LA Times SE discusses what they cover

It's still good, you're right. I wish it had more pages on a daily basis, but what did it have Monday -- 14? Of course, part of that was NCAA-related, but that's still fairly good.

LA still does a decent job. It isn't the paper it used to be, but what paper is these days?

And for people who say there's too much coverage of USC? There's a reason why LA doesn't have pro football -- the pro game's played on Saturday out there.

 

From the SE's answer:

The complaint about women's basketball coverage has been pretty consistent for the 17 years I've been in the biz. While no one but the most crazed Title IX folks expects coverage equal to the men, I think readers should get occasional features and game coverage. And most sports sections don't do it.

Looking back, the only "major" daily I can recall giving decent coverage to women's basketball in the past 15 years was the Grand Rapids Press, back in the late 1990s and early 2000s. I believe the reason for that was, 1, the Big 10 women's tourney was played in Grand Rapids, Mich., for a few years, and 2, the sports editor was personally committed to covering women's sports.

Of course, with what's happened to the Booth Newspapers (and the state of Michigan) in the past decade, that coverage of women's basketball seems like it was 150 years ago.

 

Don't the Knoxville and Hartford papers cover a lot of women's basketball? What about Austin? Those teams draw pretty, pretty good.

 

They probably do -- and they should, with the quality of women's b-ball in their area. Just haven't been to those towns myself.

 

Hartford does a pretty good job. The Sun - the WNBA team - is apparently following the Huskies craze, acquiring Renee Montgomery and positioning itself to acquire Tina Charles with the No. 1 pick.

 

The Times can find the space and resources to send a reporter to cover the Mexico-North Korea friendly from Torreon, Mexico last night.

 

Of course. Most of the Times' potential new readers are from Mexico or have close Mexican family members and probably care greatly about the game. No big surprise at all.

 

Any evidence that LA Times' readership, the ones who actually buy the paper, are from Mexico?

Its not a fighting point, I genuinely wonder.

I understand the demographics of the southland. I was born here and have lived most my life here.

I read the Times. I sometimes feel a pretty strong disconnect between the actual product, and me as a reader.

The fans of the Tri, the ones who fill up the Rose Bowl and Coliseum for Mexico friendlies, and root against the USA (when they used to play Mexico here) I don't think are huge readers of the LA Times. But I could be wrong.

 

It's all part of run-up to the World Cup 2010, that's all. If the World Cup was not coming up, there would be little to no soccer coverage right now, particularly between foreign countries.

 

Poindexter brings up a great point. One worth spending some time on.

Now, it's a tough one, and one not only newspapers, but radio stations and commercial businesses continue to struggle.
In the "Southland," there are about 15 million people. Between 40-50% of that are ESL citizens. (At last Census, it was just under 40% and only one can assume four years later that number has increased).

Now, are they all Mexicans? No. But, these aren't just immigrants anymore (a fact radio and television broadcasting soccer games are finding out). These are the children of immigrants, educated in Los Angeles and truly a bilingual class. A class that devours sports, namely soccer, baseball and the NFL.

Now, are they a class or culture that purchases The Times? That's a tough demographic to register, but common thought is no. But, is that class or culture listening to, say, ESPN radio? Omniture says no.
But, the population trends and shifts can't be ignored. Do you ignore a whole class of possible readers or listeners or viewers? One, that in one generation, will be a majority and not the minority?

You could ignore your way into irrelevance or obscurity. I say cover the soccer. Not much to lose and only viability to gain.

Hope that makes sense.

 

I won't argue against covering soccer.

I am just finding it pretty interesting HOW the Times is covering the Tri vis a vis their coverage of the USMT. Check out the coverage of the two teams when they played friendlies on the same day last month.

 

I remember that day. It was mid-week, it was raining for most of the day. And 90k people showed up to see the Mexican team.
Or, how about when U.S. and Mexico teams play in the Coliseum or Rose Bowl? The crowd is 95% Latino and 85% pro-Mexico. (As you mentioned)
We all know the interest level of U.S. soccer. It swoons (at some level) every fourth year.
Yet, no one has fully grasped the interest level of Mexican soccer in the Southland.