um, details?

http://www.editorandpubli...1003616378

'Los Angeles Times' Kills Patrick Goldstein's Tuesday Column

By E&P Staff

Published: July 24, 2007 5:25 PM ET

NEW YORK Los Angeles Times columnist Patrick Goldstein is not on assignment, as the bug on the bottom of the Calender front reports, the popular blog LAobserved points out. Instead, it seems that his Big Picture Column for Tuesday was killed, apparently by associate editor John Montorio.

Goldstein proposed that the Times follow the lead of the U.K.'s Mail on Sunday (which distributed 2.9 million free Prince CDs) and partner with older artists to give away music in the paper. He felt it could help make the Times website a destination for fans and reduce the need for front page ads, which the editor of the Times himself calls a huge mistake.

Nevertheless, the piece was killed, but you can read all about it at here:

Sorry-- I had pasted the link and the story, but a glitch seems to have occured during the process-- here it is:

http://www.deadlinehollyw...goldstein/

UPDATED: Patrick Goldstein Responds To LA Times' Killing Of His Column For Today
I've just been emailed the column that Los Angeles Times Hollywood writer Patrick Goldstein wrote for today. But it didn't run. The paper killed it -- actually associate editor John Montorio who oversees the paper's features and entertainment sections killed it -- then offered the lame excuse that he was on assignment. UPDATE: *Patrick Goldstein just gave me a statement: "Obviously no columnist is ever very happy about having their column killed. But I'm much more disappointed that the column that was killed was full of ideas about how to help my newspaper. I love working at a newspaper, especially this one, but if we don't start embracing change in a big way, there won't be great jobs like the one I have much longer. I'm constantly writing about how all the studios and big media companies are radically reinventing themselves. It's time we did the same."*

Goldstein argued in favor of the Times aping that British newspaper stunt distributing free Prince Planet Earth CDs and start partnering with other rock stars to give away music. "It’s time we embraced change instead of always worrying if some brash new idea — like giving away music — would tarnish our sober minded image. When businesses are faced with radical change, they are usually forced to ask — is it a threat or an opportunity? Guess which choice is the right answer." Yes, the music industry hated the Mail On Sunday's publicity stunt. But why in the world Times management found Goldstein's column so subversive escapes me, especially since his is an informed opinion since he used to be one of the Times' top rock writers before moving to the movie biz. Besides, the paper has plenty of places to present the other side. "It was all Montorio," an LATer tells me. "Patrick's editors didn't have a problem with the column. Everyone was surprised, shocked, stunned. The theory is that Montorio has a very low opinion of all suggestions how to reinvent the Times, much less from a columnist."

More to the point, the Times should be working harder to keep talents like Goldstein, who is the best thing about its Hollywood coverage, not stifling them. My sources inside the paper told me not long ago that management was trying to push Goldstein to write more frequent and shorter pieces rather than his thoughtful once a week long forms, and he resisted understandably. My view is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Now there's this morale killer aimed at a staffer who has repeatedly demonstrated his loyalty to the Times by turning down many jobs from rival newspapers and magazines over the decades. All I can say is, can you imagine what the Times would do if Goldstein tackled a really burning media issue -- like why the studios barely advertise in newsosaurs anymore?

Posted by Nikki Finke on Tuesday, July 24th, 2007 at 01:32PM | Permalink |

When you work for the paper, you don't write an editorial trying to convince the public what is lacking in the paper and how to make it better and expect it to be printed.

See this thread:
LA Times' Goldstein's Col... Giveaways

Raze said:

But I believe his paper had put him on a committee specifically to research new and innovative ways to increase their readership. So it kinda smacks of hipocrisy and censorship to me.

SCNDLS said:

I doubt they were asking him to write an article for publication in the paper itself about his findings. "Hey world, we suck. This is how we can be better." That's best left for a memo to the boss, no an op ed piece.

Raze said:

I think that's a bit of an oversimplification, he didn't say the paper sucked and offered a way to generate the revenue they desperately need. And technically, that is EXACTLY what an op ed piece does, provide editorial opinion.

SCNDLS said:

about something that people might care about, not the circulation of the paper itself.

Raze said:

What do you mean? People care about a quality newspaper. Good for Goldstein, The LA Times has gone down hill since the Tribune company bought it. I cancelled my subscription.

DiminutiveRocker said:

oh for crying out loud, when was the last time you wanted to read an op-ed piece in a newspaper that was basically a mission statement on how to make the paper better and get more people to subscribe to or read it?

this is not what the op-ed page is for. this is what memo's are for. you only care because it's tangentially related to Prince.


this is not an article. this is some guy brainstorming for his bosses.

Raze said:

Firstly, do not assume what I care about and why. Second, I read the article and thought it brought up some very interesting points. And you know what? The LA Times DOES suck - Goldstein's was one of the few columns I liked. He shouldn't have lost his job over this - that's bullshit.