We’re On a First Name Basis… Well, with These Guys Whose First Names We’ve Omitted

I found this L.A. Times marketing item for “The Envelope” a tad funny. Maybe it’s just me.

"Dodger Thoughts" Hits The Majors

Congrats to Franklin Avenue pal and Variety colleague Jon Weisman, who officially moved his wildly popular blog Dodger Thoughts to the L.A. Times — check it out here.

Jon admits some trepidation in moving from a small-time operation — hosted by the soon-to-be-shuttered “Baseball Toaster” — to the L.A. Times, but notes that the evolution shouldn’t hamper the strong, opinionated community he’s cultivated in the seven years since first launching the site:

Perhaps it could be like this forever. I don’t know. Part of me remains curious to find out. But there’s another part of me that’s ambitious. The part of me that has wanted things when I could only dream about them, now has a chance to go grab one of them…

The bottom line is that I’ll be writing about the Dodgers for the Times, and though it’s a different Times than when I first had that dream 25 years ago, it’s still meaningful to me.

Some enjoy Dodger Thoughts just because it’s about the Dodgers, and that won’t change. Others enjoy Dodger Thoughts for something more, something that represents the best potential of what online conversation in the 21st century can be. The idea of introducing more people to the community of Dodger Thoughts, I think, is worth risking the sanctity of the site for.

Jon still continues in his day job at Variety, where we get to share another passion of his — TV.

The Incredibly Shrinking Los Angeles Times

Lost in all the hand-wringing over the Los Angeles Times’ elimination of the California section — a sure sign as any that the paper is waving the white flag, and giving up any hope of being the powerful, comprehensive newspaper it always aspired to be — was its announcement that the stand-alone Classified section would be cut as well.

Think about it — that’s as telling a sign as any that the newspaper biz is dying. Once a hefty source of income, classified sections across the country have been decimated by the Internet (particularly Craigslist). The L.A. Times is moving the classifieds into the Sports section, which means your seven-section paper (Front, California, Business, Sports, Calendar, Classifieds, and the rotating daily feature) has been reduced to five.

Thought your paper was already thin? Let’s face it, the L.A. Times has now turned itself into a medium-sized market newspaper. Los Angeles, you’re now getting Boise-sized news. When I lived in Honolulu, our paper of choice, the Star-Bulletin, also consisted of just four sections — news, business, sports and features. But places like Honolulu or Boise are just a fraction of L.A.’s size… and don’t we deserve a newspaper befitting of the nation’s second-largest metropolitan area?

The paper’s also thinner these days as fewer and fewer circulars are stuffed inside; that, along with the decline in Classified ads, is the real problem. Every time another major retailer folds, I’m reminded that it represents yet another ad supplement that will no longer be found in the Sunday paper. Just recently, that’s included Linens N Things, Mervyn’s and Circuit City. Go back just a bit further, and retailers like CompUSA and Robinsons-May were loyal advertisers as well. Now, all gone. Oh, and take out all of those real estate ads as well — and fewer auto ads on top of it.

Is it any wonder the paper’s so thin?

Now, I’m depressed and angered that the Los Angeles Times is axing its California section; I think it’s short-sighted and will cause more harm than good. Moving Business inside the front or California sections, while putting all of the Hollywood business news inside Calendar, makes more sense. (Most business news — bailouts, financial collapses — are national news anyway, and could fit in the front section.)

But I’m not going to race and cancel my subscription just yet. If the goal is to convince Tribune to rebuild the L.A. Times, hitting them even harder on the subscription side sure isn’t going to help things. And more importantly, we still all have a vested interest in the health and survival of our own major newspaper. If we don’t subscribe, then we have no voice in the matter. And although they’ve pissed me off by cutting California, I’m not ready to enact that ultimate punishment. Yet.

MEANWHILE, a bit of advice to the Times. After years of soft, cheesy and downright uninspiring marketing campaigns (one spot featured a series of goofy-looking folks ogling the newspaper through a newsbox — see it here), now is not the time to be subtle. The paper needs to start scaring the public — and particularly its remaining subscribers — by pointing out what would happen if the paper weren’t around. How about this for starters: The Los Angeles Times. Without Us, A Known Rapist Would Still Be Working At County-USC Medical Center. Yep, You’ll Miss Us When We’re Gone.

The L.A. Times’ Comics Tryout Goes Into Overtime

The L.A. Times today will introduce another contender to fill its comic strip void, as it struggles to figure out whether to replace “For Better or For Worse.” “For Better or For Worse” — better known to its detractors as “FOOB” — has been reconfigured into an odd hybrid of old strips from the early 1980s and new strips drawn to fit into that style and era, leading some papers to drop it.

Most recently, the Times tried out the new strip “Home and Away.”

Created by Steve Sicula, the recently launched strip revolves around Sam, a stay-at-home dad who attempts to juggle his home office with his family duties. “Home and Away” is one of several strips the Times is giving a tryout to, which has also included Luann and Between Friends.

“Home and Away” is harmless enough, but it doesn’t exactly break any new ground or offer up much in the way of laughs. It would be the ultimate safe choice for the paper.

Perhaps the paper hasn’t been too impressed with its candidates so far: According to the Times’ readers’ representative, the paper originally planned to test three new strips there. But with “Home and Away” finishing up, the paper has decided to test a fourth — which will begin on Monday.

Apparently L.A. Times readers agree: The choices have been terrible so far. A few comments from the paper’s readers’ representative site:

I agree with others that all of the strips presented so far are inferior to “For Better or For Worse.” If this is the best that’s out there, either keep “For Better or For Worse,” or donate the money for this space to the California section so they can keep Al Martinez. (Posted by: Anabel Adams | January 16, 2009 at 01:33 PM)

None of the comics that have been sampled are any good. Keep For Better or For Worse. So many comics keep replaying the same year of it’s characters lives, over and over and over again. At least For Better or For Worse is original and the characters grow, are interesting and are funny and sometimes inspirational! (Posted by: Karen Rapelje | January 15, 2009 at 11:11 PM)

Why are you putting us through this? Between Friends and Home and Away are (were) torture! Not funny and stupid. I used to read LuAnn in other papers and thought it was dumb but occasionally OK. It’s easily the best so far, which isn’t saying much. How long can this take? Back in the day, people like you got paid to make decisions. So make a decision! Hagar the Horrible, Beetle Bailey, anything. (Posted by: Jim Ruggirello | January 15, 2009 at 02:55 PM)

Oh, dear God, not “Beetle Bailey” or “Hagar.” There are plenty of newish, great strips out there. Get to it, Times!

The ’00s: Perhaps a Tad More Overrated Than the L.A. Times Thinks

I hate being harsh on the L.A. Times’ “Underrated/Overrated” feature (once found in Thursday’s “The Guide,” now found in Sunday’s Calendar section), mostly because it gave a shout out last year to the Great Los Angeles Walk.

Nonetheless, today’s “underrated” column — on The ’00s — completely missed the mark. Here’s what they wrote about the decade we’re almost done with:

We think we’ve been spared such pop culture missteps as the fashion sense of the 1980s or the angst and irony of the 1990s, so let’s hope the decade continues its relatively inoffensive, hard-to-categorize run for one more year. The 2000s: They’re not bad.

Sorry, guys, you couldn’t be more wrong. This was the decade that pop culture finally got mind-numbingly insipid. The goofy fashion of the 1980s or the angst of the 1990s has nothing on the 2000s: Reality TV, D-list celebrity, the look-at-me culture of Internet video and blogging (hey, I’m just as guilty of this inspidness as anyone!) There’s plenty that the 2000s will be remembered for — I’d argue that it will be easy to categorize the decade when all is said and done.

The only real question is what the 00s will be called — it’s a tad odd that we’ve just got one more year left of this decade, and there’s still no consensus on what we should call it. The Aughts? The double-Os? The 2000s? Someone, I’m sure, it putting together the sequel to “I Love the 80s” and “I Love the 90s,” and still isn’t quite sure what to name their show.

Retro: When The L.A. Times Actually Was The L.A. Times

From 1981: An ad for the Los Angeles Times — get a load of the size of that newspaper on the driveway, as a dog lifts it up with his teeth. Can’t remember the last time my weekday paper looked that big.

Also in this clip: An ad for In N Out Burger, plus a couple of promos for KABC/Channel 7.

Nic Harcourt Says "Goodbye" to Morning Becomes Eclectic; "Hello" to the Los Angeles Times Magazine

After more than ten years in the chair navigating KCRW’s signature, influential morning music program “Morning Becomes Eclectic,” Nic Harcourt gave his final farewells last Wednesday. (KCRW ran special programming on Thursday, and a pre-taped “Best of” Morning Becomes Eclectic episode on Friday.)

Azure Ray, one of the groups long championed by Harcourt, performed a live set on the final day, before Nic closed the show by giving his final farewells.

Harcourt noted that he’s not going far — he’s still maintaining a relationship with KCRW, hosting a weekly music show from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Sunday nights. He is also contributing to the Los Angeles Times’ new monthly magazine “LA” — the one sparking much controversy because it’s being produced by the advertising, rather than the edit, staff — as “editor at large for music and culture.”

It didn’t sound like Nic knew what that would entail just yet.

Meanwhile, to end the show, Harcourt said he looked far and wide for this song, and finally got a friend at the BBC to send him a copy: “Goodbye,” by Peter Cook and Dudley Moore. (See below.)

Former nighttime KCRW host Jason Bentley takes over “Morning Becomes Eclectic” — the only KCRW music show allowed to keep its title (the others are just known now by their DJs’ names) — on Monday.

The L.A. Times Comics Calvacade Continues; Next Up: "Luann"

In its ongoing quest to either keep or replace the revamped comic strip “For Better or For Worse,” the L.A. Times is testing out a handful of potential replacement strips. Next up: “Luann.”

Greg Evans is behind “Luann,” about a suburban 16-year-old high school girl and her family. “Luann” is actually an aging strip, having been started in 1985. I’m actually surprised the Times included this one in their mix; the paper has been pretty good at focusing on mostly new comics for its auditions (granted, that hasn’t gone so well… last time the paper tried out a bunch of strips, during a “Doonesbury” hiatus, none were selected).

Before “Luann,” the L.A. Times was testing out “Between Friends,” a strip that happened to be focusing on a storyline about spousal abuse during its LAT run. Uh, ha-ha?

Newspaper readers take their comics seriously — and unfortunately the most vocal ones tend to get pissed off when mediocre strips are banished. Take this comment on a recent L.A. Times Readers’ Representative blog post about the comics changes:

I have been reading the Times comics for over 30 years. I don’t know how you choose a strip but it must not be by reading them first. Between Friends is just awful.

Luann use to be in this paper and it’s better that what you tried so far.

And while I’m at it has anyone ever in the history of time actually laughed at Ballard Street? That strip is just not funny.

Bring back Mother Goose. That is one clever cartoon strip. Or Garfield. Why did you cut those?

You may as well get rid of Prickly City, La Cucaracha and Candorville while your at it. They suck.

Posted by: Jerry Shain | November 12, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Wait, is that you, Lee Abrams?

The Los Angeles Times Digs Digg

But of course, given how prominent the Los Angeles Times plays up Digg’s ranking of its stories, you’d think they’d be a little more vigilant in checking how readers are promoting things. Above, as seen on the LAT’s site today… check out the fifth-ranked story.

Who Will Be Left to Write the Los Angeles Times’ Obit?

The cuts keep getting deeper at the Los Angeles Times, as LA Now’s Veronique de Turenne was among the 75 staffers handed a pink slip on Monday, along with film critic Carina Chocano, scribes Lynell George and Agustin Gurza, and many others.

Cuts represented 10% of the paper’s editorial side. That’s getting to be a rapidly diminishing number… but of course, the paper is rapidly diminishing in size.

A sidenote: The paper has gotten so thin now that my home’s sprinklers now regularly soak it all the way through. Not too long ago, there were enough ads and sections that at least the meat of the paper wouldn’t get wet. Not anymore.