L.A. Times Gets Smaller and Smaller
Kevin Roderick reports that the L.A. Times is closing two sections: “the auto section Highway 1” and “the weekly listings section The Guide.” They will be sorely missed, although I confess I never read either one. (I guess one of the auto section guys won a Pulitzer — like Chuck Philips and Michael Hiltzik. I therefore stand duly chastened for being unfamiliar with his work.)
The Guide was one of a very few differentiators the LAT had. It was a very handy thing when deciding what to do.
If I’ve been reading the Abrams’ memos correctly, I don’t get why they will be eliminating one of the few relevant and handy/useful and proprietary aspects of the paper.Ed (d17ceb) — 7/9/2008 @ 11:51 pm
Wasn’t The Guide just a compilation of those ‘jobber’ reviews of restaurants, museums, theaters, etc.? Where they paid $15 for their 30 word summary? Whatever, I didn’t read it either.TimesDisliker (98ade4) — 7/10/2008 @ 6:19 am
1, Ed, it is like municipal officials and School Boards cutting the programs that cause the public the most pain in order to blackmail the public into coughing up more money and to protect the programs the Pols wish to keep funding no matter what. The LATimes is doing the same thing. They figure if they cause the public enough pain, that the public will pay more to regain the lost sections.PCD (5c49b0) — 7/10/2008 @ 6:19 am
That’s been the modus operandi of the Ft.Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel also. They just announced a new round of consolidations and eliminations of features. I don’t buy it but note that they often run specials on subscriptions. I wonder how much papers actually get from subscribers now vs. what they make in advertising.madmax333 (bbd5c6) — 7/10/2008 @ 6:31 am
Does a Pulitzer mean anything anymore, at least in terms of increased readership? I would tend to think not, but it sure puffs up editor’s egos when the need arises.Dmac (416471) — 7/10/2008 @ 6:32 am
MadMax – FYI; most newspapers and mags stopped making a profit on subs eons ago. The cost alone of delivery far outweighs the sub costs per annum.Dmac (416471) — 7/10/2008 @ 6:34 am
“I guess one of the auto section guys won a Pulitzer…”
How does one go about guessing such a thing?Kevin (834f0d) — 7/10/2008 @ 7:00 am
By making a vague statement without the benefit of crystal-clear recollection, and allowing for the possibility of being wrong.
All clear now? 🙂Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/10/2008 @ 7:10 am
Dan Neil did win a Pulitzer Prize, and $10,000 for “Criticism” in 2004. Makes me think less of the Pulitzer Prize. He’s got some of the breathless Brock Yates style of automotive BS that goes down well with teen age boys in full, albeit unrequited, hormonal overdrive.
He purports to be a social critic as well, and his blessedly brief and rather disastrous foray through an “800 Words” commentary in the Times’ weekly magazine made me think that, as a social critic, he would have made a thoroughly mediocre auto writer. I’ll give him this though. His “800 Words” column helped kill the weekly magazine; and his writing as an auto critic has now killed the auto section, which has just been discontinued. Neil’s auto column will appear on Fridays in the Business Section. Look for that section to go next.Mike Myers (31af82) — 7/10/2008 @ 8:31 am
Wasn’t Dan Neil’s most important “contribution” to the LAT bottom-line was his snarky self-indulgent review of a car that resulted in GM’s pulling of the largest advertising account? And didn’t he have to make some half-@$$ed apology? Whatever, like I said, I didn’t read it but remember enough of the foot-shooting to smile at the section’s demise.TimesDisliker (98ade4) — 7/10/2008 @ 8:42 am
My customers did not buy the Sun Times for car articles. They knew more about cars than any reporter to begin with. They bought it for car ads. Whether it was a ’59 Chevy, a $400.00 beater, or the best deal on an Oldsmobile.nk (a3a945) — 7/10/2008 @ 8:47 am
Here’s another lame article in today’s paper.Wesson (b23bc4) — 7/10/2008 @ 9:05 am
The Earth’s ice sheets are melting fast. Scientists predict that rising seas could swallow some low-lying areas, displacing millions of people. Hodges sees opportunity. Why not divert the flow inland to create wealth and jobs instead of catastrophe?
Why not use the melting icebergs to water the Sahara? I mean, since we’re throwing government (read” taxpayer) money at the “problem”.Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/10/2008 @ 9:09 am
I always looked forward to the Highway section – and the accompanying motorcycle article. Who’s now going to pay for Susan Carpenter to ride bikes she could never afford?MOG (c949f7) — 7/10/2008 @ 10:47 am
O Times! O Morass!ras (fc54bb) — 7/10/2008 @ 1:41 pm