O'Shea's leaving: comments from readers

Here's a sampling of the 60+ comments sent to the L.A. Times in reaction to the news of Jim O'Shea's leaving.

From Doug Frost of Claremont: "Regardless of the short term, anyone that can be considered an owner of the Los Angeles Times needs to keep in mind that constant reduction of the quality as well as quantity of news appearing in the newspaper inevitably leads to reduction in readership."

From Matt Cullers of Chino Hills: "So another editor is leaving over budget cuts?  Why don’t you raise my subscription from $44.00 to $50.00 so we can retain quality people and what I think is the greatest newspaper in the world?  It's just like the state of California budget, if we want quality services, we, the public, are going to have to pay for them. What is The Times coming to?  Just another outlet for AP stories all over the world?  I hope not, or then you will certainly lose my business."

From Paul Silverman of North Hollywood: "Boy, oh boy...How can anyone say that The Times is going down the toilet, when, just today, you ran a story that Keifer Sutherland's release from jail was a non-story. With great articles like this, the Pulitzer is a sure thing. Keep up the shallow work, people."

From Betty Haegelin of Torrance: "So this is the new regime? Dismissing Editor James O'Shea because he refused to enforce budget cuts imposed by the paper's out-of-town owners seems like old times to me. I am a subscriber and an avid online reader and I have noticed the struggle to maintain quality throughout the paper's budgetary woes and various owners. I have continued to subscribe to The Times because I value the local voice and want to encourage and nurture the paper's continuing position as a leading figure in American journalism.  I am disappointed and apprehensive for the future of this paper. I will maintain my subscription. For now."

(Additional comments appear in letters on the Times' opinion pages.)