Let's Do The Numbers

Lee Abram's latest missive got the InkStainedRetch wondering. Kevin counts 1,238 words for this one. In a previous post, the Retch clocked Abrams at 1,756 words. So how do Lee's Not Thinking Pieces compare to the average LA Times story these days? Let's do the numbers, as they say on a certain non-profit radio show.

The Retch pulled up all bylined LA Times stories (story included the phrase "Times Staff Writer") over the past 10 years, and figured out how many bylined stories were published per day, on average. Here's the chart:

Ugh. I know that's hard to see, but oh well. The chart shows that between 1998 and 2003, Times' writers were publishing more and more stories every day, reaching a high of about 85 bylined stories per day in 2003. Not coincidentally, the Times won a record five Pulitzers for its work in 2003. So far this year, the Times is publishing about 62 bylined stories a day--a drop of more than 25% from the high. The Retch then checked how many stories were longer than 1,500 words--an arbitrary number, but nonetheless a good measure for an in-depth piece that takes up a good portion of a newspaper page. Again, the chart:

This one is less pretty and less smooth. But it shows that the Times reached a peak in 2002 in publishing longer stories, and has since declined. In 2007, the paper published a little more than 2,400 stories longer than 1,500 words. What's this all show? Basically this: Since 2003, the Los Angeles Times has published fewer stories, of less depth.

Overall, the charts chart the story pretty well. In 2000, the Tribune took over and appointed John Carroll as editor. For several years, Carroll built the LA Times into a paper that published in-depth stories, and lots of them. These stories were valued by readers, by journalists, by snooty prize awarders.

Beginning in 2003, however, the Tribune began its remorseless cutting, telling Carroll to slash staff just weeks after the Pulitzers were announced. The paper has lost hundreds of reporters and editors since then in various buyouts, resignations, and staff defections. Both production and quality have suffered.

The numbers should not be surprising. It's pretty black and white and not read all over. Tribune, then Zell, have relentlessly cut the people who create the newspaper: the reporters, editors, copy editors. Those that remained have tried hard to keep up production and quality. But that effort can't keep up with the continuous cutbacks.

Is there any real mystery to the reasons for the paper's circulation and readership drops? Today, the paper offers less news, with less analysis, than it did just five years ago. Does Zell expect people who drink Coke to pay more for fewer ounces of the bubbly nectar? For people who buy real estate to pay more for less acreage?

Does Zell think it's a good business model to have an innovation chief who regularly publishes internal emails longer than Los Angeles Times stories?

The Retch loves the Los Angeles Times, loves the idea of a powerful, robust news organ on the West Coast.

But the numbers are depressingly obvious. As reporters, editors, newsfolk, we need to stand up. We need to say this is wrong.