The woes continue at the LATimes. The AP tells us: LA Times to cut 250 positions, merge print and online departments, print 15 percent less pages.
LAT editor Russ Stanton informs us their problem is about length: “The number one reason that people cancel the L.A. Times is, they tell us, they don’t have enough time to read the paper that we give them every day,” Stanton said. “We’re going to be more picky about the stories we choose to write long and a lot more picky about the ones we write shorter.”
Okay, Mr. Pirandello, it is so if you think so. On the other hand, some of us might think it has something to do with the content itself, which at the LAT veers consistently toward the most fuddy-duddy and predictable liberalism. Why even bother to read it? The Wall Street Journal, as opposed to the LAT, seems to be doing just fine, thank you, and appears to be growing in length. Word is out they may soon even be publishing a Book Review section. Ever try reading the LAT Book Review these days? It’s like the slush pile from the New York Review of Books circa 1977. [Hey, you ungrateful cur? Didn't the LAT Book Review make your career with its rave of The Big Fix back in 1972?-ed. You would bring that up.]
What the LA Times needs is a serious over-haul, something absolutely non-traditional. It won’t happen.
“It won’t happen.”
Too many so-called media professionals are similar to the proverbial frog that was unaware of being slowly boiled alive. These individuals trapped themselves in an echo chamber. Many years of their lives were wasted. They are now clueless. Those who have earned a modest pension will soon retire. Many others will have to find another way entirely to earn a living.
When I called the LA Times to cancel a few years ago (after some egregious column I can’t remember anymore), the person taking the call asked me why I was canceling. I told her and she laughed and said she was getting a lot of calls about that. They know why people cancel.
Funny how the same liberals who love to use terms like “failed policies of past” when referring to conservative government are victims of their own “failed policies” when it comes to running businesses like newspapers.
None so blind…
Scott
“…they don’t have enough time to read the paper we give them every day…We’re going to be more picky about the stories we choose to write long and a lot more picky about the ones we write shorter.”
Short: “BUSH IS AN IDIOT”
Long: “BUSH IS AN IDIOT, CRITICS SAY”
Well, it is possible that the LA Times editor is correct about the problem now. If you sustain years of drivel, it would not surprise me in the least if a large percentage of your remaining, declining reader base was having trouble digesting the more complex drivel.
Up here in the Mojave desert we do get the LA Times, and I have noticed that recently it was quite a bit thinner. (I don’t subscribe, I occasionally get it from machines.) Is there another LA paper? We used to get the Daily News, but I haven’t seen that for a while, I assumed it went out of business.
Roger, my question is, if the LAT dies, what, if anything, do you think will take it’s place?
In the mean time, could we mention the AP’s moronic use of “15 percent less pages” instead of “15 percent fewer pages”?
Actually, I had included that in the original post, Charlie. But took it out because I thought it too snotty. Whoever expects AP headline writers to know the difference between an adjective and an adverb anyway?
This is a very funny post.
There are more reasons than the liberal bent of LAT. Speaking for myself, I am tired of the ink on my hands and ink on my brain from the MSM. I canceled the Washpo and catch up with the news online. I care not what Eugene Robinson writes, David Ignatius or EJ Dionne spouts off about. I subscribe to the WSJ because it tells me what I need to know and has the best editorial page in America despite its token one a week liberal,
Tom Frank.