-
Los Angeles Times: Give US a Reason to READ
Hugh Hewitt this morning asks the L.A. Times to give us a reason to read and subscribe to the paper and offers suggestions, Memo for Los Angeles Times Publisher Jeffrey M. Johnson.
OK, Kinsley’s on the way out as is Carroll. Baquet’s much admired around the newsroom, and the guys in Chicago will give you a year, maybe 18 months. It isn’t clear that advertisers are that generous, and they appear to be figuring out the dramatic drop in your touch-rate. People are subscribing for sports, comics and the Calender section, and maybe Outdoors. Much of the rest of the paper is unread. Why buys ads in pages nobody touches? That’s the problem. And word is getting out.
You can’t rebuild in a day, but you can start with the obvious stuff.
Give conservatives a rason to read the paper every day. How hard can this be for your team to understand? Get Mark Steyn, Michael Barone, Dennis Prager, Cathy Seipp and keep Max Boot and run one of them on a specific day of the week, every week. Presto! I and millions of others have a reason to check the online edition editorial page every day. Do the same thing for the left, although they can already count on that.
Then line up some regular Southern California commentators for regional issues, again from both sides of the aisle. Have you ever bothered to read Patterico and Carol Platt Leibau? They are excellent writers. RogerLSimon can turn a phrase. In fact, he writes excellent novels and scripts and a great blog. Try Baldilocks. In fact, see if The Green Side’s Lt. Col Bellon or Smash are up for regular contributions. There are hundreds of thousands of active duty, reservist and retired military in Southern California, plus their families. Do you think they’d appreciate a bit of regulalry scheduled space for their worldview? There are other similar underserved or never served communties. Serve them. This isn’t hard.
A good suggestion, Hugh.
There has to be a way to merge the NEW Media and the traditional newspaper both newsprint and online editions.
Also, glad to see you mention my Bear Flag League brothers and sisters.
Here’s my last suggestion for the day: Talk to the people who hate your paper but who love news. I read the Washington Post, the Boston Globe and the New York Times. I don’t bother with your paper. There are thousands and thousands like me. We don’t need the relentless agenda journalism and cloistered opinions.
Good luck. California deserves a first class newspaper, not a newsletter to the left beloved by the Pulitzer voters but not by the people it is supposed to be selling to.
Indeed we do and Flap would like to subscribe again….. but only to the online edition with a new media component.
-
Proposition 80: Reinstated to California Special Election Ballot
The California Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s decision Wednesday and ordered election officials to place an initiative that would re-regulate the state’s electricity market back on the Nov. 8 special-election ballot.
The justices, in a 6-0 decision, said the constitutionality of Proposition 80 could be decided after the election if it’s approved by voters.
Proponents: Robert Finkelstein and Michel Peter Florio (415) 929-8876
Subjects electric service providers, as defined, to control and regulation by California Public Utilities Commission. Imposes restrictions on electricity customers’ ability to switch from private utilities to other electric providers. Provides that registration by electric service providers with Commission constitutes providers’ consent to regulation. Requires all retail electric sellers, instead of just private utilities, to increase renewable energy resource procurement by at least 1% each year, with 20% of retail sales procured from renewable energy by 2010, instead of current requirement of 2017. Imposes duties on Commission, Legislature and electrical providers. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Annual state costs of up to $4 million for regulatory activities of the California Public Utilities Commission. These costs would be fully offset by fee revenues. Unknown impact on state and local costs and revenues, as the measure’s impact on retail electricity rates is uncertain.
Is this an OMEN for Proposition 77?
Briefs are due in the Court of Appeal by Friday, so stay tuned.
However, it appears even if approved by the voters the neasure will be back before the courts.
In a suit by energy producers, the appeals court ruled last week that Prop. 80 conflicted with a provision added to the state Constitution in 1911 that gave the Legislature “plenary power” to increase the PUC’s authority over utilities. Plenary power is defined as total and exclusive, leaving no room for lawmaking by initiative, the three-judge panel said.
But the state’s high court said Wednesday it wasn’t clear that the ballot measure and the constitutional provision were in conflict. In those circumstances, it’s advisable to defer any legal challenge until after the election, “rather than to disrupt the electoral process by preventing exercise of the people’s franchise,” the court said, quoting its own ruling in a 1982 election case.
If Prop. 80 passes, the case will be back before the court.
Look forward to Proposition 77 to be treated in a like manner.
It is not over until it is over…..or until the Caifornia or U.S. Supreme Court decides.
Technorati Tags: California Special election, Proposition 80, Proposition 77, California Supreme Court
Cross-posted to the Bear Flag League Special Election Page.