Is new Times the Publisher of the LA Weakly?

[Guest guest]

Is this the publisher of the LA 'free' (advertiser bought)

newspaper?

http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=1971

New Times' Moves Toward Goal of Killing Progressive Weeklies

by Randy Shaw‚ Oct. 25‚ 2005

Review it on NewsTrust

The New Times Corp., publisher of the SF Weekly, East Bay Express, and

15 other weeklies, announced yesterday that it has acquired the

Village Voice and the Los Angeles Weekly. Both publications will cease

making political endorsements, and will likely replace politically

progressive writers and columnists with those espousing the chain's

standard mix of cynicism and anti-government libertarianism. The

transformation of weeklies from the voice of the anti-war movement and

sixties youth culture to corporate vehicles for reaching consumers

between 21-35 is now largely complete.

The New Times Corp.'s purchase of the most prominent remaining stars

of the alternative weekly press---the Voice and LA Weekly---marks a

sad turning point for progressive activists. While the Voice lacked

the luster of its 1960's-80's pre-Internet heyday, the paper still

featured important progressive writers like Sydney Schanberg and

filled important information gaps in mainstream coverage of New York

City politics and culture.

For those of us in California, the likely future purging of the

progressive LA Weekly is even more troubling. The LA Weekly helped

link the city's geographically scattered progressives, promoted the

agenda of Progressive LA, strongly backed the Villaraigosa mayoral

campaigns both in 2001 and 2005, and has writers like Harold Meyerson

who are among the most perceptive in America.

The LA Weekly is far and away the best progressive print source on

state politics, and the best general circulation source on local and

state labor union issues. Based on the New Times track record, the LA

Weekly's strong pro-union tilt will soon be gone, as will its in-depth

coverage of worker issues from a labor perspective.

In the mid-1990's, there were three progressive weekly newspapers in

Los Angeles. Thanks to New Times, soon there will be none.

New Times provides a cookie-cutter product that includes massive

advertisements, a thorough entertainment calendar, a few short news

items, and one long story that rarely addresses social or economic

unfairness. When New Times does touch such topics, it writes cover

stories with titles like " The Case Against Rent Control. "

New Times owners Lacey and Larkin are political

libertarians whose publications routinely criticize progressives and

their institutions. Both the East Bay Express and SF Weekly shifted to

this New Times paradigm after acquired by the corporation.

Unless the Bush Justice Department intervenes to stop these latest

acquisitions on antitrust grounds (fat chance),New Times will soon

control 25 percent of the 7.6 million in circulation claimed by the

Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. If the San Francisco Bay

Guardian believes that New Times is already engaging in predatory

advertising pricing (the basis of a Guardian lawsuit against the SF

Weekly and New Times), the company's new acquisitions give them even

more market leverage with national advertisers.

As much as New Times deserves scorn for replacing home-grown,

innovative papers with its homogenized, consumer-driven product, there

are market forces at play as well. Just as video killed the radio

star, the Internet has facilitated the demise of the politically

alternative weekly.

For example, prior to Craigslist weeklies like the Voice had an

extremely lucrative classified ad business. Weeklies still have ample

display and entertainment ads, but ads for jobs and rentals----the

latter was particularly important in NYC--- have shifted online.

Moreover, activists are no longer dependent on weekly publications for

breaking political news and progressive analysis. Activists seeking a

progressive election analysis can get this information the next day

from a variety of on-line sites, rather than wait for the weekly's

next edition.

But while laptops are increasingly common in cafes, they are no

substitute for reading an old-fashioned hard copy tabloid while riding

MUNI, BART or sitting in a park on a nice day. Many political

activists have read the Voice, LA Weekly, and Bay Guardian for years,

and it is hard to believe that soon only the latter will under its

traditional editorial control.

The Bay Guardian was the only local news source covering the

negotiations leading to New Times' announcement. The weekly has reason

to be concerned, as New Times' 25% control of the weekly market and

its new presence in New York City and Los Angeles does not bode well

for Guardian advertising revenue.

The SF Weekly disputes that it is offering cut-rate ads as a strategy

to put the Guardian out of business, and instead attributes the

Guardian's financial decline to increased printing and occupancy costs

and reduction in advertising reductions following the dot-com boom.

While a court will decide this controversy, one need only look at the

practices of the Gannet Corporation to see where New Times may be

heading.

Gannett is the USA's largest newspaper group in terms of circulation.

The company's 99 daily newspapers in the USA have a combined daily

paid circulation of 7.6 million. They include USA TODAY, the nation's

largest-selling daily newspaper, with a circulation of approximately

2.3 million.

Gannett's longtime strategy is to enter a market with an established

home-controlled paper, destabilize the competition through selling ads

below-cost, and then offer to buy its competitor at a price too

generous to refuse. Following the sale, the original paper is closed

down and Gannett sets new advertising rates reflective of its monopoly

in the marketplace.

New Times' recent history shows that it appears to be following

Gannett's lead. And unless San Francisco residents and business begin

to speak out against monopoly control of the local " alternative "

weekly media, then the Bay Guardian could well go the way of its New

York City and Los Angeles colleagues.

Send feedback to rshaw@...