1. Borzou Daragahi, who is leaving the Los Angeles Times for the Financial Times, had this to say about a proposed bonus package for Tribune Co. bosses: Tribune 2 give $42.5 million bonuses to 640 managers that could be used 2 hire 640 journos http://bit.ly/q2GLT4 #media
2. Speaking of the LA Times: No more vacation accrual for the rest of the year, LA Observed reports.
3. Steve Lambert, editor and publisher of the San Gabriel Valley Newspaper Group, has stepped down, according to several sources. Lambert previously worked at the San Bernardino Sun, which is part of the same MediaNews Group chain of papers.
4. The LA Times laid off ten pressroom employees today. Pressmens blog
Showing posts with label Steve Lambert. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Steve Lambert. Show all posts
Sep 2, 2011
Feb 2, 2009
Management changes in LANG's Inland Divsion*
The CEO of LANG's Inland Division sent out a memo today announcing that Steve Lambert, 52, will take over as editor and general manager of the San Gabriel Valley Newspaper Group. SGVN, as its known, is comprised of the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, Pasadena Star-News and Whittier Daily News. The group is also the home base of the newly consolidated copy desk.
Lambert also serves as vice president of news for all of LANG.
The memo also says Frank Pine, 37, will move out of SGVN, where he currently serves as senior editor, to become executive editor of the other two Inland Division papers: the San Bernardino Sun and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.
The full memo from Fred Hamilton is here.
*SGVN has posted a story on the changes.
Lambert also serves as vice president of news for all of LANG.
The memo also says Frank Pine, 37, will move out of SGVN, where he currently serves as senior editor, to become executive editor of the other two Inland Division papers: the San Bernardino Sun and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.
The full memo from Fred Hamilton is here.
*SGVN has posted a story on the changes.
Dec 13, 2007
The unpublishing industry
It is troubling to see the San Bernardino Sun get twist itself in knots after publishing what is pretty straightforward information about county worker salaries.
The paper - after what I assume was some amount of deliberation - decided to publish all of the salaries alongside all of the employees' names. The decision came in the wake of a California Supreme Court ruling that finally did away with a silly union argument that salary information is private.
County employees complained, as expected.
But instead of holding its ground, the Sun decided to unpublish the names. The editor's rationale includes the following: We typically do not publish the names of sex crime victims. We often refrain from identifying crime witnesses, and are cautious about identifying someone as a suicide victim.
Yes, rape victims, suicides and gang targets get special consideration. That has nothing to do with this.
T0 the editor's larger point that the paper can and should exercise discretion about what it publishes: It should have exercised that discretion beforehand. The outcry was predictable. So what changed?
Indeed, the move looks like a response to pressure from a special interest group, and that's a bad precedent for the paper and a poor substitution for news judgment.
It is troubling to see the San Bernardino Sun get twist itself in knots after publishing what is pretty straightforward information about county worker salaries.
The paper - after what I assume was some amount of deliberation - decided to publish all of the salaries alongside all of the employees' names. The decision came in the wake of a California Supreme Court ruling that finally did away with a silly union argument that salary information is private.
County employees complained, as expected.
But instead of holding its ground, the Sun decided to unpublish the names. The editor's rationale includes the following: We typically do not publish the names of sex crime victims. We often refrain from identifying crime witnesses, and are cautious about identifying someone as a suicide victim.
Yes, rape victims, suicides and gang targets get special consideration. That has nothing to do with this.
T0 the editor's larger point that the paper can and should exercise discretion about what it publishes: It should have exercised that discretion beforehand. The outcry was predictable. So what changed?
Indeed, the move looks like a response to pressure from a special interest group, and that's a bad precedent for the paper and a poor substitution for news judgment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
