Wednesday, December 21, 2011

L.A. Times fires blogging pressman Padgett

An employee for 39 years, four months and nine days, Ed Padgett wrote yesterday that the Los Angeles Times had fired him following what he termed a surprise investigation.

His termination was effective Dec. 12, he said, and he learned about it through a phone call from human resources. "I had no clue I was under investigation," he writes, "so it came as a shock to learn I was being investigated by human resources and terminated upon the completion of the so-called investigation."

He continued: "I’m not at liberty to share why I was terminated or what my actions in response will be at this time; so stay tuned as this unfolds."

Last year, Padgett was suspended "ostensibly for writing about press room problems, then reinstated," LA Observed said in reporting Padgett's dismissal.

A Gannett Blog reader, Padgett has published his site since 2006. He was almost certainly the industry's most prominent blogging press operator.


  1. Good for the LA Times. If you bite the hand that feeds you should get fired. No if ands or buts.

  2. 1:54. The LAT has turned into a lousy mess not worthy of its market and just pulled another no-class move. Journalism and the business are supposed to be transparent.

  3. Hogwash! We don't know what ge did but if it were for disclosing internal confidential information On his blog he should be fired. Even Jim had enough sense not to cone forward u til after he accepted a lucrative deal to leave. If the guy shared information the company should get rid of him

  4. The comments at 1:54 p.m. and 4:27 p.m. should settle the debate whether corporate types follow this blog.

  5. 5:14 why do I have to be a corporate type. If you owned a small business and one of your employees told you you sucked and then felt free to share company strategy with your competitors why would you let them continue to work for you? We still don't know what he actually did and he won't say. Hmmmmm

  6. Investigations are just a smokescreen for getting rid of "overpaid" employees without having to pay severance or unemployment. The closer Gannett gets to the bottom, the more frequently these kinds things seem to happen.

  7. He was naïve to think he could publish anything negative about a company that has been getting rid of people left and right for years.
    Thinking you are safe because you have all those years under your belt was silly on his part. Now he has missed a chance for a lucrative buyout.


Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.