PressEthic

So I hear from Editor & Publisher that the LA Times is cutting their entire Outdoors section, with layoffs possibly to follow.

It stings a little each time I hear about the cuts being made at newspapers these days (especially when I think of all my grad school loans). In my idealistic state, though, I have to say I am comfortable with Times Editor Dean Baquet's decision this time.

Maybe it's because my home paper doesn't have an Outdoors section, and I'm comfortable with that-- that's the sort of feature-y thing that you can get from magazines. Say, Outside magazine. I have to admit though-- if the Times cut their Dining In section, I'd be bummed. If I lived in LA, I'm sure I'd be one of the 28% of readers who missed the section; I have granola-eating tendencies.

Tough decisions have to be made, though, and I think Baquet made the right choice. Cutting a whole feature section-- one that doesn't do that well-- really frees up money in a tight year.

The last thing we really want is for newspapers to start trimming news reporters, one here, another there, until the news is so sloppily reported that it looks like Judy and Jayson are the cream of the J-school professors' crop.

It's ok for newspapers not to have the whole pie. Features are interesting and fun, and magazines cover issue reporting really well.

Newspapers need talented reporters writing interesting stories about the news. I'm glad to see that is Dean Baquet's priority.