With the scheduled July 27 demise of the Sunday LA Times Book Review looming ever closer, this past Monday morning former LA Times Book Review editor, Steve Wasserman, and three other former editors of the Book Review section—Sonja Bolle, Jack Miles, and Digby Diehl—wrote an open letter protesting the loss and urging people to join in the protest. They sent the thing to a list of publications ranging from our local blogs to the New York Times. LA Observed printed it first, followed by a short piece in Editor & Publisher. There was a mention in Publisher’s Weekly. This morning, Inside Higher Ed ran an impassioned column sparked by the letter. And when I last checked, the cultural reporter at the Lehr News Hour expressed an interest in running a small story on the issue.
You can find a copy of the letter here.
I spoke to Wasserman a few hours after it first appeared to find out what effect, if any, he hoped the letter would have. “Frankly, I’m not all that hopeful,” he said. “We released it because we felt that, either singly or collectively, that it would be a mistake to let the moment pass. But they’ve cut more than a third of the Book Review staff already,” he added. “Only three people are left.”
So is there nothing that can be done to save the Sunday Book Review (and Opinion)? It’s true, Sam Zell sure isn’t much of a listener, so maybe it is hopeless.
Then again, maybe not. Can’t hurt to try.
But first a few facts:
In its 33-year history, the LA Times Sunday Book Review has admittedly never turned a profit. But neither does the business section or sports section (as Wasserman reminded me). The idea has always been that the high interest sections of the paper such as sports, business, books and opinion are part of the package that draws readers.
And although the ad department can’t sell directly against those pages, the paper’s big advertisers are counting on the fact that, when we get our papers on Sunday, after we pull out our favorite sections, we will likely wander through the Macy’s and the Best Buy ads. Then we’ll look at that nice glossy insert hawking the latest Target specials.
Curious as to where Los Angeles stands as a book buying market, yesterday I called the people at Nielson Bookscan, which is the primary collector of book sales data in the US. They told me that, in 2007, Los Angeles was second only to New York (with which it often trades places). Last year, New York had 8.5 percent of national book sales. Los Angeles followed with 5.5 percent. San Francisco was third with 3.7, followed by Chicago, 3.5, and Washington D.C. had 3.4.
Also, just to remind you, the LA Times Festival of Books, which draws 140,000 people to the UCLA campus each year, is the largest book fair in the nation.
So, yeah, LA residents are interested in books, a fact we demonstrate with our feet and with our wallets. So why doesn’t ZellCo understand that? Forget the cultural damage to Los Angeles that cutting the Book Review both signals and actually accomplishes, it’s a bad business decision. A pullout Books and Opinion section gives many of us an excuse to subscribe to the paper. Without it, our reasons for that expenditure are rapidly vanishing.
“This is very, very painful,” said Wasserman. “My real fear is that this isn’t about news papers at all, it’s about real estate,” he added morosely. “This is about Sam Zell waiting until it’s the right time to sell the property at 1st and Spring street, and making a killing.”
Probably so. Yet in the short term, it can’t hurt to write letters. We have nothing to lose. (At this point, we’ve pretty much already lost it.)
But it’s worth trying to get back. So write Editor-in-Chief Russ Stanton at the LA Times. (Russ.Stanton@LATimes.com) And firmly ask him to reinstate the Book Review and Opinion.
It’s good business, and it’s good for Los Angeles.
But, tell Stanton, hey, don’t believe us. Call the folks who make the advertising decisions at Target and Macy’s and ask them what sections they’d like to see stay in the LA Times in order to make their ad dollars worth spending over at Spring Street.
The late, great Molly Ivins expressed the whole thing rather succinctly two years ago: “I don’t so much mind that newspapers are dying — it’s watching them commit suicide that pisses me off.”
It would be absurd not to have at least some version of a Sunday Book Review — in my college years, I used to read the entire NY Book Review (which is almost book=length by comp), the NY Review of Books, and skim some others — but then I was working in the lit world at the time. Still, tho I don’t have that kind of time or dedication anymore, I can’t imagine a “real” paper without a book review. (Even papers like the Kansas City Star have always prided themselves on a decent one!)
But I’ll admit, one reason I stopped taking the LA Times review too seriously is the leftist bias in most of the regular reviewers (like David Ulin), which often colors the review too much with personal bias; and it’s also reflected in many of the the books they choose to review. (This leftist bias has been noted by a lot of readers as a criticism of the Opinion section, even the slant of the articles themselves lately, even the headline slants — which I’ve noted on an occasion or two.)
Despite all this, if there were a genuine commitment to saving let alone improving the paper, it could be done just by focusing on more diverse points of view, including some from the more conservative writers that left-leaning intellectuals and professor types have a personal contempt for, but who speak for some readers — just look at the online comments. Most people, in my opinion, just want to be informed of what’s going on in their communities and City Hall, without a political slant at all, insofar as possible.
But Zell’s leveraged buyout, as discussed in your earlier thread, never contemplated anything but taking it apart. If it’s any consolation, he seems to be dessimating his hometown paper the Tribune, too, though not quite as thoroughly.
I am taking great pleasure at the demise of the Los Angeles Times, a newspaper which has its city hall reporter playing the piano at city hall instead of writing stories about the corruption in city hall. Builders and Developers are contributors to the same folks making decisions about their projects and the L.A. Times sees nothing or knows nothing. The FBI could come to Los Angeles and indict the Mayor and every city council member for corruption and the L.A. Times staff would know less than Colonel Klink and Sergeant Schultz (I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing).
The L.A. Times just needs to write a few more stories about the poor misunderstood gang members being victims of society who just needing to read poetry to be a reformed outstanding citizen, to provide the “balanced†reporting some complain about. And maybe another sob story about the poor immigrant being deported back home for the 5th time.
My real concern is what old newspaper will I now use to line the bottom of my parrot’s cage, the parrot really enjoyed the L.A. Times and put it to good use.
You guys are like a mini-U.N. You write letters and pass useless group sanctions against your enemy, thinking that will change things, other than making you feel good.
This cartoon (LINK) may explain the value and expertise of those who review books. You can get anyone to make up the reviews. Just don’t expect a private company to pay for them just because you want that and write letters.
Not too long ago, the LATBR was in my opinion, sometimes better than the NYTBR. Under Wasserman, the reviews were more like essays, and it resembled the New York Review. I don’t like how skimpy it’s gotten since, but something is better than nothing. This was the last straw, and I’ve canceled my subscription.
Evan, the LATBR was, under Wasserman, Consistantly better than the the NYT. And only surpassed by the New York REVIEW OF BOOKS. I would often compare essays on the same work and Wasserman’s people were better in every way – more knowledgable, bette3r writers, and more cincise and to the point.
Unfortunatly, Same Zell is of the Woody variety. Do you have any books at all Woddster except accounting texts and Regnery hatchet jobs?
Woody, the cartoon is HILARIOUS. And you’re right, screw the letters, I say we take somebody hostage. (Kidding. Sort of.)
Nice, thoughtful post, WBC. You’re right, David U., like me, is assuredly on the left (and a good friend), but he’s also a great and very knowledgeable lover of books—both high brow and not (we first bonded over our fanaticism over certain mystery novels).
Yet, if people like you feel left out when you read the BR, that’s not good. That suggests mre of a balance is needed. In terms of Opinion, I know there’s a strong effort to print and recruit conservative Op Ed writers. I certainly see ’em in the Opinion section—but then again, my pal Susan Brenneman is usually the one who edits those folks (for some reason) and I keep an eye on her work.
LL—I’m afraid that the LA Times isn’t going to do more stories on gangsters being saved by poetry. That’s my job. AND you’ll be delighted to know that there’s another such story coming this week—probably tomorrow morning, Friday latest.
Also, about City Hall, I think David Z.’s excellent AND he works his butt off, I promise you. But they need more than just him and the editors need to let him off his leash—which is I think what likely irritates you. When he was at the LA Weekly, he was far, far more critical of City Hall. Now he’s stuck in the land of LA Times neutral speak, which is not the best use of his talents, in my personal opinion.
Hi RLC, for my money both Wasserman and Ulin are great BR editors—each with different strengths. But Wasserman got out before the slashing, burning and pressure to dumb down began.
The NYReview, still the best, was started during a newspaper strike. Who in LA has the money and taste to start one here, now? David Geffen?
That’s an interesting notion, dick adler. But what was most important for the NYRB was the guidance of the founders–Robert Silvers, Barbara & Jason Epstein, Elizabeth Hardwick, and A. Whitney Ellsworth–and the incredible pool of writers they had. Talent and vision would be more important than money. Hell, start out with a blog and put up PDFs. Arthur Magazine is a good example of what can be done on a limited budget, but that’s more idiosyncratic.
It certainly doesn’t help that so many independent bookstores have closed in LA.
I have not enjoyed the LA Times Book Review in years. It was particularly pitiful under David Ulin. But the fact that the Times isn’t going to even have a book review speaks volumes about the implosion going on over on Spring Street. I used to write for the Times book section under Digby Diehl, who also did an admirable job editing the book section of the old Herald-Examiner. That paper was actually gaining Sunday circulation when a deal was struck with the Chandlers to kill it. My bird — a very intelligent African Gray named Oliver — misses the book section too. It fit the bottom of his bird cage so nicely.
Would that the old HER-EX were still around! What a shame! But then I even miss the HERALD-TRIBUNE. Now there was a writer’s paper!