Friday, February 06, 2009
Debate Over Future of Los Angeles Times
The Los Angeles Times has downsized substantially and is suffering, along with many other newspapers, from Internet competition. A 2007 public television report presented a debate over whether the LA Times should continue to try and be a national/international newspaper or focus on state and local news. In early 2009, the LA Times announced a decision to drop its California section, which appeared to signal that it would not follow the path to a state and local focus. In the earlier TV report, a financial analyst argued that there was room in the U.S. for only 3 national papers: the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and USA Today. The LA Times, he argued, had to focus more locally. This brief clip summarizes the debate.
3 comments:
For now, we're opening this blog to Anonymous comments. This will continue as long as civility rules. Disagree as you may, just keep it clean and stay on topic. No profanity, and no name calling. We reserve the right to moderate such comments, though the person who made it may come back and reword their message in a more civil way.
'In early 2009, the LA Times announced a decision to drop its California section, which appeared to signal that it would not follow the path to a state and local focus."
ReplyDeleteI’m confused.... why does it necessary follow that because we are dropping a section in the paper that the content “would not follow the path to a state and local focus”. Content is not based on the number of sections you have or what you call them, but rather the news hole for the size product you have. Moving the “news hole” percentage of the new product more toward state and local and away from national and international has nothing to do with a single section.
In these tough times.... simplify/balance your press runs, reduce national/international news hole and increase state and local news hole sounds like a good plan to me!
'In early 2009, the LA Times announced a decision to drop its California section, which appeared to signal that it would not follow the path to a state and local focus."
ReplyDeleteI’m confused.... why does it necessary follow that because we are dropping a section in the paper that the content “would not follow the path to a state and local focus”. Content is not based on the number of sections you have or what you call them, but rather the news hole for the size product you have. Moving the “news hole” percentage of the new product more toward state and local and away from national and international has nothing to do with a single section.
In these tough times.... simplify/balance your press runs, reduce national/international news hole and increase state and local news hole sounds like a good plan to me!
This is from a series called "News War" from PBS Frontline. First aired in 2007, the series is a three part, 3.5 hour, and 25 chapter story about the past and present of the news industry in American. Netflix members can rent the DVD. Anyone can go here to watch it online:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/view/
If you just want to see the chapter about the LAT:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/view/25.html
It's worth the time to watch the whole series because it enables you to understand and put into perspective the newspaper industry disaster.