Dieting Along With the LA Times

Regarding Geoff's post below on the incredible shrinking newspapers, when I walked out to pick up the SoCal wife's copy of the Los Angeles Times this AM I almost couldn't find the thing. I measured -- 1/4 of an inch thick, including all the major 4 supermarket ad inserts -- and that's folded over for delivery, not out flat for reading!

At least I got an education on how to make a buck spinning signs in front of apartments, and sure enough, they've got another Bush administration investigation to crow about ad naseum, this time by a Bush "insider". Yawn. I'll give the LAT this one, they did an above the fold story on the five British terrorists convicted for planning massive terror attacks, the headline writer actually used the word "terrorist" and the article openly discusses the radical Islamic roots and Al-Qaeda connections, all on page one. Will wonders ever cease?

Of course, once you get to the Opinion section, an unsigned editorial urges habeas relief for Guantanamo detainees, and in the letters to ed, they print one by Chris Wolfe from Studio City, CA who seems to blame the Bush administration for 9/11 and can't understand how anyone would see the current administration as "strong on defense". Nah, Chris, Pelosi, Reid and Murtha would be much stronger -- what flavor is that koolaid, anyway?

So, there seemed to be plenty of articles -- what's missing? Well, there's not all that many ads. Wonder why that is? Uh, see Geoff's piece for that answer. Wow -- the LAT lost another 4.2% of circulation in that last 6 months.

Pretty soon there won't be enough to line the cat box! Good ol' LA Times, more and more, the Calista Flockhart of the newspaper world! Heh.

[Cross-posted at Okie on the Lam]