Journalists struggle with finances,
retirement after parting L.A. Times

Former Los Angeles Times journalists continue to struggle with severe underemployment, soon-to-expire unemployment benefits and worries about retirement, a recent informal survey of 75 former staffers found. Nearly three-quarters of the respondents said they had been laid off or asked to leave by the financially troubled Tribune Company; the rest left the company voluntarily.

More than two-thirds are still receiving unemployment checks, though 68 percent expect those benefits to expire within 30 weeks of when the survey was taken in mid-November. The loss of benefits are despite the 14-20 week-extension recently signed by President Barack Obama.

The eventual end of benefits weighs heavily on the former Times employees.

“I’m hanging in there, but don’t know what I’ll do when I don’t have unemployment as a base,” wrote one female ex-staffer. “I’m in my 50s and it isn’t easy to find a job at my level and impossible to find one that pays what I used to make.” All comments were offered anonymously in the survey.

The survey, which was conducted by TheJournalismShop, targeted 124 writers, editors, news editors, managers and artists who banded together to discuss benefit, health care and career options on a Yahoo message group. The group, which began in December of 2008, grew to its present size as layoffs mounted at the Times.

While almost two-thirds of the respondents say their families are now on sound footing, 84 percent report that leaving the Times had a negative impact on their finances.

“Week-to-week takes on a whole new meaning,” wrote one father in his 40s.

Four out of five of the respondents reported earning half – or less – of what they were paid at the Times. Thirteen percent of the respondents reported zero income.

The loss of a salary is forcing tough personal decisions.

“We’re living on $50,000 less a year with two kids, one in college and (one) in high school,” wrote a father in his 50s. “We’re not at risk of losing our home but our ability to help our children get through college has been severely threatened.”

Others are reaching deeply into savings or selling their homes.

“After taking a pay cut of almost 30 percent in my current job – and I’m just happy to be working – I had to tap into my savings, retirement and other resources just to pay the bills and taxes,” wrote a laid-off male who is now working fulltime.

For others, full-time positions remain elusive. Only 11 of the 75 respondents reported landing jobs. Nearly 40 percent of the members are working freelance jobs only, and 28 percent are not working at all.

Of those respondents who are working full time or freelance, 90 percent are making less than they did at the Times.

“As with many of us, after working at the Times for more than 20 years, I was at the high end of the pay scale,” wrote a woman in her 50s. “It will be very difficult to re-establish myself in a similar position.”

Although many journalists were upset about losing their jobs, much of the anger was directed at those who fired them. About half felt they were treated unfairly, particularly as the Times has recently hired younger, less experienced journalists, presumably for less pay.

“It was extremely dismaying to me to hear of a younger reporter being hired after some 70 layoffs occurred this past spring,” wrote one female respondent. “The fact that she – and others – have been hired after so many were laid off leaves me unconvinced that the economics were such that they had no choice but to do such extensive layoffs.”

 On the other hand, nearly half of the respondents believed they personally were treated fairly. Some placed blame for the newspaper's foundering on the Chandler family, longtime owners of the Times who sold it to Tribune in 2000.

Tribune then sold itself to Sam Zell in 2007 for $8.5 billion and increased the company’s debt load by $8 billion. The extra debt precipitated the company’s financial crisis. Tribune has been in bankruptcy protection since December 2008.

“At some point, I became grateful that I wasn’t tossed on the street with no compensation at all,” wrote a woman, who was laid off last December when severance packages were still available. “I feel Tribune and the L.A. Times were mismanaged and put into a death spiral by a sale deal that benefited the Chandlers and left the papers with a sure-death debt load.”

While half of the respondents said they expect to recover financially, 79 percent feel less secure about their retirement. Only two respondents, or 3 percent, expect a better retirement after parting the Los Angeles Times.

Reasons for concern over retirement are varied, but several indicated the stock market’s sharp decline over the past year had a sharp impact on 401k and IRAs.

“Lost more than a third of my 401K in the recession, and have had to tap into what was left to keep the house,” wrote one female in her 50s. “There is little likelihood that I will be able to put enough away to ever be able to retire now.”

“The money that I had saved for retirement over the past 30 years is now almost gone,” wrote one man.

– Brett Levy

For more information, contact the author at Brett.Levy@thejournalismshop.com. Journalism Shop members Robin Rauzi and Scott Martelle edited this report.

Ex-Times journalists feel less
secure, face health problems

Nearly three-quarters of former Los Angeles Times journalists feel less secure about their lives since parting the struggling Tribune Company, a recent informal survey has found. Some of the journalists also reported increased health problems, concern over long-term health insurance and heavy reliance on their spouses’ incomes.

The poll was conducted among former Los Angeles Times journalists who are members of a support message group. Seventy-five out of 124 members responded.

Despite the loss of security, several journalists were happy to escape the pressures of working for the newspaper and the constant threat of layoffs.

“I really could not have continued to have a productive work life with the job insecurity I had at the Times,” wrote a woman who left in April without a buyout but found full-time employment. “It was very hard on my family and on me to never feel secure in my job.”

“It’s odd, but despite the financial ruination and the prospect of never being able to fully retire, I’m happier than I’ve ever been,” wrote another woman who had been laid off.  “Life is good, and the bitterness comes from the big financial losses and from the overall lack of appreciation by the LAT.”

Some journalists, however, are working hard to get past the bitterness over how they were treated during their final days and weeks at the Times. “I feel that I’m a champion at making lemonade out of lemons,” wrote a laid-off woman. “But that doesn’t mean I’m not very, very angry... . It was unconscionable.”

Without directly relating health issues to losing their jobs, 27 percent of the former employees reported new problems since leaving the Times. Nine reported bouts of depression while another five experienced nervous tension. Other conditions reported include cancer and heart problems.

The good news is that all but one of the journalists have health insurance. That security is shaky, however, as several respondents expressed concern that COBRA benefits were about to expire.

COBRA – which allows employees to continue coverage under a former employers health insurance at a higher price – is generally valid for up to 18 months after leaving a company. A subsidy designed to offset the high insurance costs expired on Monday.

“My husband and I are both covered by my COBRA,” wrote a laid off female. “I am hoping that the subsidy is renewed after Dec. 31. We both have pre-existing conditions, which could make finding other insurance difficult.”

Out-of-work journalists are also struggling with co-pays.

“I can’t afford needed MRI scans because of The Times’ insurance out-of-pocket expense requirements,” wrote a woman struggling with depression.

In a couple of cases, health improved after leaving the Times.

“I’ve been able to eliminate two medicines since leaving the paper,” wrote a laid-off make staffer.

“Because I am no longer putting in 40, 50 or 60-hour work-weeks, I am able to address some health concerns that I was putting off,” added one of his former female colleagues.

While former Times employees struggle with their own careers, 65 percent report spouses working full-time. Another 16 percent are working part-time and 7 percent are freelancing. Only 4 members report a spouse receiving unemployment benefits.

Perhaps because many of the families surveyed now depend on one salary, concern was expressed over spouses losing their jobs.

“If my spouse’s job disappears – and it’s possible – then we will probably be selling the house and moving on,” wrote one laid off woman.

– Brett Levy

For more information, contact the author at Brett.Levy@thejournalismshop.com. Journalism Shop member Scott Martelle edited this report.

Former L.A. Times journalists expect
newspaper, print to fail, survey finds

While nearly two-thirds of former Los Angeles Times journalists would like to remain in the news business, more than half believe their former paper eventually will fold – and nearly as many think newspapers in general have been mortally wounded, according to a recent informal survey conducted by TheJournalismShop.

Only 16 percent expect the Times to survive, and nearly a third say they were uncertain what will happen.

“It will either become all-paid like WSJournal or be privately foundation funded,” wrote a woman who volunteered for a buyout. “Guessing.”

The poll was conducted among former Los Angeles Times staffers who are members of a support message group. Seventy-five out of 124 members responded, and only a quarter of them expected newspapers to survive the current economic crisis.

“The stack of paper that used to arrive at your front door will disappear,” wrote one laid-off female journalist. “Already it seems quaint and wasteful.”

But another woman who took a buyout said there was still sufficient demand for newspapers to continue in some form.

“I am an optimist when it comes to believing that newspapers will survive because millions of people still read and want reliable, objective news,” she wrote.

 Even if newspapers survive, several expected a much lower quality product. “Most papers will evolve into local rags with a heavy emphasis on entertainment and other ‘news you can use’ and time-wasting blogs to keep people entertained,” wrote a former male staffer, whose job was cut.

Those who want to stay in journalism believe they face an uphill battle, given that the industry lost 86,400 employees from November of 2008 to November 2009, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. Of the 48 journalists who want to stay in the profession, 30 would prefer editing jobs. Twenty three would also be happy with a reporting job. (Totals can exceed number of participants because multiple categories could be selected.)

Several hoped to combine journalism skills with personal passions.

“I am hoping to turn my ‘hobbies’ into a paying work,” wrote a woman who was laid off. “I want to return to journalism, but not the same way I was doing it.”

Others have found ways to boost journalism in a supporting role. “I never left journalism,” wrote a man. “I simply took the buyout and accepted a job with a nonprofit that supports journalism.”

Twelve members were interested in research/library jobs and 11 were interested in web managing careers.

Of the 26 who plan to leave journalism, 15 said they are looking toward a communications career while ten want to work for themselves. Many respondents, tapping into the impetus that sent them into journalism in the first place, hoped to take on roles beneficial to society, with 14 interested in working for nonprofits, eight for health organizations, and six each for environment/sustainability projects and in government work.

To reach their career goals, 21 of the journalists are considering or already have entered college.

“I just started a Masters of Divinity program that takes three years,” wrote one respondent. “I intend to become a chaplain and will need further professional training and certification beyond the three year divinity school training.”

While most expect newspapers to die, 42 percent of the respondents said they believe independent, meaningful journalism will survive in some form. Another 24 percent took a neutral view. The journalists offered a variety of predictions of how this new world may emerge, from non-profits underwriting journalism to for-profit businesses built around online subscriptions.

Below are some individual predictions for the future of journalism:

“It will be less professional, younger, more poorly paid, more controlled by commercial interests.”

“Mainstream journalism, sadly, will shift into the hands of even fewer than now. New journalism will have many branches, funded by niches – foundations, academia, governmental institutions, political advocacy groups, varied interest groups, community news groups, etc. – and eventually co-ops of these niches may form to provide a way to share information and revenue streams.”

“As long as there is news to cover, there will be a need for journalists to report on it and explain its significance. Where that work is published will continue to evolve, though I expect the great majority of future news sources will be electronic: online and mobile, including e-readers and broadband. Only media groups that adopt and adapt early will survive.”

“If we can figure out how to monetize news, we might also see a sort of journalism iTunes, where audiences can buy stories/videos/whatever from various sources, piece by piece, in one place, rather than pay one fee for one news source.”

“Everything will be online and available via phone. I predict every story will have bullets and none will be longer than 6 paragraphs. I pray that independent, meaningful journalism will survive, but I’m afraid I’m becoming a pessimist. The stories that used to pop up on my email account were once things such as the latest international developments or scientific advances. Now it’s “Ten Ways to Tell If He’s Cheating on You” and “The Best Way to Eat Chicken Wings.” (True examples.) Newspapers used to guarantee that you’d see what you needed to know (arms treaty) along with what you wanted to know (chicken wings.) Now the public can get ONLY what it wants to know. Fun, but dangerous.”

“Methinks the chaos will continue and that there will be a long period of abundant but significantly degraded information for public discourse. The wealthy and able, of course, will get inside info or info applicable so the elite get more so while the bulk of society will be soma-tized with partisan, worthless and even evil and vile entertainments.”

“Call me an optimist, but I’d like to think that there is a place for a print product – or a web/e-reader product that is laid out like a print product – in addition to a very strong web presence. (I like the sense of discovery I get from leafing through the paper, where I can be enticed by something I might just skip over – or not even know it exists – when looking at a website.)”

“I believe journalism will evolve into a handful of ‘branded’ multi-platform news services that all include a website, email newsletters, printable newspaper-like product, audio and video. ... Longer-form journalism might survive by contracting with one of the branded news services for subscription and distribution services.

“I think philanthropists will step in and run newspapers on a nonprofit or less-profit model.”

“I think journalism and newspapers will continue, in some form, but they won’t be as important, relevant or necessary as they once were, and they won’t be able to provide the level of service they once did.”

“Major national papers like the WSJ, NYT and USA Today will stay strong. Hyper local papers will continue to do fine. Metropolitan and mid-sized papers will deteriorate and disappear, replaced by websites, non-profits, citizen journalism, or nothing at all.”

“I see more of what’s happening now: real journalists setting up independent internet ventures regionally and nationally, funded by nonprofits. Call me Pollyanna, but I also see the pendulum swinging back to print journalism some years down the road. It’ll be rediscovered, re-energized, the big new thing. That’s what I like to think, anyway.”

– Brett Levy

For more information, contact the author at Brett.Levy@thejournalismshop.com. Journalism Shop member Scott Martelle edited this report.