LA Times SE discusses what they cover

Times readers' rep on sports coverage.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/readers/2010/03/which-sports-to-cover-its-a-tough-call.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+readersblog+%28Readers%27+Representative+Journal%29

A snippet from SE Mike James:
"Because our staff, space in the paper and resources are so much smaller than they used to be, we simply can no longer cover everything the way we once did. Consequently, we have to make the difficult decisions every day on what events and sports we do cover and those that we can’t. Our decision has been to try to make sure we reach the greatest number of readers we can with resources available, and regrettably, that means that some areas don’t get much regular coverage."

It's all true, but do readers want to hear this?

 

No, they don't.

 

Yeah, lot's of times when they say they can't cover everything they way they used to, they conveniently leave out the fact that they never really covered some sports (like college swimming) at all.

And people don't want to hear excuses. Did they lower the subscription price to compensate?

 

Nope. Not exactly sure the point of saying that.

 

I completely disagree that readers don't want to care why they're getting less coverage. They might not like or believe the answer, but they want to know.

It might be too late, actually, because the Times has been squeezed for so long, but the Times used to cover everything except regular blanket coverage of high schools, and they did that in the OC and Valley bureaus as well as anyplace in the country.

Go from there to today, where they don't travel with some teams anymore, they've cut back on staff and space and travel everywhere, and readers quite simply aren't seeing the things they used to see.

They used to have a world-class sports section. It's much less-so now. I think there's certainly a group of long-time readers who want to know why.

 

Agree to disagree. In my experience, readers want coverage. Period. More. More. More. They couldn't care less if it's a one-man or two-man staff, they just want more

I would like to believe you are right, SF_Express. But in my dealings, I don't see it that way at all. Most of the readers I've dealt with are illogical, unreasonable people who don't care how things get done, just that they're done.

 

Readers don't want to hear it. They don't care how small your staff is by in large, they want the same or more. But I think it's better to be upfront with the readers when staff is cut instead of lying with the we'll give you more with less bull crap.

 

No, but he can now say "We told you so." Funny how many papers are doing or will have to do that...

 

I tend to believe readers have expectations. Their expectations may be skewed or off-base, but they have them. It is when you miss those expectations, that's when you hear them. And SF is right, long-time readers of the LA Times have a certain expectation. One that is entirely different than Eastern Podunk Press Advocate.
1.1 million subscriptions are still sold on Sundays. 1,099,250 of those readers never contact the paper.

 

It's time for papers like the LAT, like Domino's, to admit they've screwed up their formula. Then fix it.

 

You may be right, Henry, but hopefully the one group they don't listen, which was represented by an e-mailer in that column: The one who move across the country and then expect the paper in their new town to cover the teams back in their former town as the home teams.

The stupidest complaint in the world to the LOS ANGELES Times is from the people who moved from the "Midwest and the East," who complain the paper has too much coverage of USC and UCLA. It's a Southern California paper, people; USC and UCLA are the two biggest college teams in Southern California. Believe it or not, that's who the overwhelming majority of the paper's readership want to read about.