Lack of Coverage in L.A. Times

Y

Yairi

Lurker
As many of you probably know, for past few seasons the L.A. Times game coverage of the Kings has been through the Associated Press. As a result, the articles are very bare bones, and don't really provide the flavor and details a local writer would provide. I noticed in today's Sunday sports section the Times had an article about the San Pedro High School Football team done by a Times writer (best I can tell).

So how did we get here that high school football seems to get better local coverage than the Kings, at least in Times. Has anyone complained to the Times about the lack of adequate game coverage?
 
So continues a decades-long trend, although maybe not to this extreme. Around 2007 or so, the LA Times announced they would not cover the team on the road. Going further back (I used to do newspaper microfilm as a hobby), the day after the Kings' Miracle on Manchester game, the top headline was about a Dodger regular season game, NOT the Kings game. The day after the Frenzy on Figueroa, the top headline was "Malone out on force play" (a reference to Dodgers' GM Kevin Malone), NOT the Kings game. When the Kings clinched their only division title in 1991, they did not get the top headline. (To be fair, the Kings had clinched the division because their closest competitor (the Flames) had lost, whereas the Kings had not played the previous day). For the Kings to get notable Times coverage nowadays, it's pretty much Stanley Cup or bust.
 
Actually, depending on the game, I find they give better coverage to the Mighty Ducks.
 
Shocking....the LA Times not covering the Kings. That is outrageous! Something should be done about this. Maybe I'll call them tomorrow and complain because I know they'll fix the problem right away.

jom
 
Why is Helene Elliott there or is she no longer employed by them?
 
Based on the title of this thread, I thought it was going to be a commentary on the Times' general lack of reporting on issues. Who knew it would be hockey focused?
Never used the Times to be a source of hockey information.
 
In this day and age your best resources for LA kings coverage are as follows in terms of websites:

www.lakinginsider.com
https://mayorsmanor.com/
https://theathletic.com/nhl/team/kings/ Note this site is paywalled
https://www.thefourthperiod.com/bernstein/lak-at-7-now-for-something-completely-different (Bernstein has followed the kings for years on thefourthperiod)

Regarding daily beat information LA Kings insider will carry most of the media available quotes that get dispersed for everyone else. I don't know that there's a closer embed. Granted the Insider site is team owned, but generally speaking I've never seen them censor a quote from a media scrum, they post them all. If you're looking for commentary though most of the dedicated sites will be pretty positively bent, if you want the occasional negative bent that's what LGK is for.
 
I still look at the Pasadena Star News at work and I see that Lisa Dillman only writes about the Ducks. Anything Kings related is.. Associated Press. Yikes.

Just like how the Kings haven't been on radio for the last.. 5 years now? Their time with the newspapers is just about up too.
 
In this day and age your best resources for LA kings coverage are as follows in terms of websites:

www.lakinginsider.com
https://mayorsmanor.com/
https://theathletic.com/nhl/team/kings/ Note this site is paywalled
https://www.thefourthperiod.com/bernstein/lak-at-7-now-for-something-completely-different (Bernstein has followed the kings for years on thefourthperiod)

Regarding daily beat information LA Kings insider will carry most of the media available quotes that get dispersed for everyone else. I don't know that there's a closer embed. Granted the Insider site is team owned, but generally speaking I've never seen them censor a quote from a media scrum, they post them all. If you're looking for commentary though most of the dedicated sites will be pretty positively bent, if you want the occasional negative bent that's what LGK is for.


These are good resources for people who are already Kings fans. But they are esoteric compared with a major newspaper (L.A. Times) with a combined print and on-line weekly audience of 4.4 million.
 
Helene does other sports. She covered the Olympics recently. She covered college football this year.

What gets me - NO REPORTER FOR HOME GAMES...

UCLA / USC / Rams / Chargers football reporters go to all the games.

The new owner of the LA Times is a billionaire - yet he can't pay a beat reporter for the NHL?

WEAK SAUCE
 
In this day and age your best resources for LA kings coverage are as follows in terms of websites:

www.lakinginsider.com
https://mayorsmanor.com/
https://theathletic.com/nhl/team/kings/ Note this site is paywalled
https://www.thefourthperiod.com/bernstein/lak-at-7-now-for-something-completely-different (Bernstein has followed the kings for years on thefourthperiod)

Regarding daily beat information LA Kings insider will carry most of the media available quotes that get dispersed for everyone else. I don't know that there's a closer embed. Granted the Insider site is team owned, but generally speaking I've never seen them censor a quote from a media scrum, they post them all. If you're looking for commentary though most of the dedicated sites will be pretty positively bent, if you want the occasional negative bent that's what LGK is for.

Another good one https://hockeyroyalty.com/
 
These are good resources for people who are already Kings fans. But they are esoteric compared with a major newspaper (L.A. Times) with a combined print and on-line weekly audience of 4.4 million.

While true, i suggest you then send your comments to Luc instead of the latimes. Hes probably best positioned to get the times to type something up.

For what it's worth i stopped reading the la times when most of their front page coverage seemed to be ap articles. Having lived out of the area for so long though i stopped when they went behind the paywall.
 
I still look at the Pasadena Star News at work and I see that Lisa Dillman only writes about the Ducks. Anything Kings related is.. Associated Press. Yikes.

Just like how the Kings haven't been on radio for the last.. 5 years now? Their time with the newspapers is just about up too.
Agreed.

If you don't have enough ears to stay on the radio to generate ad revenue, you certainly don't have the eyeballs to read the LA Times to generate ad revenue.

Hockey has always been the redheaded step child of LA sports. We all know it. You can tell by the coverage (or lack thereof) in the local media.
The fanbase is not showing signs of growing either, nor do the demographics bode well for that matter.
 
Agreed.

If you don't have enough ears to stay on the radio to generate ad revenue, you certainly don't have the eyeballs to read the LA Times to generate ad revenue.

Hockey has always been the redheaded step child of LA sports. We all know it. You can tell by the coverage (or lack thereof) in the local media.
The fanbase is not showing signs of growing either, nor do the demographics bode well for that matter.

e48bd6c5ebf0f6f6582170188bd3876f--the-simpsons-book-jacket.jpg
 
I've been living in SoCal since the late 70s.

The Times has ALWAYS been pretty much like this, with lousy/sparse coverage of the Kings.

But I stopped getting the Times a few years ago, so it doesn't bother me anymore. :Barney_2:
 

Now Chirping

  • No one is chatting at the moment.
Back
Top Bottom