After ousting both the editor and the publisher at L.A. Times, Tribune Co.'s next step is becoming very interesting. My money is on the sale of the paper to one of the California moguls. It will probably be the best for everyone.
It is hard to reconcile the conflicts between short-sighted investors and "socially responsible" editors in any major media. Journalists burden themselves with the responsibility to report truth to the public; while the editors want to educate the whole world to believe in what they believe. None of them care much about profitability of the organization. Alas, the world had already ditched communism long time ago.
Being squeezed by the Internet both in ad revenues and readership, newspapers are not exactly an industry that looks financially attractive. However, both the management at Tribune Co. and the departing editor and publisher at L.A. Times barked up the wrong tree. The real solution is to run a newspaper like owning a ball club.
A few years back when I was still in Orange County, the Anaheim Angels(not Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim yet) made an amazing run all the way to the World Series Champions. Right after pouring champagnes, Disney sold the Angels to Art Moreno, who became the first Mexican American big league team owner. It wasn't like the Angels lost money for Disney. Disney is a publicly-listed company. Wall Street analysts franatically analyze each division's profitability quarter by quarter. Professional ball clubs never look good under such scrutiny even if they are extremely valuable. Private ownership is the best for professional ball clubs. The owners are not suckers, either. They get investment returns in two ways: (1) they can pocket in a great deal when the clubs are sold and (2) they derive other utilities from owning a ball club. Go ask around and you will find quite a few guys want to buy a football or baseball team if they have the money. It is the "field of dream" emotion that keeps ball clubs valuable.
The same logic should apply to media ownership. Media are not ideal for public-traded companies. They should be owned by people who value media not only basing on monetary utility. Short-term low/negative profitability is well compensated by enormous self-righteousness. If media are to be publicly-traded, preferred shares should be created to protect the ownership. Meantime, the stock prices of these media are not supposed to be sky rocketing. In fact, this is exactly what is happening among the esteemed media groups. The New York Times has the Sulzbergers, News Corp has Rupert Murdoch, and The Wall Street Journal has the Brancrofts. None of these mentioned has a stock comparable to Google's, but they will stay for quite a while for sure.
You might question that Tribune Co. is also controlled by a family, the Chandlers. Why did they yield to Wall Street so easily? Well, they don't derive any non-monetary utility from owning L.A. Times. The purchase of it a couple of years ago was purely a business decision. Dumping it is not going to be an emotional one, either.
