Heartbreaking to watch this slow, steady stream of just-fired LA Times journalists who have been laid off. So many who are the young POC the paper swore would be the future and better reflect what LA looks like. Then there's the ponderous choice of getting rid of the Dodgers beat writer - and not the columnist that foolishly predicted the team would win it all? So trading in the day-to-day straight guy for the opinion that's often wrong? Axing the 404 desk that draws young readers to the brand? How does that make sense? Bailing on the editor and asst editor in the DC bureau as if nothing important will be happening there in the next 11 months. Were these decisions made by bingo balls in a hopper? And then De Los. This paper knows and has admitted it has not had a good history with hiring or covering the Latino stories of this city, despite those Angelenos being the majority. How do you pull the plug on that after just five months? When you do that, what's the message you're sending about your brand, your leaders, and how you envision your future? God bless Dr. Patrick for saving the paper when he did, but does he really have no other billionaires in his Contacts to partner with and share the financial burden of this vital institution of LA? Likewise, Patrick saying their one-day walkout "didn't help" the process makes today seem vindictive and reactionary. This poor paper. Those poor people. Our dark future.