Comments on: Breaking Up With the LA Times

By: Kevin

Kevin — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 07:05:27 +0000

I have thought about these things with my local papers, the Mercury News and the Chronicle, and I am conflicted. Both of the papers have gone way down hill over the last few years, and have printed a load of crap over that period, but at the same time I wonder if cancelling my subscriptions would actually be a good thing.

Then I read Woody’s wingnut drivel, and think that if they piss off yahoos like him, they must be doing something good.

By: WBC

WBC — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 22:22:06 +0000

I’m not going to cancel my subscription til I actually see the new paper in March — one blogger whose name I don’t want to give credit to because I generally dislike and disagree with him makes a valid point here: maybe folding local news into the front section will turn out to be a GOOD thing, finally making the Times the local paper many wanted it to be all along.

I’ll reserve judgment and if I do cancel after the first new issue, think it’ll carry more weight, showing a direct cause-effect linkage.

(Plus, the subscription people are practically giving me home delivery for free, or the cost of buying one Sunday paper at the inflated rate, so it’s hard to say no.)

By: Celeste Fremon

Celeste Fremon — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 19:37:00 +0000

Alan, I don’t think you were talking to me, but for the record, of course I read, and will continue to read the paper on line–multiple times a day. I am devoted to he wonderful people who still work there and continue to depend on the fine work they do.

John H, I don’t agree with your assessment of the Times of past days, or even now, for all my harsh words. I loved, and still love— in a desperately sad and sort of masochistic kind of way—my LA Times.

But, I agree with Ed Padgett above, it’s clear that ZellCo is doing all it can to lower its subscription numbers. Zell stated as much some time ago. (I’ve forgotten what the target number was. 800,000 sticks in my mind but that may be wrong. Ed do you remember?)

When I was on the phone with Kevin-the-subscription guy, once he accepted that I could not be talked out of cancelling, he offered to send daily links to the online edition, so it seems that they would rather have those eyes online rather than getting the physical paper.

These people don’t want me (or you) as a subscriber, so I’ve finally decide to cooperate and put my money elsewhere, rather than cling.

But, paradoxically, cancelling my subscription is the only way I know to register a complaint. Letters to the editor certainly donâ€™t do it.

Gabriel, I know that lots of lower income families donâ€™t have computers, but most I know have access to computers, either through the library, schools or at their work places. (As demonstrated by everybodyâ€™s kidsâ€™ MySpace pages.) And they arenâ€™t subscribing to the LA Times anyway. I mean if you donâ€™t have a computer at your house, you sure arenâ€™t going to plunk down the monthly fee to subscribe to the LA Times. At least no one I know in east LA does unless theyâ€™ve got the kind of middle class household that also has computers. (And even so I can only think of maybe one person, and Iâ€™m no longer sure about her.)

John, H, I get the Sunday NY Times, as they will give a book review section. But, daily? Nah. I see no reason. Online’s fine. And it would feel too disloyal. (How sad is that????)

One bright spot in an otherwise grim circumstance, cancelling my subscription certainly makes my Wednesday recycling job a LOT easier. (Did you know that the newspapers in your recycling pile have babies during the night? It is a proven fact.)

By: Edward Padgett

Edward Padgett — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 18:30:20 +0000

Friday night as I sipped on chocolate oatmeal stout San Dimas City Councilman Denis Bertone pulled up a seat and asked â€œWhatâ€™s new at the Los Angeles Timesâ€? After I mentioned the California Section would become history he shook his head in disbelief and said he may drop his subscription, as this is his favorite section of the newspaper.

With a single copy price increase from fifty cents to seventy-five cents just a few weeks ago, it appears the Los Angeles Times is headed to an online version only as the company is doing everything in itâ€™s power to drive circulation numbers to zero.

By: Mavis Beacon

Mavis Beacon — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 17:37:34 +0000

Dropped my subscription at the last round of layoffs. Alan, I can’t say the LA Times has ever appealed to me as a charity. If they are going to cut all the stuff I like, (ya, know, the news) well, they’re going to have to look elsewhere for subscription dollars.

By: Woody

Woody — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 15:44:03 +0000

When a paper makes so many liberals upset, one has to wonder if it isn’t doing something right.

By: john herbert

john herbert — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 09:05:01 +0000

Hey Alan,
No disrespect intended, but are you high on drugs? i won’t give a damn dime to Zell to furhter advance this joke of a paper. And I’m not going tobe guilted into providing some sort of perverse public welfare for the staff. No. Not even.

By: Alan Mittelstaedt

Alan Mittelstaedt — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:40:41 +0000

With the paper available online, isn’t this an empty symbolic gesture that you and many others are making? Or, are you vowing not even to look at the Web site? I hope not. You would have missed some solid local stories that made the front page today. I am in no way defending the paper’s anemic local coverage, but you and I have too many talented friends at that paper to turn our backs on them now. I say reinstate your subscription. Fill in the gaps of local coverage by reading and supporting local Web sites and blogs like this one.

By: Gabriel Lerner

Gabriel Lerner — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:28:21 +0000

Celeste, this is a painful day, another one in a series of catastrophic news about the demise of major newspapers. Five or six years ago I went to Sacramento and visited the LAT office. 15 reporters and a senior editor, and George Skelton. This doesn’t exist anymore. The number of reporters and editors in the area they had was reduced since 2001 to less than half, having more inexperienced reporters, assigning less writers for each story, not following up, not investigating… This is not something that happened in one day. You cut and cut in the section and one day you realize there is nothing else to cut from, and from what used to be a journalistic jewel there is a name and not much more. The likes of Zell see journalists as waste and manage by attrition, layouts and advice from bankers and lawyers.
As for the replacement to the newsPAPER, I don’t know: not everybody has a computer, or time to browse looking for news. In LA, half of Latinos don’t have one and in the other half, only the kids use the internet. So if it is true and digital media is the future, we will witness not only the dissapearing of the newsroom, but also of many of today’s readers.

By: no news is good news

no news is good news — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 18:50:13 +0000

The L.A. Mayor and L.A. city council love the lack of local news coverage and the lack of interest in local politics.

http://www.ladowntownnews.com/articles/2009/02/02/news/02-02-09-news03.txt

“In what could turn out to be the worst election in the history of Los Angeles, eight prominent local officeholders are ready to steamroll their way to another term. From the mayor’s “race” on down, and with only a couple of exceptions, Los Angeles’ next exercise in democracy is set to rubber stamp the words “four more years” across the office doors of many of the folks who already run the city”