TJ Simers on changes in Los Angeles Times sports section going into effect Monday

What in the Ragu is that jump? Are they forbidden from breaking up that tower of text? Or have they had the will to care beaten out of them?

 

The latest from TJ Simers.
Deep Throat Says Times wants Puff Stories (tjpage2.blog)

 

The best, most T.J.-like line of that column is the last one.

 

The latter of course. But who knows when they got the story, the time they had. Photos aren’t very good; a couple any jackass with a good smart phone could have taken.

again: it’s New Coke level idea. The people who read the damn paper don’t want that. They’d take a gray lady full of text over a pullout feature.

 

I’ll also point out that it’s an event that took place in Sacramento, so that’s kinda weird. And there was an AP story about it, so unless there’s a super LA slant to the story, you could have used that and had another story from the city the paper is a actually based in

 

They’re just doing shit work with print to kill it when numbers decline, and then will cite declining numbers as one reason to kill it.

That section looks like a J-school design class first effort before the professor hacks it with an Xacto and red pen.


He’s right about canceling and not getting any refund. If you’re subscribed for eight more months, you can access for eight months and then it’s done. Same with the NYT, I believe. They don’t give money back, even at a dollar or $4.99 a month. The WSJ ends on your next monthly payment date.

 

Deeply dysfunctional operation. Make all these changes then a run a series of letters and e-mails ripping the changes, as if the section itself agrees.

There’s a level of internal incompetence here that’s stunning. It’s almost Muskian in nature - trying shit, adjusting to criticism on the fly, trying more shit. Just ruins your brand.

 

Who are they responding to? People who can't Google something on their phone yet can pay the huge cost of subscribing to the paper? I'm not saying it's a bad decision, it just shows who is reading.

 

The idea, at least for me, is that I want to read what the LA Times writer had to say about the Angels or Rams game.
I've been a subscriber for 35 years. I was happy to read the pdf version online for the past couple of years. I didn't even want the dead tree but they set up the subscription so that its cheaper if you take the Saturday and Sunday paper. So it goes straight to the recycle bin, where I am sure at the facility they direct it to the landfill.

This "magazine" sports section is utter garbage. Nobody wants that crap. I just found out THIS MORNING that I can go to the Times site and read about the wild Angels game last night. They've done a piss poor job of emphasizing that.

I bookmarked the Times site. My guess is that I will still read the rest of the PDF Times in the morning, and then head to the online sports site.



The guy paying $1,000 a year in the letters to the editor is a fool.

 

Every poll I've ever seen, TV-Radio lists are always No. 1 or 2 on what the readers want.
And regarding the post upthread about soccer ruining the NY Times, a few years ago, we had staff suggestions on what should be in the paper. The photo editor said, "I like soccer, we should cover more soccer." And that became an edict. There was a "city championships" tournament going on, so we sent a writer and photographer to cover it. Semifinals: First game, the attendance count was 8 -- all family, wives, girlfriends. Second game, one team didn't show up, forfeit. Enough of this nonsense.