|
|
TERENCE SMITH: Tell me a little bit about the role of
this newspaper in this city.
NARDA ZACCINO: Well, I think the L.A. Times has always been important
in the city of Los Angeles, and the fact that we are the newspaper in
Los Angeles makes us even more important.
 Los
Angeles has changed a lot over the 30 years. It's become much more diverse.
We have a lot of different communities here, and I think the Los
Angeles Times, one of the reasons that it's so important is that
it is the link to all of these communities. It really bridges the Latino
community, the Asian community, the African American community, and
we are, you know, kind of -- I don't want to say the voice for the community
because that would be arrogant, but we do try to communicate with all
of these different communities within Los Angeles, and we are the bridge.
And I think that's one reason why we are very important in the city.
|
|
| The
Times: A hometown institution |
|
TERENCE SMITH: And this paper was part and parcel of the development
of the city. I mean, this paper grew as this city grew.
NARDA ZACCINO: Mm-hmm. That's true, and the paper's also changed a lot
over time. I've been here almost 30 years, and it was quite a different
paper before I came. It was very conservative. It was very, you know,
anti-labor in the news pages. It was very much a very different newspaper.
And that changed over time, and the newspaper that I came to nearly
30 years ago in 1970 was -- was different, but it has changed. I mean,
even then, I had -- there were a lot of problems with it. There were
no minorities on the staff. There were no women on the staff, virtually
none. So the newspaper has really changed. The composition of the staff
has changed. The editorial policy has changed. Our coverage has changed
... with the city, with the county.
TERENCE SMITH: I'm struck by the fact that you sit right in the heart
of downtown, you're literally across the street from city hall. I mean,
it suggests something.
NARDA ZACCINO: Well, this is -- this is the heart of Los Angeles, and
this building has been here for -- for decades. There was a time, though,
when we were actually considering moving from this location because
this building, being as old as it is, had a lot of problems with the
air conditioning and the heating and all of this. So -- and we were
facing a lot of repairs, costly repairs. And we were actually talking
about moving.
And people -- I mean, our public television station got involved. They
did a show right outside the building, and, you know, the idea that
we would move from this location was horrific to some people. We ended
up changing those plans, deciding to stay here, deciding that we were
-- it was important for us to stay here. It was a symbolic thing. And
so we did.
|
|
| Readers
understood the controversy |
|
TERENCE SMITH: And it's that centrality of the Los Angeles Times
in Los Angeles that makes the credibility of the paper and controversies
around it, it seems to me, even more important.
NARDA ZAQUINO: Well, that's true. Our readers -- and that is my main
responsibility right now, is maintaining a dialogue with the readers
and addressing their concerns, and also explaining our journalism to
them, kind of demystifying journalism as -- if you will, in the column
that I write.
But our readers, I quickly found out, really feel an ownership in this
newspaper. They're not just readers. They're not just consumers. They
don't just buy this newspaper or this product. They feel an ownership
in it. And I think, you know, that's why when we make mistakes, they
really want to call us on it. That's why they feel when we do something
-- when we win prizes, they feel pride and that sort of thing because
they really do feel that this is their newspaper. And I think they should.
TERENCE SMITH: What kind of reaction have you seen coming from readers
on the Staples incident?
NARDA ZAQUINO: The reaction was -- was slow in the beginning to come,
and then -- then it was much more intense. We've gotten over 200 calls
and letters. My office -- the readers' representative office -- gathers
the e-mail, faxes, letters and phone calls that come to us, but we also
compile from what comes into the Letters to the Editor page. I don't
mean that we compile it, but we track it so that we have a good sense
of the letters that come into all the sections.
So, for on Staples, for example, we got a lot of mail into this office,
and phone calls. We also track the letters to the editor, and we track
the letters to the magazine. We put it all together, and if you ask
me what readers are saying about it --
TERENCE SMITH: Yeah, what was the gist of those 200-plus --
NARDA ZAQUINO: Well, the readers were, first of all, very smart about
what it was all about.
TERENCE SMITH: They got it?
NARDA ZAQUINO: They got it. They -- for the most -- there were some,
you know, just kind of crazy, you know, very nasty, very mean letters.
But for the most part, the readers understood the credibility issues.
They understood the integrity issues. And some of them said -- a number
of them said, 'OK, I'm glad you apologized, you know, what you did was
wrong, it was smart to own up to it, let's move on.'
A lot of people were -- felt that -- the thing that was most disturbing
to me, I guess, is that a number of people felt that this called into
question a lot of what we do. If we didn't cover a story, they say,
'You didn't cover that -- did you not cover that because an advertiser
didn't want you to cover it? Or did you cover something because an advertiser
-- you know, you have a deal with an advertiser.'
And there were some who have subscribed for a long time who -- you know,
these are very -- a lot of these were very loyal readers who just said,
'Can I trust the L.A. Times?'
Well, yes, I think now, especially, they can trust the Los Angeles
Times, and part of my -- I wrote a column where I explained how
it happened to readers. I explained that the magazine was -- in fact,
as Kathryn Downing said in the story in the Los Angeles Times,
and Michael Parks affirmed -- was, in fact, intact. Its integrity was
intact, because they didn't know about the arrangement of profit sharing.
And I think readers appreciated hearing that, and I think that all we
can do from this point on is go forward and do the good journalism that
we do, and if questions come up, we address them, and we just -- we
move on.
|
|
| It's
v ery easy to second-guess |
|
TERENCE SMITH: Of course, it was that very fact that they didn't know
about the revenue-sharing arrangement that has so incensed many of the
journalists in this paper.
NARDA ZACCINO: That's true. I -- I deal with readers, and I -- and that's
what my -- my orientation is readers, and I -- and readers understood
that, too.
TERENCE SMITH: What about you? What did you -- were you bothered by
this arrangement?
NARDA ZACCINO: Sure. I was bothered, yeah. I'm a journalist. I was bothered
by it.
TERENCE SMITH: What bothered you about it?
NARDA ZACCINO: The fact that we shared the revenue, which we had never
done before; the fact that editorial people didn't know about it; the
fact that I knew I'd be getting a lot of calls and letters and e-mail
about it and would have to explain it; and -- just, you know, obviously
-- obviously it was -- as Kathryn Downing recognized when she apologized
for it, it was a -- a transgression and a breach of - -of ethics, and
so --
TERENCE SMITH: Some editors knew beforehand, before it hit the streets,
anyway, about this arrangement. Should something have been put in the
paper to disclaim or explain the arrangement?
NARDA ZACCINO: I think it's very easy to Monday morning quarterback
on this issue, and, yes, I think -- yes, obviously, ... it would have
been preferable in the first place not to have done it. Second place,
having done it, it would have been preferable to tell the staff and
tell our readers that -- that we had done this, yes. We didn't do that,
and, yeah, I think we should have.
TERENCE SMITH: Did you --
NARDA ZACCINO: And Michael Parks I think would -- would think -- would
say that, too.
TERENCE SMITH: I think you're right. Did you as a vice president of
the company know about it?
NARDA ZACCINO: No, but I wouldn't know about it. I mean, it wouldn't
have been important for me to know about it. It would have been important
for the people working on the magazine, for the editor to know about
it.
TERENCE SMITH: Alice Short certainly thought it would have been important
--
NARDA ZACCINO: Uh-huh.
TERENCE SMITH: -- for her to know about it. This whole philosophy that
Mark Willes has -- has espoused vigorously since arriving here four
and a half years ago of breaking down the famous wall between the business
and editorial sides, of increasing communication between those two sides
in order to increase revenues and make -- put the paper on a firmer
financial footing -- what effect from your point of view, from a journalist's
point of view, has that had on this paper?
|
|
| A
lower wall between editorial and ads |
|
|
NARDA ZACCINO: Well, that's a very good question, and I can answer
it from someone who's been here for 30 years. And let me also say that
I have been a reporter, and I have been -- I've overseen all the feature
sections here, and I've overseen all the regional editions over the
course of that time. I've been a bureau chief in Sacramento. I have
a lot of experience.
I think that the wall between -- when I first started in this business
and at this newspaper, there was a very high wall between editorial
and advertising that was never breached. I mean, we didn't even go on
each other's floors. We didn't talk to each other in the lunch room.
We didn't -- there was no conversation.
I would agree with Mark Willes that -- that some creative ideas can
come from business people. When I became editor of the Orange County
edition, for example, I talked a lot with the advertising people about
doing sections. You know, we would want to do a section -- prep sports.
We knew the Register, our competitor, was going to have a section
on prep sports when football season started. We wanted to have one.
We would talk about issues like that, and we would try to work together.
We never shared story ideas, which would be just verboten. That would
be a terrible breach of etiquette and of ethics.
I think that some of the convers -- there's nothing wrong with conversation
if -- if you don't -- as long as there's no interference, as long as
editorial has the final say on everything, on creating new sections,
on story ideas, on -- I mean, there should be no conversations about
-- let me -- let me back up.
TERENCE SMITH: Sure.
NARDA ZACCINO: There should be no conversations from -- generated by
advertising about we want you guys to do a certain story or we want
you to do a certain section, we have advertisers who want it. That should
not happen.
But at the same time, this is a business and I recognize that, and I
think that that has been a realization that has come to a lot of people
-- I mean, I know, and we all know here, that it's advertising that
supports the newspaper. I would love to have more advertising in the
Book Review, for example. It would be nice to have more ads so we could
have more space for our stories. I think a lot of editors feel that
way. It would be nice if our advertising department would sell more
ads. It's not nice if they want to tell us what stories to have so that
they can sell more ads or have us give them a story list, for example.
Now, none of that happens. None of that goes on. And so I feel confident
that this was a real aberration. This was something that happened that
we all wish would not have happened. But I think that conversation can
take place.
I do think, also, though, that there has to be -- there has to be a
wall that you don't -- I mean, whether it's this high or how high it
is, but there has to be an understanding that the most important thing
is the integrity and the credibility of the newspaper. And there has
to be -- there have to be guardians of that integrity and credibility
at this newspaper. The top guardian has to be the publisher. The editor
has to be a guardian of that. If we lose credibility and integrity with
our readers, then we've lost everything.
TERENCE SMITH: You know, that scenario you just described of advertising
people contacting editors, section chiefs and the like, and suggesting
specific stories and saying, you know, we can sell ads around -- on
that theme or on that subject, that, based on my reporting, does happen.
NARDA ZACCINO: Well, let me -- let me put it this way: I think that
if the reader is paramount and what serves the reader is what is at
the fore of everything we do, then we'll be fine.
For example, let me give you an example. Let's say that we want to do
a bride -- a section for brides. OK. And the advertising people talk
to the editorial people or the editorial people talk to the advertising
people and say we want to do a section on brides, June is the biggest
month for brides, that means, you know, dresses are bought in -- the
biggest retail month is February or March, whatever it is. It's actually
probably earlier, but -- and so let's do a section then for brides.
Well, I would say I think that would be of interest to readers. In fact,
I proposed this section at one point when I was over the feature sections.
And ... we did several of them because they were very successful with
readers.
Now, my point is, yeah, you ... if you want to do a special section
for brides and you're going to have stories on, you know ... what the
big trends are or what dresses are looking like ... you also want in
that section ads that the reader is going to want. If I'm getting married,
I'm going to want to see ads in that section that are, you know, places
I can buy flowers, places that I can -- that can do my catering, stuff
like that. You don't want dog food ads or motorcycle ads in that section.
You want ads that are of that -- on that theme. So if an advertising
person would come to me and say, Can you do a section on brides? I'd
say, 'Hey, that's a good idea.'
|
|
| |
Credibility
damaged |
|
| |
TERENCE SMITH: Had the credibility of this newspaper been damaged?
NARDA ZACCINO: Of course it has. Of course it has. And -- and that's
why I would like to -- I mean, all of us here really want to move on
...
TERENCE SMITH: I was talking about whether the credibility had been
damaged. You said yes, of course it had. I think the question -- the
next logical question is: 'What does it take to get it back, that credibility?'
NARDA ZACCINO: Oh, I think we need to move on from here. I think we
need to await David Shaw's article -- I think that's very important.
It's important to the people who work here, and I think it's important
to our readers because they seemed -- in the mail that I got and the
phone calls, they seemed impressed that we were -- had assigned our
Pulitzer Prize-winning media critic, who, by the way, won the Pulitzer
for a story he wrote that was highly critical of our coverage of the
McMartin preschool scandal. And that story left us wide open for criticism,
and he won the Pulitzer for it. I really trust his reporting and his
-- his integrity. And I think that it's important to wait for that ...
I think that that's really important for the closure of this--of this
situation.
But, you know, I want to ask you something. I mean, you asked me a moment
ago about the -- you know, how the newspaper has changed and how Mark
Willes' comments about knocking down the wall between advertising and
editorial, and I think that you really need to look at what's happening
to all the media in America.
For example, I think there has been a lot of interest -- I mean, you're
here talking to us here at the paper. You're interested in this story.
I know the New York Times had an editorial. I heard from colleagues
at other newspapers. My column was sent to their publishers. It was
-- you know, stories about what happened here were sent to the publishers
and editors of other newspapers --
|
|
| |
Merging
two schools of thought |
|
| |
TERENCE SMITH: You're suggesting, therefore, I think, that this problem
isn't unique here.
NARDA ZACCINO: I -- that's right. That --
TERENCE SMITH: -- the specifics may be unique.
NARDA ZACCINO: I am suggesting that. I'm suggesting that if you look
at the New York Times, for example, you see an auto section,
OK? You see cars and driving and that -- and you see ads for ... automobile
accessories and cars and what-not. Clearly someone's talking to someone
there. I mean --
TERENCE SMITH: But they don't split the profits from the ads.
NARDA ZACCINO: Well, no, I -- no, they don't, and we never have, and
I am sure we never will again.
TERENCE SMITH: That's the difference. That's the difference. ...
TERENCE SMITH: I mean, I've heard Mark Willes on -- I heard him speak
on the subject about how, in his view, the editor of a section ought
to be thinking about the revenue it can bring in and the bottom line
and what it can do to help the bottom line. Should that editor be thinking
about that?
NARDA ZACCINO: I see it a little differently. I see it as an editor's
desire to get more advertising into his or her section so that there
can be more space for more stories. And I bring up the Book Review as
an example or the Southern California Living section, our feature section,
our metro section, our local news section. Yeah, if we had more space,
we could have more stories. We could have more book reviews on Sunday
or more feature stories or more local news space.
And so I don't see it as editors are necessarily thinking about bringing
more money into the paper. I see it as editors thinking about, you know,
'Gee, you know, in the Book Review how come we're not selling -- we
just go after publishers, and publishers don't have as much money to
advertise. Why don't we look at Mont Blanc pens or, you know, some other'
... but, also there has been a feeling that -- amongst some editors
that -- whose sections are not filled with ads that, you know, maybe
they can come up with ideas for different advertisers to go to.
The food section is an example. The food section has grocery stores.
… I mean, I happily went to advertising and said, 'Why don't you
go to some of the retail department stores and get them, you know, pots
and pans and housewares and things ... you use if you're cooking? Why
don't you get some of that in there?
I don't see anything wrong with that. I do think that editors should
not have to think about their survival of their section. I don't think
they should have to think about, 'Gee, if I don't get out there and
actively try to bring in more revenue, my section's going to die.' I
don't think that should be the case. But I don't see anything wrong
with an editor saying, 'Why don't you guys try to sell this or try to
sell that?'
|
|
| |
Moving
on |
|
| |
TERENCE SMITH: What I guess remains to be seen is -- is how you move
on, how you persuade the reader that next week's edition of the magazine
or the next special edition of the magazine is not a -- not what the
Staples issue was.
NARDA ZACCINO: I find this a very exciting time in a way because, first
of all, journalists were so exercised about protecting our integrity
and our credibility. People on the business side, too, understand that,
especially understand it now. Now there is great clarity.
If when Mark said he was going to tear down the walls there was anxiety
and there was questioning and everything, I think that is erased now.
In my opinion, there is great clarity about the role of editorial and
the role of advertising. There is great clarity about what we're going
to do in the future if there's ever any question. Editorial is drafting
guidelines. The masthead editors -- and I'm in that group -- we're drafting
guidelines that will be followed, that will be implemented by Kathryn
and will be followed by people on the business side. The article is
being written.
I think there's a lot of positive things to say. Yes, it's terrible
that this happened. But going forward now, I think it's -- in a way,
it had to happen -- in a way.
TERENCE SMITH: One final thing that I didn't ask you about and I probably
should have because you've been here during his reign as publisher,
and that was the statement, really quite blistering statement, from
Otis Chandler. What did you think of that?
NARDA ZACCINO: What did I think of it? It was very dramatic. It was
-- I think Otis was saying something that people wanted someone to say.
People in the city room wanted, I think, someone to say they had been
doing a great job and that they had been -- that our credibility had
been hurt. And I think that's why they welcomed him saying it.
I know that the reader respo -- reader reaction really picked up after
Otis' comments. I think that readers -- Otis Chandler enjoys a very
-- is something of an icon in the city room, and I was a little surprised
at how much -- how revered he was in the community because a lot of
the mail we got was from people saying -- you know, recalling the days
when he was publisher.
TERENCE SMITH: In fact, his picture is posted all around the newsroom.
NARDA ZACCINO: I know.
TERENCE SMITH: Like a pin-up.
NARDA ZACCINO: I know that. I know. And I can understand why that is.
I also think that it's really -- as I said, I keep saying it's really
important to move forward. I think that what the newsroom wants desperately
is for a clear definition of roles, advertising and editorial, a clear
statement that this will never happen again, that this -- that the environment
will be such that it can never happen again. And once that -- once that
happens, once the story comes out and that clears the air -- and there's
nervousness about that. I'm sure there's nervousness all over the building
about that story, you know, what is it going to say? You know -- that's
very important. That step is really important for closure.
... I care most about the readers. I care about my colleagues in the
newsroom, but they'll survive. I care about the readers and about our
integrity. And I think that all we can do is, when the story comes out,
when we -- we're going to publish our guidelines, and I'm sure I'll
write a column about it -- that all we can do is put out, continue to
put out a great newspaper.
You know, frankly, I mean, we've been spending a lot of time doing interviews
with people from other media about this incident, and it would be great
to just get it behind us. And the only way we're going to rebuild our
credibility with the readers is if we put out -- do our -- the great
journalism that we're known for and do our work in a solid way and,
as I said, answer -- honestly answer questions when they arise and honestly
correct our errors when we make them, and that's how we -- that's the
only thing we can do.
TERENCE SMITH: That's great.
NARDA ZACCINO: Good.
TERENCE SMITH: Thank you.
|
|
