Post by Brian on Feb 9, 2010 0:00:51 GMT -8
I've been whining about the Los Angeles Times all over the message board, so I decided to confine my ravings to this thread. All are welcome to comment or commiserate.
I'm still coming to terms with the toy newspaper on my driveway last week and its new, awkwardly named LATEXTRA section. The state and local news has returned to the second section but now it's tucked inside, with the front page meant to display the results of the final press run. How much later can an edition go to bed than 11 p.m. and still be delivered by 6 a.m.? I guess that means the front section is being printed much earlier. Will we have to flip inside to find the top story if it breaks late in the evening or read election results the morning after?
More dispiriting is the whack job to the width of the paper, from 12 to 11 inches. It bothers me more than twice as much as the half inch trimmed a couple of years ago, maybe because the New York Times cut first. The length of the paper has varied little, I don't know why.
With the columns reduced from 10 to 9 picas wide, you are guaranteed to get less news because the L.A. Times isn't going to run the stories longer or add more pages. I understand they're saving trees -- while effectively and painlessly hiking ad rates -- but the damn thing is three inches narrower than my modest computer screen.
Perhaps in the not too distant future, the Times will contract with the also struggling U.S. Postal Service to deliver an even smaller paper with the rest of your mail.
I'm still coming to terms with the toy newspaper on my driveway last week and its new, awkwardly named LATEXTRA section. The state and local news has returned to the second section but now it's tucked inside, with the front page meant to display the results of the final press run. How much later can an edition go to bed than 11 p.m. and still be delivered by 6 a.m.? I guess that means the front section is being printed much earlier. Will we have to flip inside to find the top story if it breaks late in the evening or read election results the morning after?
More dispiriting is the whack job to the width of the paper, from 12 to 11 inches. It bothers me more than twice as much as the half inch trimmed a couple of years ago, maybe because the New York Times cut first. The length of the paper has varied little, I don't know why.
With the columns reduced from 10 to 9 picas wide, you are guaranteed to get less news because the L.A. Times isn't going to run the stories longer or add more pages. I understand they're saving trees -- while effectively and painlessly hiking ad rates -- but the damn thing is three inches narrower than my modest computer screen.
Perhaps in the not too distant future, the Times will contract with the also struggling U.S. Postal Service to deliver an even smaller paper with the rest of your mail.
