Letter On The L.A. Times Sports Section Complains Of Cuts
"Apparently, there's some sort of cost-cutting austerity budget being implemented at The Times Sports Department," Roe wrote. "The one-sentence snippets in the National League "Roundup" on Wednesday were beyond belief."
Amen! Thank goodness, some readers are noticing that the Sports section has been cut back horribly under Tribune ownership.
This is California. A comprehensive Sports section is important in this state, and yet at the L.A. Times, they often have much too long a Calendar section, while Sports, which has been drawing less advertising it seems of late, is cut to the bone.
How are the newspapers going to survive the present downturn? I daresay the answer is not to cut back on Sports.
One problem is there are so many more sports these days, most of them commanding little loyalty from the readers. But when it comes to football, baseball and basketball, there ought to be no cuts. Years ago, I remember the Sunday football coverage, the results of all the college football games, was a delight. Now, many interesting games are left out altogether. and we seldom if ever see the tables of team schedules and results we used to get. Ivy League football, for one, has virtually disappeared, yet there are many Ivy League graduates in Southern California. Yet nothing schools like South Florida get good coverage.
Someone at the L.A. Times has to determine what's important to readers and what's not. The paper for the most part remains big; it's only a matter of giving back a few pages to Sports and many omissions can be rectified.
A modest proposal: The Chicago Tribune should be cut in half, and the space given to the L.A. Times. If the Chicagoans don't like it, let them eat cake!