By T.J. Simers

My daughter says I am wasting my time writing a blog about a newspaper, the LA Times. She says newspapers are dead. “No one reads them anymore,” she says.

I hold out hope. Maybe not for a resurrection, but for more reasons to still pick up a paper.

I found one Sunday, wanting to pass it on as much for what it means to every parent but for how a morning newspaper can inspire.

The LA Times’ Ben Bolch, my sparring partner the past week on another front, sat down with UCLA’s Thomas Cole and his parents to discuss suicide and a child in crisis.

God almighty, it was gut-wrenching, a kid swallowing the pills and yet so helpful to every parent who has worried about their child taking their own life. And how many of us have been there, a real concern or not?

The story was rich in information, a boy spending so much time in bed in a darkened room, the invincible football player more vulnerable than anyone knew. But the story never got lost in a writer’s attempt to take advantage of the access and really go for the tears like some other columnists might have done.

It was just the facts, ma’am. but with a parent’s eye for detail.

A great, great job.

It is the single biggest reason I used to love newspapers, never knowing how I might be surprised and what I might learn when buying one. Those days are gone, as evidenced by the two tedious stories the editors felt compelled to showcase adjacent to “His Life Was On The Line.”

Bill Plaschke had a column on “Loaded Trojans Under Heavy Pressure” (like that is some new phenomena) to the left of Ben’s story and to the right was a story on the Dodgers adding a 36-year-old journeyman relief pitcher via trade.

I would have slapped “His Life Was On The Line” across the whole top of the sports section to let everyone know how important Ben Bolch’s work was on this Sunday morning.

Experts will tell you the Internet has killed newspapers. I disagree; newspapers are disappearing because most days there isn’t much more in them than the usual stats, twisted ankles and old news game stories.

Inside the newsroom, editors have made it clear to their reporters that newspapers are dead, and that’s inspiring.

The thrill of newspapers is gone because newspapers remain traditional and boring in coverage. If no one is reading them anymore then why not take wild, crazy chances to do something differently. Why not inspire reporters to go out there in quest of the story that might make a difference, like Ben’s wonderful recount of Thomas Cole’s life.

In part, that’s why Plaschke has remained No. 1 on the sports pages: He looks for the story that might hit someone emotionally between the eyes and win awards. The human plight will almost always be interesting and have the potential to win awards.

In part, that’s why Helene Elliott has been such a disaster as a columnist, her typed words just killing trees . She has no credibility, telling readers Sunday morning the “better the Chargers’ chances of qualifying for the playoffs” if they get a backup running back. She’s certainly no Charger expert, but it was her job to get something from Chargers’ training camp and so the traditional blah-blah story it is.

I’m more interested in why the Times ran a picture of a lot of soccer fans in the Rose Bowl on its first page and there doesn’t appear to be any women in the picture. I always have that question when I watch a golf tournament and catch a glimpse of the gallery which is usually womenless. I guess spending time with Billie Jean King has made me conscious of that.

I’ve always thought the sports pages do not do enough to entertain female readers, and beginning there might be the start to survival or revival. “His Life Was On The Line” would undoubtedly be read by female readers in great numbers if someone told them newspapers weren’t dead and provided Ben’s story as an example.

Hello, Mom, do you know why your child’s bedroom door is closed?

We need more imagination from reporters, and the editors mired in the mundane. I have a friend in Frank Pace, and while he might dispute that, he puts out a podcast with Billy O’Connor, an ex-fireman with 9-11 history.

They don’t get paid anything, but the two old men are driven to be entertaining, calling their podcast: A Mick, a Mook and a Mic. The Mook is my so-called friend.

Each week they present an eclectic guest to deliver the entertaining goods. They are what a newspaper should be, refusing to be traditional but hellbent on making it worth someone’s time to listen.

They’ve had on the show the Pulitzer Prize winning photographer who took the dramatic Kent State protest picture, actress Joanna Kerns and the Commander of Apollo 15 as guests. They can be reached at info@amickamookandamic.com, and I would urge you to email and tell them their email address is too long.

I admire talented communicators like this who refuse to surrender. If they were working as the editors of the newspaper, the newspaper might be prospering rather than losing subscribers. The newspaper needs an injection of pep.

Oddly, “Thomas Cole left UCLA football after a suicide attempt…he hopes his story helps others,” did just that.

Ben tweeted to tell me that Cole and his parents deserved the credit for allowing such access, but Ben doesn’t get that kind of access unless he builds a foundation of trust as a reporter. And works the story.

This morning he excelled as a reporter, thereby making the Sunday newspaper such a joy.

By T.J. Simers

I think we’re all pretty much in agreement that USC, more so than UCLA, will enjoy great success in the Big 2.

The Big 2, because everyone just seems to focus on Michigan and Ohio State, is pretty much all that’s being mentioned here in regards to the new sports reality, whatever that is.

Is that USC versus Rutgers?

Don’t you think it’s odd the Big Ten has 14 schools, but the focus is on only two?

Ordinarily it would be scary interjecting anyone other than Michigan or Ohio State into the Big 2 game of the year, but USC is going to have a heavyweight football program. That’s the word.

Certainly, better than UCLA.

But this isn’t about competition. This move is all about money, and while I don’t give a rip about USC or UCLA getting richer, the LA Times went crazy hyping this money grab.

USC has the new hot shot coach in college football with the cool name, Lincoln, and came to USC with his own quarterback. Now he has two years to enhance his reputation by beating up on the Pac 12 before taking on Northwestern, Illinois and Minnesota.

In three or four years he could have Woody Hayes’ record to put it in Big 2 terms.

Times’ columnist Bill Plaschke wrote this morning, “every football Saturday could feel like a Rose Bowl.” Do you think USC will be favored by 21 in its Rose Bowl with the Fighting Illini?

He goes on to write: “USC visits Michigan one week,” and I don’t think they have a Rose Bowl in Michigan, but it’s all over-written so just go with it.

He continues to write: “Ohio State comes to UCLA the next week, are you kidding me?” Well, I would think if the schedule calls for Ohio State going to UCLA, it will go. No joke.

Yes, the Big 2 will show up every so often in L.A., and play a big game much like Oregon or Stanford did when Peter Carroll offered a challenge.

Plaschke says, “Indiana and Michigan State play UCLA at packed Pauley Pavillion in the middle of February on national television, are you serious.”

Well, not if Duke and North Carolina are scheduled that same February night.

Do you think Minnesota-USC basketball will be packed in mid-February?

The hype is a smoke screen of exaggerated rah-rah hoopla to disguise the fact this is just about more money. The athletes are now being paid above the table rather than below, so I guess this will help recruiting.

But my first thought was we’re going to lose the commentary of Bill Walton, who might stay with Pac 12 basketball.

One of the headlines in the Times read: “A bigger share of revenue is among the reasons why they may benefit from switch.”

Name another reason.

The Pac 12 plays the most entertaining college football in the land most years. The Big 2 gets excited about one big game in Columbus or Ann Arbor every year.

The Times says USC and UCLA will benefit from better competition, although that seems to change every season. USC will do just fine in the Big 2 slugfests but I fear we will never hear of UCLA again in football.

UCLA and USC, we’re told by the Times, will also benefit from media exposure, quite the admission by the L.A. Times that the newspapers in Ann Arbor and Columbus do a better job.

That’s the three reasons cited why this is better for USC and UCLA: More money for the schools, better competition and a better newspaper to document it all.

Plaschke points out: “Face it, USC had long since outgrown a decaying Pac-12 that had deteriorated into the home of late-night TV games, half-empty stadiums and national irrelevance.”

Well, many of those half-empty stadiums were the Rose Bowl and the Coliseum. Do you think Purdue and Indiana are going to travel here every other year like they would for the big granddaddy of them all?

But I give Plaschke credit, noting this is all about USC’s dominance: “And face it,” he wrote, “USC wasn’t going anywhere without UCLA.”

I think it’s sweet USC considers UCLA like its tag-along little brother.

Now on a side note, I guess we know who Plaschke is supporting to be L.A. Mayor.

“In a move apparently generated by forward-thinking USC Board of Trustees Chairman Rick Caruso with new athletic director Mike Bohn—Caruso is also the man running for mayor of Los Angeles—USC and UCLA were extremely smart and excessively nimble.”

That’s not a very nimble paragraph, but it’s good to know the wannabe mayor is always thinking about making more money.

He also praised Caruso for his “unwavering commitment to restore USC’s football program to greatness.”

If I was a Bruins’ supporter, right now I’d be thinking about the greatness of Karen Bass.

No one, of course, has the pulse of Los Angeles like Plaschke because no one at the paper has lasted as long on the job.

But when it comes to gushing and predicting what a fantastic move this is for USC, keep in mind this is coming from an opinion maker who is 6-17 by his own count on predicting how the Super Bowl will go.

By T.J. Simers

You have probably seen the placards around town, promising to make you, “The Last To Know.”

Or, the LA Times motto: “All the news fit to print elsewhere and then we’ll copy it here for you.”

We all love surprises, the key to a good TV show now and apparently the morning newspaper, a shocking surprise right out of the blue to leave you wanting more.

I know I read the Times and I always want more.

But kudos to the folks involved at USC and UCLA and all the Times’ reporters assigned to know what’s going on out there.

Never once did we get a hint in the USC or UCLA hometown newspaper the Trojans or Bruins were even considering jumping to the Big Ten.

How do you keep something that big so quiet? Is the newspaper and all of its reporters that out of touch or was the plan to knock everyone’s socks off with a surprise announcement?

How hard that must’ve been, though, all those reporters being paid to get the scoop and not one of them clueing in the Times’ readership with the news until after it been reported elsewhere.

I think that’s why we all go online now to check what the newspaper missed. But then again the Times is really good at knowing nothing, not a word even on twitter and USC and UCLA are the schools they regularly cover.

I would think that’s taking a chance, not informing the Trojans’ faithful and the Bruins’ honks of what’s happening with their favorite schools, but what are people going to do — cancel their subscriptions? Again?

Hey, it was a complete success, the L.A. Times making sure, as its promotional campaign promises, you were the last to know.

The Times reported the first hint that this was going to happen came from the San Jose Mercury News. I think they were the first to report the Mercury News was on the job.

I believe USC and UCLA are essentially located in Los Angeles, so it must have been difficult to ignore all the sources here in town.

What a pleasure to read a story quoting unnamed sources. The Times apparently had none, but at least they didn’t make up any.

Do you think USC’s Lincoln Riley has a better relationship with the newspaper in San Jose than the one in L.A.? You have to believe USC clued in Riley, the Trojans’ great revival hope, telling him he might want to start watching what Jim Harbaugh does.

Maybe the Times chooses not to bother Lincoln.

In my day Pete Carroll or Karl Dullard would have loved that.

I must say, the Times has so much experience now in not getting the news first that they go crazy trying to catch up. They had three bylines, including columnist Bill Plaschke, on their “USC, UCLA to the Big Ten” story trying to rewrite what the newspaper in San Jose reported earlier.

I’ve always thought Plaschke would make a great rewrite man.

None of the three names affixed to the Times’ story had any inkling of the blockbuster USC-UCLA news or else they would have rushed it into print before San Jose and taken a bow.

I wonder if they checked with their sources at USC or UCLA to find out why they were holding out on them. I wonder if they have sources. I wonder if they called USC or UCLA and began by saying, anything else you want us to keep out of the paper?

As for those who want to stay up to date on USC and UCLA, it will be 99 cents for the first three months and $14 a month after that to read The Mercury News online.