Koch Brothers 1, LA Times 0

A couple of years ago, there was talk about the Koch brothers buying the LA Times. It created the kind of selective outrage that we've come to love from liberals. There were comments about half of the staff quitting if the Koch brothers bought the newspaper.

In the end, the Koch brothers decided not to buy:

The Koch brothers will not purchase the newspapers owned by the Chicago-based Tribune Company. 

“As Koch said all along, it would only get involved if we think it will be a profitable venture,” says a source familiar with the negotiations. 

“This wouldn’t be in their estimation.” 

We learned today that there are deeper cuts coming at the LA Times, i.e. people losing jobs:

Significant newsroom cuts are being planned at the Los Angeles Times one week after the ouster of its publisher.

The company is looking to reduce editorial expenses by about $10 million and the cuts could amount to 80 positions, according to an executive from Tribune Publishing, which owns the L.A. Times and 10 other dailies.

The Tribune Publishing source said the Los Angeles paper likely would not be alone in making reductions. Other Tribune papers are expected to face cuts, too.  It was unclear how the cuts would impact other Tribune properties.

Would these job losses be happening if the Koch brothers had bought the newspaper?

It would be easy to say yes, specially given the dire state of the newspaper business in the U.S. After all, this is not the first newspaper cutting staff.

A story in May 2015 addressed circulation and advertising problems at many of the city newspapers that we grew up reading.

On the other hand, the Koch brothers would have brought something severely lacking in newsrooms, i.e. diversity! They would have forced the editors to expand their horizons and cover stories from a less liberal perspective.

It reminds me of a comment from a businessman in Dallas who said that he was sick and tired of buying ads in a newspaper that hated capitalism.   My friend admitted later that he exagerated the situation but there is something to what he is saying.   

Again, there is little diversity in these newsrooms.     

We don't know for sure. Nevertheless, I'd bet that there are liberals working at the LA Times wondering if they be facing a cut if a different owner was signing their paychecks.

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

A couple of years ago, there was talk about the Koch brothers buying the LA Times. It created the kind of selective outrage that we've come to love from liberals. There were comments about half of the staff quitting if the Koch brothers bought the newspaper.

In the end, the Koch brothers decided not to buy:

The Koch brothers will not purchase the newspapers owned by the Chicago-based Tribune Company. 

“As Koch said all along, it would only get involved if we think it will be a profitable venture,” says a source familiar with the negotiations. 

“This wouldn’t be in their estimation.” 

We learned today that there are deeper cuts coming at the LA Times, i.e. people losing jobs:

Significant newsroom cuts are being planned at the Los Angeles Times one week after the ouster of its publisher.

The company is looking to reduce editorial expenses by about $10 million and the cuts could amount to 80 positions, according to an executive from Tribune Publishing, which owns the L.A. Times and 10 other dailies.

The Tribune Publishing source said the Los Angeles paper likely would not be alone in making reductions. Other Tribune papers are expected to face cuts, too.  It was unclear how the cuts would impact other Tribune properties.

Would these job losses be happening if the Koch brothers had bought the newspaper?

It would be easy to say yes, specially given the dire state of the newspaper business in the U.S. After all, this is not the first newspaper cutting staff.

A story in May 2015 addressed circulation and advertising problems at many of the city newspapers that we grew up reading.

On the other hand, the Koch brothers would have brought something severely lacking in newsrooms, i.e. diversity! They would have forced the editors to expand their horizons and cover stories from a less liberal perspective.

It reminds me of a comment from a businessman in Dallas who said that he was sick and tired of buying ads in a newspaper that hated capitalism.   My friend admitted later that he exagerated the situation but there is something to what he is saying.   

Again, there is little diversity in these newsrooms.     

We don't know for sure. Nevertheless, I'd bet that there are liberals working at the LA Times wondering if they be facing a cut if a different owner was signing their paychecks.

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.