formal statements concerning the LAT/Trib brouhaha because it hasn't been easy to know where the dividing line is between differing newsroom/management cultures and vision and over-the-top cost-cutting that has legitimately harmed the Times' ability to do outstanding work.
In the interest of full disclosure, I must make clear that I worked for the Chicago Tribune and very much enjoyed my time there. I understand a few -- and I mean only a very few -- of the political dynamics in the Tribune family tree. Let's just say I'm not surprised by the tension that has bubbled to the surface very publicly in recent months. It is no secret that the Trib's working relationship with the LAT has been difficult from day one of the Times Mirror Co.'s acquisition. You could ask anyone who has spent much time in the Tower or at the LAT about that tension, and I'm willing to bet they could tell you an interesting story -- or three.
For what it's worth, Michael Kinsley did a nice job of explaining some of the dynamics figuring into the LAT/Trib relationship. It's worth a read.
Am looking forward to hearing what you think -- and how you would decide whether to issue a statement on a matter such as this given SPJ's mission.