SATURATION COVERAGE

Kevin Drum reports that,

This morning’s LA Times devoted the entire first 19 pages to the capture of Saddam Hussein, running 17 stories in all.

That’s quite something. One expects that from the NYT or WaPo, but not a regional newspaper–even a first rate one.

FILED UNDER: Media
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Kevin Drum says:

    A regional newspaper? Surely you jest, sir….

  2. James Joyner says:

    Well, it’s probably THE regional paper, even ahead of the Chicago Sun-Times. But it’s not a national paper in the sense that NYT or WaPo are–or even the Christian Science Monitor or USA Today. (Although it’s a much better paper than USAT.) It is certainly much harder to come by.

    LAT is pretty well known for its Latin America coverage, as I understand it.

  3. Paul says:

    A first rate paper? Surely you jest, sir….

  4. It’s a regional paper, and a pretty poor one at that. It’s the Houston Chronicle of the West.

    If Drum thinks they covered Saddam too much, maybe they are trying to re-attract those 1000s of readers who cancelled membership after the Ahnold attack job.

    Remember Kevin, they’re a business, and most people are *happy* that Saddam is captured, so they will run more pages to sell more papers. Now, I know this upsets you since you think a paragraph or two on page 23 would be appropriate, but remember that you can always cancel.

  5. The L.A. Times thinks it’s as big, prestigious and high-quality as the WaPo, or the NYT. That’s always been one of the irritating things about it: its presumptuousness.

    Of course, compared to the papers in SF, the L.A. Times is excellent.

  6. The L.A. Times thinks it’s as big, prestigious and high-quality as the WaPo, or the NYT. That’s always been one of the irritating things about it: its presumptuousness.

    Of course, compared to the papers in SF, the L.A. Times is excellent.