LAT kills off the local section. Yes, you read that right.

Anyone have an e-mail address or phone number for Mr. Hartenstein?

 

You could try eddy.hartenstein@latimes.com

 

Hmmm ... that could work.

In my defense, it was googled. I just felt a moral obligation not to give the LA Times another hit.

Thanks!

EDIT: Got this message when I tried firing off a letter to Mr. Hartenstein:

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

eddy.hartenstein@latimes.com

Technical details of permanent failure:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further information about the cause of this error. The error that the other server returned was: 550 550 #5.1.0 Address rejected eddy.hartenstein@latimes.com (state 14).

 

I hear they don't even staff the LA Kings games, anymore. So nothing surprises me with those people.

 

I'm embarrassed. That is all.

 

Such a business model - reduce content, reduce the product, increase prices and expect people to believe the "we're leaner, stronger and just as good" bullshit.

RIP LAT.

 

Try:

EHartenstein@tribune.com

 

The Chicago Tribune earlier moved its local and business section into the A section. They later made a separate business section.

 

L.A. Observed links back to us in one of its followups, so we might as well have an active thread on the first page:

http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2009/01/reactions_to_times_news_1.php

 

Whew. Everything's gonna be OK.

Gil Garcetti started a Facebook group to save the California section!

(People on Facebook shouldn't start groups that begin with "1,000,000 strong . . . because that just makes it funny when they only get 200,000 people)

Anyway . . . . this is just more "too little, too late" from these bozos.

When Long Beach went down a year ago, all of a sudden the politicians showed up and acted like they cared. They rallied in front of a paper that had already laid off a chunk of its staff. Now that reports of their doings will be buried in the LA Times and thus more difficult to find and influence the voters, these politicians care.

And in the year 2009, people in and out of journalism are acting shocked that the business is going down the drain. Were they not paying attention since, oh, about 2002?

Sorry; I'm just tired of these people showing up after the battle has long since been lost and yelling "Lemme at 'em!"

 

I assume you meant this: http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2009/01/lat_to_cut_70_more_in_new.php

Seventy newsroom positions whacked.