John Montorio, Print Apologist, 'Shocked' at L.A. Times Firing
On Friday afternoon, in one of Russ Stanton's first acts as executive editor of The Los Angeles Times, he walked into the office of one of the paper's managing editors and fired him.
"I was shocked," said the editor, John Montorio, in an interview with The Observer. "It was really quite brief and to the point. There was no emotionalism, no hostility and bitterness. It was seriously better than that—no yelling, screaming, crying."
Mr. Montorio, managing editor for features, who heads up the Sunday Calendar, Daily Calendar, Weekend Calendar, Book Review, Home, Food, Travel, Real Estate, Health and "Highway 1" sections as well as the Sunday magazine, announced the news to the paper in a memo yesterday, saying he would be gone at the end of the month.
Over the last few weeks, since the L.A. Times' previous executive editor James O'Shea was fired in January, the paper has been divided into two camps over who should get the top job: there were those aligned with Mr. Stanton, the editor who oversaw tremendous growth of the
paper's Web site, and others who backed John Arthur, the 22-year-veteran at the paper and its managing editor.
Mr. Stanton was named the editor on Valentine's Day. Mr. Montorio had backed Mr. Arthur.
"I didn't have much of a working relationship with Russ," Mr. Montorio said. "We just worked in different parts of the paper and I had a closer association with John."
Over the last two weeks, three editors told The Observer in off-the-record interviews that they expected Mr. Stanton's first act as editor, should he get the job, would be to fire Mr. Montorio. But Mr. Montorio said that he was surprised by the decision.
"No one told me about it," he said. "I didn't think [Russ and I] had ever bumped heads. I was surprised by all this."
The editors who speculated that Mr. Montorio would be fired said that he was unpopular with a large swath of the features department, and that it was believed he would be resistant to the paper's increasing transition from ink to pixels, especially as the Stanton regime begins in earnest.
Mr. Montorio said that he never had a "long and philosophical conversation" with Mr. Stanton about the newspaper's role on the Web, but he offered this: "The Web may be the future, but right now print is the goose that laid the golden egg. It's invaluable. No one is saying that the Web is not—maybe I sound anachronistic, but what print can provide, there are lots of things the Web can't provide, just like there are some things that the Web can provide that print can't.
"Print can provide thought scoops," he continued. "The paper can provide analysis—that's what I mean by a thought scoop. You look at something in The New York Observer and think, 'Holy shit!' You read something that was not formed in your brain, and suddenly a reporter connects the dots for you. That's what I think we can do. I'm much more bullish on the print industry, even if Wall Street isn't."
"I don't know if I was on a soapbox and saying: Go Web! But hey, maybe I should have," he said.
Mr. Montorio was hired by The L.A. Times in 2001 after working for years at The New York Times, overseeing the creation of sections like Styles, Dining In/Dining Out, House & Home and City.
Back when he was hired by The L.A. Times, he told The Observer: "I know this sounds crazy, but you don't tell destiny to get lost."
When I read the quote back to him yesterday, he said, "Oh my God! Well, I think it was my destiny, I had an incredible seven years. I think Russ has the right to surround himself with a cabinet he feels comfortable with. I don't have any bitterness and I think it's foolish to be angry. I respect Russ' right to make this judgment, even
though I may not agree with it. It's been a great chapter in my life."
Ironic how the first attempt by the LA Times to make money off its website was "Calendar Live!" a failed effort to charge viewers for the privilege of reading its entertainment and feature articles. And the overall LA Times website even today is far clunkier to navigate than its counterparts at the Post, NY Times, USA Today, ad infinitum. Montorio may not have been a genious, but Stanton appears to be one of those journalistic technocrats without a well-grounded sense of his craft's relationship to history, culture and society. LA Times readers should be prepared for a West Coast version of USA Today (or lighter).
R.I.P. LA Times.
So I have a somewhat unusal position, in that I too had Russ walk me out of the LAT building some years ago. Russ treated me like a grownup, let me know pretty early on that there was nothing I could do to alter the end game, and worked with me to end my career at the LAT on a high note. I'm not saying I don't think this is a weird hire, but I do think Russ is a good guy who will go to the mat for the people at the paper. Furthermore, I do believe that newspapers have to find some way to flip the relationship between the paper and Internet distribution; if Russ has twigged to that, I think he has a shot.
From what I witnessed, Montorio was deeply loathed by a lot of LAT staffers, good ones, for continuous gaslighting and divide-and-conquer games with some of the most talented folks at that paper.
I don't think he was fired for his position or lack of position about web innovations.
He doesn't remember bumping heads with Stanton. He certainly would have wanted to avoid that because it might have required taking a position on an issue. The situation at the Times may be bad but this firing is part of the solution.
Sure, print can provide some things that pixels can't. And horses could go some places cars can't, etc. Doesn't matter what he thought about it - the customers are rejecting it and have chosen their preferred delivery medium, so it's imperative to get with that program posthaste (which Tribune in general has been slow to do). Even if that WAS this guy's only sin, that's enough to merit a boot out the door.
Now that Stanton is executive editor, I wonder if there's any chance there might now be a Technology section on the Web site. The New York Times and just about every other online newspaper covers technology as a separate section. Let's see just how tech oriented this guy is.
Being a print apologist is exactly what the LA Times doesn't need.
Print may have been the golden egg of newspapers, but it's getting pretty rotten. The Times revenue is sagging, and the only way to reverse the paper's fortunes is to increasingly move to the Web.
I wrote a whole post about this situation here: http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/?p=179
Frankly, major dailies don't need top editors who are anti-Web. That's not helping anyone.
I wish Mr. Montorio the best of luck in his new position -- as president of the Hair Club for Men.
Try http://www.latimes.com/technology
In fairness, it should be noted that Montorio's conversion of Sunday Calendar from tabloid to broadsheet hauled in millions of dollars in advertising. And the latest incarnation of the magazine is supposedly in the black, after years of red ink. Also, contrary to published reports, Montorio was charming and engaging in conversation. But nobody trusted him. He had a reputation for slamming staffers behind their back; he pushed out a lot of talented people; and he and his henchwomen ruled through fear. Stanton is a hero for firing him, but it won't mean much unless he also sacks Montorio's lieutenants and brings in a visionary new leader.
Henchwomen? Names, please!
Do not ask for whom the bell tolls...Everyone who's worked at the LA Times in the last few years knows the names of the "henchwomen." The question is, does Russ have the cojones to give them the heave-ho too, or is he, as Sam Zell would put it, gonna be a pussy?
anyone still at the TIMES obviously doesn't know or can't get another job. the best have left... the dead remain, a nest of rats each dependent on who will think for them next. note to sam zell: your an idiot! money isn't everything, except to a man 4' tall, with a lisp, who couldn't get pussy if he tried, unless he buys it.
what a joke!
"your an idiot!" Priceless. Eight-year-olds understand contractions, so what does that make you?
There are plenty of exceptionally hardworking and talented people at the LAT, including Jon Healey, who is the world's best reporter covering the digital revolution. Seriously.
And there a lot of reasons to stay at the LAT, including the fact that the only other newspapers you might be interested in working for are 1) 3000 miles away 2) Laying people off 3) Don't understand the importance of what you're doing and thus are uninterested in hiring you to do what you want.
I hope all my friends still in LA continue fighting the good fight, staying the course, and keeping the faith. And yeah, while Paul said that as a coda to his life, just because you're not near the end doesn't mean you can't understand how proud you should be about the now. Be safe.
he, he, he . . . He said, "Pussy."
while qualified to attest that montorio at LAT was a textbook example of the phrase "toxic personality," i must say that the problems there go beyond him, beyond the hamburger minds in chicago, and beyond the industrywide meltdown, and they won't be solved just by going web. the reason is that these problems are institutional/cultural, and they go back decades. for decades, the hiring culture and the promotion culture there has favored the bland and the dull, and the paper's features department is six deep with intelligent, competent,......yet extremely unimaginative, dullsville professionals. this gets truer and truer of the MSN hiring/retention culture at large, which is why an already dire features personnel situation was only exacerbated by the boring types montorio did bring in, of course, from oh-so-provincial NYC and other MSN outposts. in los angeles, a town that contrary to east coast stereotype is loaded with extremely with-it culture-vultures, LAT's features policy seems to be to actively hire, retain and promote the dullest, least imaginative people they can find (with a few exceptions, natch). and getting rid of montorio is not gonna solve that.
As a young assistant foreign news editor at the LAT in the sixties, just back from two years in Paris at the old Trib, I just assumed I could serve up news that I felt was merited. The very first afternoon, the then main news editor.... later to become the Czar of the whole paper as its revered managing editor, even into retirement....informed me that I had to check the clips to see if we had covered that story at all. If it was not in the clips, we could use it as a brief. But not as a spread. It was a safe policy, as far as that goes. In other words, never take a chance. Safety first.
Kudos to Stanton for finally dealing with John Montorio. Though Montorio and the unsavory pack of ex-NYT's loyalists (a few still work there; at least one henchman fled in the dark of night) did improve some aspects of the LAT Features sections, they ruled with an arrogance, secretiveness and closed-door clubbiness that left a trail of damage among many reporters and editors at The Times. Stories about Montorio's breathtaking narcissism, vindictiveness, and bad-mouthing of staffers were legendary, though oddly he could indeed be charming in person. Charming like a snake, as they say. Too bad the Times higher-ups, who were aware of the complaints, didn't deal with them sooner. Perhaps the extra ad revenue Features was generating with its softer approach to the news colored their judgment.
Where there is no vision, the paper will perish...
Even if Sam Zell is every terribly vicious thing said about him...
Even Sam Zell must realize that the times' gold is the talent in the stable --
Indeed, the Times has the potential, if led wisely, to be the best paper in the country
(because if you pay close attention, it's quite apparent how rotten the NYTimes is.)
And there's money in that appellation -- the best.
The LA Times already has Dan Neil and the best sports section in America. Anybody who doubts that should read Platsche's (sp?) piece on Roger Clemens -- it puts every attempt by the New York Times to shame.
I worked closely with John Montorio many years ago, and I can attest to the fact that he is deceitful to the max, incredibly narcissistic (sp.?), and cruel to those in his personal and professional life. I only wonder how he held his job for as long as he did. And yes, when I knew him he was totally bald.