Is this really news?

Jim O'Shea is fired as editor of the LA Times and the amount of coverage it sparks is staggering. And that, in my view, highlights one of the main problems with newspapers today.

Mark Potts, a former colleague at our college paper, writes that O'Shea's departure was inevitable and that it showcases how out of touch many old-time journalists are. I couldn't agree more. (Click here for full post.)

But there's another aspect to this that backs up Mark's point (and mine.) It's the amount of coverage of this event in the papers. Newspapers (and magazines) have got to start thinking about what readers really want to know about. And my strong guess is that few people care about the editor of the LA Times getting fired over refusing to make budget cuts.

If O'Shea was the head of any other business unit that lost as many customers (readers) as he did, news of his departure would hardly warrant a few column inches. Furthermore, if after he was told to leave he got up in front of all the employees and defended himself despite dramatic loss of revenues and customers, people would think he had a warped sense of reality.