On the brighter side, new editors were finally announced at The Washington Times and The Los Angeles Times. First there's John Soloman, a former Washington Post reporter who was leading the multimedia investigative unit at The Associated Press before The Washington Times picked him up. At the L.A. Times, Russ Stanton, the paper's website editor, got the job. There's obviously a theme to this.
I'm actually optimistic of Soloman in particular. He's got a lot of experience at respectable publications and hopefully will make the Times more competitive against The Washington Post which improves journalism in Washington and in general. It may be really good for all.
Coincidentally, I was reading up on the Talk to The Newsroom's Q&A with Jim Roberts, editor of digital news this week. It's probably not a coincidence that they featured him for readers to ask questions. What I (and likely anyone else) take from these events is that newspaper companies are giving in and admitting that online is the way to go. Sadly, I'm starting to waiver from my print-or-die loyalty and agree with the internet fans. I predict that Jim Roberts may be in the running when the current editor of The New York Times, Bill Keller, steps down. Don't know when that will be though. Here's why:
- The New York Times is a highly WASPy organization and Roberts fits the criteria there
- Even if newspapers continue to be around in print form, advertising and revenue departments can sleep better at night with an internet expert at the helm
- Roberts also has experience in the important sections like political editing posts and the national desk
2 comments:
Here's an interview with Stanton where he says he doesn't need Pulitzers to be editor of the Times:
http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1561386920080215
I agree with Stanton. I don't think the lack of a Pulitzer means he's incapable of doing the job well.
Post a Comment