On Wednesday, July 20, John Carroll announced his retirement as Editor of the Los Angeles Times. Since joining the Times in 2000, Carroll’s newsroom has been awarded 13 Pulitzer Prizes — continuing a legacy of prize-winning journalism that he established during editorships at the Baltimore Sun and the Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader. Carroll spoke with me by telephone and reflected on his career and his years at the Times.
Butch Ward: Looking back at your time in Los Angeles, what pleases you most?
John Carroll: The quality and the collegiality of the newsroom staff. Even though there’s been much change, this is a warm, rewarding place to work.
You’ve edited some very important pieces of journalism over the course of your career. Which ones stand out?
I don’t know where to start. In Philadelphia, Bill Marimow and Jonathan Neumann did an investigation into homicide detectives who were beating confessions out of suspects and intimidating witnesses. It’s not an exaggeration to say that this series restored the rule of law.
In Kentucky, we did a series called “Cheating Our Children” that led to profound changes in public education there. And we did a story on payoffs and other illicit acts in the University of Kentucky basketball program that laid bare the sordid business of “amateur” sports and, more broadly, of widespread lying in public life.
In Baltimore, we did a series on “shipbreaking,” the business of ripping ships apart for scrap, which was causing environmental damage and a lot of injuries in Baltimore, as well as other ports around the country. Another Baltimore story: We sent reporters to buy slaves in southern Sudan in order to demonstrate what was going on there. (No, we didn’t put them on the copy desk.)
Here in L.A., I’m very partial to David Willman’s reporting on how the government’s watchdog agencies became dominated by the pharmaceutical industry.
A story I liked very much was a series called “Enrique’s Journey,” which chronicled the life of a young boy who came to the U.S. illegally in search of his mother. And we did a recent series on King/Drew hospital, a racially sensitive topic, which was harming and sometimes killing its patients needlessly.
There are others; I hate to leave them out. One important thing: I didn’t write any of these stories. They were done by very talented people. My job was to encourage them.
You’ve worked with a lot of fine reporters. Do you find yourself surprised at their skills?
Oh, yes, it happens a lot. One of the happy things about this line of work is being a lifelong learner. And a lot of what I learn, I learn from the reporters.
Did you have a mentor, John?
Actually I’ve had two. The first was my father, who was a longtime editor of the newspapers in Winston-Salem, N.C., and also at The New York Times. I never worked for him, but lately, as I’ve been reading stories about my retirement, the descriptions of me and my work remind me of my father. It’s gratifying.
The other is Gene Roberts, who inspired me and made journalism fun. He also gave me a deep sense of why journalism matters so much.
What do you think of the current state of journalism in America?
It’s shaky, and for a variety of reasons. The best of today’s journalism is wonderful, but I worry about the economic underpinnings of newspapers. Profit margins are high — too high, in my opinion — but there seems no turning back. We’re not paying enough attention to the long-term future.
Is that the threat to journalism that worries you most?
Absolutely. Journalistic and business decisions have shifted from the cities and towns of America to Wall Street, where people are comfortable with Darwinian market forces. No one seems to be concerned whether newspapers exist a generation from now.
I’m not hung up on print, but I do believe that the kind of journalism practiced by newspapers is of great value. Journalism on TV is getting shoddier, and other media, too. Somebody’s got to play this game in a serious fashion.
Recently you talked about the impact of bias on journalism. What are you thinking about that today?
The reality is that papers like mine are doing, basically, a good job of presenting the news fairly. The marketing plan of the talk shows and certain blogs requires the denigration of the traditional media, and we are thus portrayed incessantly as biased and even dishonest. There is bias, of course, but it’s being exaggerated for commercial reasons.
So what’s next for John Carroll?
What’s next is an open-ended vacation. Lee and I are going to do some things she wants to do. She’s indulged me for 20 years, and it’s her turn. (This won’t require sacrifice on my part; it ought to be fun.) When I get bored with my freedom, I’ll find work.
Would you consider being editor in another newsroom?
Probably not. Having been editor of three papers, starting in 1979, I’ve had my turn. It would have to be an extraordinary opportunity.
One last question: What advice do you have for an editor of an American newsroom in 2005?
Be a journalist, not a businessman. Be a leader, not an administrator. Shun journalistic fads and nostrums. Don’t forget to have fun.
