Russ Stanton has been at the helm of The Los Angeles Times for about a week, and he is already shaking things up.

It’s too early to say whether or not his decisions will positively impact the Times, but it is clear that Stanton believes the status quo cannot continue. Most observers would agree that the Times needs to rethink what they are doing.

Firing a managing editor (the second highest position at a newspaper) is a big deal, but that was one of Stanton’s first official acts. He told features managing editor John Montorio to not let the door hit him on the way out. The New York Observer calls Montorio a “print apologist,” and with good reason:

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 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.”

Apparently many Times employees thought Stanton would fire Montorio, and it doesn’t seem surprising that a former innovations editor (head of the Web) might be put off by one of his managing editors being so anti-Web, despite the fact that readers are going online in droves. Everyone on the Web gets that print still makes the lion’s share of the money for a newspaper, but most people also get that print revenues are falling without fail every quarter (especially at Tribune).

Those revenues have to be made up somewhere, and it sounds like Montorio was too married to a print past that he loved. I don’t really think a major metro paper like the Times should have people at the top who are print apologists, especially in the face of continual newsroom cuts. Maybe print laid the golden egg, but that egg is starting to look pretty rotten.

Stanton is credited with helping to make latimes.com better (it still sucks), and he wants to do a lot more to improve it. Stanton gave a speech on Feb. 14 where he outlined several new online initiatives that the Times will be undertaking immediately. Here are some excerpts from his speech:

One of the keys to reversing our fortunes is improving our coverage of Southern California, and our website and our readers will take a big role in helping us accomplish that. David Lauter and his crew are off to a great start reorganizing the local report, and you can see their progress in each day’s paper and on the website. As we reexamine what we do across the paper, we need to retain some of the hallmarks of our coverage, such as our foreign and national reports.

Online, we must continue to find innovative ways to display the great storytelling produced by our staffs. Look at the tremendous progress you all have made on the website under the direction of Meredith, Sean and crew.

Our traffic is soaring and the site is taking our journalism to the farthest reaches of the Earth — to places the paper has never been before. We must continue to supplement the stories, photos and graphics produced by the print staff with material that is produced by the Web staff, and our readers. Speaking of readers, we will to continue to enlist them to expand our ability to deliver information all the way down to the neighborhood level. Along the way, we must understand, embrace and uphold the journalistic values of the Los Angeles Times.

We made great progress last year, but we still have a lot of work to do. First and foremost, our two newsrooms need to - and will — become one. And the people in them need to better understand and work with each other. We must be smart about how we carry out this merger of operations, recognizing the unique traits of each medium. We also must expand and improve the education and training of both staffs, and plans are in the works to do just that.

Yesterday, we rolled out the first of our breaking news blogs, in Metro, L.A. Now, which is led by blogger extraordinaire Veronique de Turenne. And the first of our neighborhood pages will debut this spring. We have several cases of new video gear in the building, an entire video staff, and we’re about to hire a full-time instructor to teach those who are interested how to shoot and edit video for their stories.

We were one of the very few papers in the country to report a gain in circulation in the most recent six-month reporting period. Online, our traffic continues to grow more than 20% annually and at a greater rate than the rest of our industry.

After reading that, and Montorio’s thoughts, it’s easy to see why Montorio was asked to leave. Stanton wants to be surrounded by people who believe the Web is the future. I think print is still important, but neglecting the Web is not a good survival technique.

And frankly, the Times needed to be shaken up. Stanton’s suggestions seem to be a good start, but the Times (and most newspapers) may need a more Palm Beach Post style shakeup. But a newspaper has to start somewhere.

I really like the idea of a breaking news blog. I believe every newspaper should have one. I also really, really like the idea of having a full-time staff member to provide video training.

If you’re going to do video, you might as well do it right. It’s also great to give staffers opportunities to obtain new skills if they want. Every newspaper should provide free training for its employees.

What are your thoughts? Do you think Stanton’s recent moves will make the Times a better news organization?

What is with people constantly saying “I didn’t get into journalism to be rich?”

Well, duh! But, I didn’t get a college degree to be poor either. Savvy?

There is a huge difference between being rich and being poor. Many journalists struggle to make a legitimate middle-class living. That is something to complain about.

We can’t expect journalists to have better qualifications (remember when journalists didn’t need expensive college degrees?), have broader skill sets and do more work, all while getting paid less. Starting journalism salaries have been stagnant for years, while inflation has marched on.

And benefits? What are those? Take post No. 350 from AngryJournalist.com:

I am angry because I’m taking money out of my IRA to get my wisdom teeth removed, while the barista at the Starbucks across the street will get it done for nearly nothing.

Is expecting workplace coverage for a routine procedure like getting your wisdom teeth removed an attempt to “get rich?” So, spare me the whole “I didn’t get into journalism to be rich” talk. That’s what corporate wants you to believe and that’s what idiots tell themselves to justify worsening workplace conditions.

This post was inspired by a post (No. 336) at AngryJournalist.com:

I am a happy. Today, I purchased a baseball bat and now have it next to my desk, conveniently within reach for the next person who smilingly reminds me that I didn’t get in to journalism for the money.