This is an archival story that predates current editorial management.
This archival content was written, edited, and published prior to LAist's acquisition by its current owner, Southern California Public Radio ("SCPR"). Content, such as language choice and subject matter, in archival articles therefore may not align with SCPR's current editorial standards. To learn more about those standards and why we make this distinction, please click here.
LA Observed broke the news late last night that the LA Times will be cutting the state and local news section of the paper, the California section. "The publisher decided to fold local news inside the front section," Kevin Roderick wrote.
Curbed LA wrote a brief on it and amongst the many comments on their post was one point that is something we, as well as much of the LA news media, have struggled with: If something happens in Chatsworth, do people in San Pedro care? In other words, in a city that can span 50 miles from top to bottom and in a region that's much larger than that, how does one be local, useful and relevant to the wider audience? The comment reads:
Its my understanding from talking to former LA Time staffer that the local news section in the LA Times has never been popular with local readers. Historically, people in Venice don't care about reading a story about a shooting in Echo Park, nor do Santa Monicans care about reading about Silver Lake's new path. Do other neighborhoods in other cities care about what happens in other neighborhoods besides their own? Is this an LA-specific thing? I don't know.
