tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266566846399659219.post563590448990124352..comments2024-01-16T00:30:02.493-05:00Comments on That's the Press, Baby: Carl Sagan, Where Are YouDavisullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02871644412923946894noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266566846399659219.post-41172737961441429072008-12-20T09:10:00.000-05:002008-12-20T09:10:00.000-05:00Do you honestly need 700 people to cover the city ...Do you honestly need 700 people to cover the city of Los Angeles after you shed those non-core sections of the paper that people can get somewhere else? The LA Times does not need reporters anywhere but LA. Their job is to cover LA news and sports and that's it. They can link to or partner with a newspaper in Sacramento (the Bee) to cover state wide news and news about state government. This would allow the Bee to have a few extra reporters to cover state news. They can link to or partner with a national paper like the USA Today for national news, same with news in other places and world news. The news business is still working on a 20th century model that is wasteful of human resources with too much repetition. Newspapers shouldn't cover pro sports, unless you have a pro sports team in your city. Same with financial news, syndicated columnists, etc. That is all readily available on the internet. The old model is wasteful and full of unneeded duplication. Newspapers must shrink and focus on local news and sports or they will perish. They should be looking at local TV News. Most have a staff of less than 50, not counting tech crew. They cover the same city with a much smaller staff. They stick to local, they don't try to be a daily all-purpose magazine. Of course newspapers don't want to hear that they will probably lose about 80 percent of their staff, but they really don't have much choice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com