News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers by kbenson on Wednesday July 31, 2019 @10:53PM (#20580751)
> If you live outside of L.A., this paper has no actual value to your news intake for the day. IMO it seems their entire focus is California and that’s it — yes.. it is the “LA TIMES” but they have many different sections.

I'm not sure I can fault them much for this. I imagine most that care for national news care enough to get it from some more well known agency, like WaPo, NYT, etc. You can either try to compete with the likes of them, or focus on what they can't easily provide, which is more local news.

This is just what the Internet does, consolidate services into the few players that do it best. It would be interesting if their were bundled subscriptions for local papers. If there was an integrated offering such that you could buy NYT or WaPo with LA Times, or SF Chronicle, or whatever your local paper was tacked on for a moderate fee, I imagine a lot of people would opt for that. Enough that it might be beneficial for both agencies.

NYT and WaPo definitely have the online resources and talent to do something like that, and if they did it well, they could offer a platform for newspapers to use for publishing that allowed enough branding that they could probably make quite a bit of money while making it trivial to combine articles between sources very smoothly.

Re:The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers by projectileboy on Wednesday July 31, 2019 @11:46PM (#20580930)
I very much agree. There’s no real reason for the second tier city newspapers to do much beyond local - that’s actually what I want them to do. When I want national or world news, I look at a short list (NYT, WSJ, Economist, maybe WaPo) that other newspapers just are not going to be able to compete with. But what’s going on in my neighborhood? St Paul Pioneer Press has it covered.