The Penguins deal, the Libby verdict, daylight-saving time -- important stuff in a newsy month of March.

If you overlooked a small item earlier this month about the Los Angeles Times' plans to shrink its 30-year-old Sunday book review section and fold it into a new Saturday publication along with opinion articles, you're certainly not alone.

It's not a history-altering event. It ranks somewhere behind an announcement that a Pirate starter felt a shoulder twinge while combing his hair.

For newspaper watchers, the L.A. changes are merely part of the industry's retrenchment as profits and readers fade away. The Chicago Tribune, owner of the Times, is in the process of cutting back across the board, so the news is no surprise.

For book readers, the prospect of losing another serious and popular voice on literature, especially one from the West Coast, is another sour note in a steady stream of bad news.

When the change is made, only the San Francisco Chronicle, The Washington Post, The San Diego Union-Tribune, the Tribune and The New York Times will be publishing separate Sunday book sections.

The L.A. Times book review distinguished itself under its former owners and former editor Steve Wasserman for its dedication to the literary culture of Southern California.

There's no reason to doubt that it will drop its focus because it's no longer a separate part of the paper. Plenty of U.S. newspapers continue to offer reviews and commentary on books in other sections, so we can assume the Times will do likewise.

The news is really more symbolic than anything else. It's not only a dent in the prestige of the newspaper, but also sends a message that might sound like, "Books aren't important when you have Anna Nicole Smith to worry about."

The rebuttal to that claim is that while there's only one Anna Nicole, there are more than 190,000 new books published every year. Coverage and reviews should be considered a necessity to help readers wade through them.

Newspapers, though, need to make money, so when America's publishing companies and bookstore chains stopped advertising in regional papers, the impetus to support a book section lost steam.

Even The Washington Post, and its fat Sunday product, doesn't attract major advertisers for its Book World. In fact, it's been looking pretty puny lately, but the company continues to pay for its three regular columnists and reviewers of more than a dozen books weekly.

One must wonder how much longer it will support Book World without at least some national advertising. A lack of advertising revenue was cited in the L.A. Times' shrinkage.

Publishers, though, no longer advertise in newspapers, only The New York Times. The two big bookstore chains, Barnes & Noble and Borders Books and Music, , and Joseph-Beth, a much smaller chain, find other ways to attract customers than print advertising, not only here, but around the country.

The book industry so far has stayed away from advertising in newspaper and magazine Web sites as well, saving its cash for such mega-sites as Amazon.

The Internet, though, is where book coverage and reviews should be headed. Someday, it will be a moot point if newspaper book sections disappear in print as long as they are thriving in cyberspace.

But, it takes money to thrive. Book reviews don't write themselves, and somebody has to ask the questions.

Economic news aside, it remains a serious fact that book readers are getting shortchanged because there are simply fewer reliable resources.

We are facing the prospect of having but one choice when it comes to an established journal of criticism and commentary -- The New York Times Sunday Book Review.

As I've said before, despite being offered an opportunity that grows with every downsizing to turn out a book review of national stature, the N.Y. Times continues to stick to its parochial, myopic ways.

Entertainment Weekly and the undernourished Time are not alternatives. There's a void out there, but how, and if, it will be filled is anybody's guess.