Apr 18, 2008

LA Times - Print vs. online

I had a discussion with an LA Metblogger yesterday about our differing perceptions of the LA Times. He thinks it still sucks big time, I think it has improved over the past few months. The difference is, he only looks at the online edition whereas I only see the print edition via daily delivery (which is cheap by the way.)

After we parted, I looked at the online edition and found I would agree with him to an extent if it was the only version I saw too. What wrankles him is that the local coverage is sorely lacking. He's right; it often seems haphazard.

In a way, I can see this as an extension of how a lot of Angelenos regard their city and their place in it-- it's so damn big, who can keep track? (Answer: LAT.) The term "local" that LAT uses could be subdivided into specific areas and then mini-bureaus could be established that would cover them.

It would involve printing different versions for different areas. Other cities do it quite successfully but something tells me Zell, not of a journalism background to say the least, will not be ponying up for that sort of thing.