The writers of this article doth protest too much! Just another couple of Southern California wannabes who are trying to justify their narcissistic ego based reason for living in NYC. Funny, you don't find Angelenos putting down NYC. In fact, you don't find Angelenos talking about NYC at all. why? We don't even consider NYC. There is no there, there. And it's not, "NYC, Summer Olympics 2028", is it? N Yorkers who have to tear Los Angeles down to build NYC up, live on a very weak foundation.
7
The big funds want to commoditize every aspect of human existence. The news in the form of a regional paper is not exempt. Fund managers don't care about quality until it impacts their profits, then their retribution is vicious. Profits are easy to measure but a poor metric for many many other purposes, but profits are all the fund managers and our lying president care about.
2
LA lacks an intellectual class, a museum going class. The only reason anyone here goes to a museum is to take a selfie. The Broad and Ice Cream museum exist for these reasons almost entirely. People come to Los Angeles not because they can’t hack it elsewhere, but because they want to disappear into the palm trees. While there is a professional class, one has to ask why those in it choose LA over other cities. The answer, even for more serious individuals, almost always points to the things about LA that are so stereotyped and not without merit: at it’s heart there are the vain, the vapid, the vaccuous. And around that heart are people who don’t mind that that is true, in the same way that folks in DC might not mind it’s a town where conversations flow in one direction. No one in LA has very much of worth to say and people around them like them for that. It sounds harsh and there will be exceptions, but they are called exceptions for a reason.
3
The two cities don’t compare. Los Angeles is fantastic. People are passionate about it. This is silly. If you doubt the people of LA just check out the women’s marches. This is more about the newspaper business. Don’t rag on LA!
5
With Jack Smith and Al Martinez gone, the paper lost its heart.
It was a great paper in the late 1900s with world wide coverage and really fine writers.
It stopped being a LA paper when the owners of the Chicago Tribune bought it out.
All we have left on the coast is local rags, the local football team gets the headlines. For instance the Sacramento Bee is just down the street from the capitol, but if they do anything there, you wold not know it. The local cities around here have some papers that are mostly advertising papers, our community gets Bee deliveries when they can find someone to deliver them, the only time it is in the news, is when there is a crime, or a big automobile crash.
You cant even get WSJ delivery, all the people who will get out and deliver a paper at 04:00 have evaporated since tRump was elected. I have to take the NT Times to find out what is happening in California.
2
I grew up in Orange County and moved to the deep south after college. In my recollection, the LA Times was never regarded as a paper with "international prestige". My parents would have laughed as such a characterization. I distinctly remember my high school civics teacher making the comment that if you want a serious newspaper, read the New York Times. Serious newspapers go to other regions to investigate stories. Did the LA Times send reporters to Alabama to investigate Roy Moore? Serious newspapers like the Washington Post get involved in stories like that. I read the LA Times to keep up with local news such as whether communities I remember were affected by wild fires. Also, I believe the LA Times has historically been too right wing for the local population and many probably prefer language specific reporting.
3
The City of Los Angeles is shaped like some gerrymandered Congressional district with numerous municipalities filling in all the land around while the visible inhabited area that makes up Southern California extends with few interruptions from the mountains in the North to the border with Mexico in the South. It's a huge area and there are too many distributed centers of industry, commercial, and residential areas to find some real center for it all. It's not at all like Boston or New York or Washington D.C. It really does not need any formal unified structure to work perfectly fine. The L.A. Times which was the dominant newspaper from the late 1950's on adapted to this vast area with different Metro sections for local news, it addressed the diversity quite well. The paper it has become is the greatly reduced one from the publishers who bought it from the Chandlers and Otis publishers. These new publishers were located in Chicago and had no community ties nor interests in Los Angeles. They eviscerated the paper, greatly reducing journalists and editors, shifting the focus from concerns about Los Angeles to entertainment and tabloid like articles, eliminating the local news sections, and generally trying to turn the newspaper into a cash cow.
7
"[LA] has not developed the political, cultural and philanthropic institutions that have proved critical in other American cities”
How many more institutions does LA need? How much better does the LA Philharmonic have to be? How many more listeners does KPCC and KCRW need to have? How many seats do the Dodgers, Lakers, USC, and UCLA need to fill? How many more museums? How many more people need to show up at the Women’s March? Really!
9
USC and UCLA need to fill a lot more seats. USC for example averaged less than 70k people in attendance for football games last year while the stadium holds over 90k. Programs of the same caliber as USC sell out every game in stadiums that are the same size or bigger than the Colesseum. USC basketball is second last in their conference in attendance. UCLA football averaged 56k people in attendance for home games in a stadium that holds over 90k, meaning that 1/3 of the stadium was empty on average.
1
Lots of expected boosterisms from politicians, but LA is like Detroit. Business is gone, and even the glitterati are leaving. Big concert halls won't raise the economy of a dying city, yet they keep trying failed ideas.
LA is a worn out slattern still living off the kindness of others ..
2
There was a time when LA was the center-conservative counterbalance to San Francisco. And, the paper's editorial cartoonist: Paul Conrad, the left-wing 'token' on staff. That lasted into the 1970s - when the slow drip of centrist Hollywood glitterati had started, when defense contractors and their employees started moving elsewhere, and California moved from sending Ronald Reagan to the governor's office - to sending Jerry Brown v1.0.
That's gone. And, the LAT has doubled-down on the change with jerk-wagons like Dave Horsey - for whom *Seattle* was 'not enough' for his progressive attitudes.
That's another factor - beyond "88 communities in search of a city".
(Southern California resident: 1962 to 1992 - including the period to graduate from of one the premier engineering colleges on the West Coast)
1
You spent the last 20 years liberally trashing our institutions and wonder why they have died out.
The decline of prestige and readership of the L.A. Times is more a result of disparate media voices reaching for an audience. Between Twitter, Nextdoor, Patch and Facebook groups a wider voice is unnecessary.
Not to mention the lecture factor associated with the editorial board. SoCal residents may trend liberal generally but no one wants to read unquestionable backing of the goony deals coming out of Sacramento.
The paper still is the dominant locally published newspaper and has a good site on the web, so if the management could operate the organization with the kind of journalism which it once provided, it could revive rather quickly. In such a huge market with so much possible advertising there is no reason why it could not become a great paper, again. It just requires a publisher who is enthusiastic as the Chandler and Otis people were.
4
As a former Los Angeles resident, I believe the paper is dying because of its bias, the availability of news online, and because it's published in English. Los Angeles is changing into a lower-income metropolis, with a spattering of high income areas throughout. Most don't read newspapers, if they can read at all, based on my friends who teach high school there. They spend almost 50% of their classes teaching English - in high school! (one is 100% Mexican American, so no racism exists in her remarks to me).
As a person who remembers when the city hall was one of (the?) tallest buildings downtown, I can say that the Los Angeles Times is not the newspaper it used to be. If a newspaper were truly unbiased and just reported the news, I believe that it would do well.
P.s. I don't live in California anymore because I got sick of the taxes.
6
With two degrees in history and a focus on the history of cities, let me suggest that with 80 percent of citizens in this country living in a metropolitan region, every city has its issues and its successes. Most represent diversity, innovation and economic success to varying degrees. LA is doing just fine and in many ways is more livable than the packed canyons (pedestrians and vehicles) of NYC.
Coming together is a state of mind, and shouldn't be confused with the various issues cities have to cope with. They still remain the centers of progress and open-mindedness in this country. Each major city has its own unique look and feel, but all of them share the honor of being the vibrant centers of civilization. Some are doing better than others, but each represents where the possible can become reality. Rural America should be so lucky.
Eclectic Pragmatism — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
6
"California, tumbles into the sea"... Walter Becker/Donald Fagen...
2
"...That'll be the day I go back to Annendale."
(Then again they *did* wind up going back to Bard College there, for a ceremonial thing... so perhaps it's coming true after all :O)
"... that will be the day I go back to Annandale."
Context is everything.
3
Whine whine whine. We need to see more of these papers and media outlets fail.
3
To be replaced by what, Facebook and SNL?
4
To be replaced by more efficient outlets. Why does there need to be a replacement for them? These conglomerate news organizations are little different from gangs. Just the biggest bullies on the block with their own for-profit agendas.
Other than the 1960s Watts Riots, L.A. was fairly together until Libs took over the L.A. Times.
6
These reporters somehow missed the steel cage death match that accompanied a vote for unionizing the LAT newsroom for the first time?
Don’t reporters do even perfunctory research before scribbling away?
10
A glaring example of why 'diversity' is a loser, while unity (melting-pot style) wins.
5
More Margaret Mead journalism from the L.A. bureau of the NYT, over-reaching to explain the exotic natives to the intelligentsia back home. This story is built like an anthropological house of cards, ready to topple with just the slightest breath of critical analysis. The authors don't write the headlines, but their desk did them no favors with the preposterous phrase "A City That Never Quite Came Together." Enough of this "Letter from L.A" noodling!
17
LA Times is not just an LA newspaper, it's California's biggest newspaper, with a circulation rivaling the NYTimes. If it really "tears apart", it'll be a problem felt far beyond LA.
13
Southern California politics have become so leftist and hateful the news is just plain depressing . CNN and MSNBC have become a 24/7 Trump Hate machine and LA Times is not far behind . Liberal media is burning hot right now with Trump, It will burn out and implode before Trump is gone. Just wait until the Russia investigation finds NOTHING....Liberal Media is ALL IN on the Muller investigation and Russia collusion. Then the veil of truth will come out and all this Liberal media investment in impeaching 45 will have been for nothing. The Democrat party will evaporate faster than Payola...um...donations to the Clinton Foundation after Hillary's loss
8
Pathetic that the largest state has no stable Newspaper. SF Chronicle was always a joke. Now LA Times. Some LA residents say they never read it. That’s pathetic. Get what you deserve I guess, but I will miss it. Internet moguls had a hand in destroying print journalism. But they care most about money.
8
I love the sf chron; and i know newspapers--I read part or all of 5 papers a day!
1
I will a subscriber to the LA Times for over 25-years until last year. That's when the LAT decided to print a rediculous ad from Hobby Lobby relating to their religion and some rediculous connection to the formation of our government. It was a total and complete lie and the LAT published it.
That was it for me, I cancelled my subscription the very next day.
They get what they deserve.
2
Newspapers have an obligation to print ads from all sides. You would be objecting — as would I — if a conservative newspaper like NY Post refused to print an ad from a liberal organization.
6
I have to agree with some of the other commenters that this is a poorly edited story. The headline seemed to indicate that the LA Times was in deep financial trouble. That would be a real crisis because big city needs a robust news organization as a check on corruption. But then it wandered into charities and cultural institutions. Newspapers are businesses, not charities. If there is a problem with the LA Times, it is part of a broader crisis in local journalism, including in older cities like Philadelphia, where the Inquirer has been in deep trouble for years. In short, this story makes no sense to me.
17
I have seen the same thing happen to our great windy city of Chicago. When I was a kid in the 60s, Chicago had four daily newspapers. Now we have two, and both of the are shells of their former selves. The once-mighty Chicago Tribune (Tribune Company, now known as TRONC owns the LA Times) is now a pitiful rag not worthy of the name newspaper. Great newspapers and great journalism has fallen victim to the loss of advertising and the depredations of unscrupulous owners who are also now allowed to own broadcast stations in the same market.
Thank God the NY Times and Washington Post are still holding out. The loss of our print media will almost certainly coincide with the loss of our democracy.
9
The LA Times is by far the best publication for people who live in the Western U.S. The NYTimes can continue its attempts to cover topics and issues relevant to California readers but at the end of the day its articles come off as either fetishizing, condescending, or clueless about life here. The LA Times is not just an LA paper. Contrary to what this article suggests, it covers regional news across not just the Southland but the entire state as well. When will the NYT get over the fact that LA is a more vibrant and future-looking city than its own. Check out the long list of LA Metro projects and compare that to the decaying subway, for example.
16
There are so many things wrong with this article. For instance, positively citing New York as having "two tabloids" without mentioning that one of those tabloids was sold by its last owner for $1 to... the owners of the LA Times. But most of all, it's that tone, that "people from Manhattan visit America" tone. You know the one.
6
"There has been an exodus of Fortune 500 companies to other parts of the country from Los Angeles over the past 20 years " And as long as leftists run the state capital will continue to seek friendlier environs.
3
NY has LA. Queens is LA -- a hodgepodge of colorful ethnic villages full of people who only get to Manhattan three times a year. I love Queens.
1
There is only one thing that could turn around the failing LA Times: Trump referring to it repeatedly as the Failing LA Times.
4
The internet and the fact that Los Angeles has lots and lots of recent immigrants make it a perfect storm. Each one of us reads our hometown newspaper online, making the the L.A. times redundant, at least for international news.
Also, look at the comments on any of the LAT articles, then look at the NYT. case closed.
1
As an LA resident, I used to read it the LA Times on a daily basis until it became overwhelmed by pop-up ads that would crash the computer if it did not have the latest operating system.
In addition, the majority of comments seem to represent the uglier racist side of people that is more interested in spewing hate rather than information. Thankfully the articles do not seem to follow the commentators beliefs.
4
I am amused every time New York Times reporters work so hard at gathering all of the old tropes about Los Angeles, writing them down and calling them a news story. Arango and Nagourney continue this nobly East Coast-centric take on Los Angeles in their January 30 story (A Paper Tears Apart in a City That Never Quite Came Together), putatively a look at the decline of the Los Angeles Times in which they lament the absence of strong binding institutions in the region. A big miss in their story was on the matter of how power is held in Los Angeles. Organized hierarchically, like the ascending tiers of a wedding cake, power in New York accumulates more greatly in the upper tiers, a product of social climbing. In Los Angeles, which is organized quite flatly, echoing the region's geography and resembling the hubs, spokes and nodes of the Internet, power accumulates according to the breadth of distinctive political, social, cultural and economic networks. The more networks a person understands, straddles and links, the greater their power tends to be. Those networks have institutional strength, durability and resilience, irrespective of the ebb and flow of muscle and sway in traditionally recognizable centers of civic power like City Hall, corporate headquarters, and, yes, newspapers. In this respect, as Future of Cities: LA leader Donna Bojarsky points out, Los Angeles represents a city of the future, not a city so caught up in hailing its past like New York.
7
I don't think that the LA Times was ever an 'institution that binds the community together.' First of all, newspapers may influence a community, but it's people, not the newspaper that bind them together. As the article aptly points out, LA (nor most of CA) is not bound together. It is a series of small communities that add up to CA. Coastal elite have taken over politics and are or claim to be progressive. Identity politics reigns supreme in defense of the few. All who've been alive long enough, now that CA has far outgrown it's ability to house and water. Yet, they do nothing but increase the sprawl (a.k.a. new 'communities).
But the crux of this is felt across the nation. You see, diversity is only interesting and beneficial when it embraces the cultural differences (we now eat food from all over the world, have countless different religions and places of worship), but demands a unifying bond for citizenship. Those that came to this country brought their food and religion and culture, but embraced democracy and free speech; followed the laws and the American culture (e.g. we wait in line, many cultures don't). Because of the progressive movement and the media (social and otherwise), we are now told Americans are bad and we must coddle every sub-group or culture that comes. If you demand they adhere to our norms, you are racist, xenophobic, and surely white. LA is mostly hispanic now, a majority illegal. They don't read the LA Times. And won't be.
3
As a former editorial staff member of the Los Angeles Times, it pains me every time I read about the paper's demise. Every time such an article appears the trolls come out to bash it as a liberal propaganda machine deserving of its demise — conveniently overlooking the fact that the LAT was at its peak (circulation and wealth) when it was its "most liberal," in the '90s. The paper had great ambition and swagger. It was mentioned in the same breath as the NYT, the Washington Post — and deservedly. Its decline began when it was acquired by Tribune and its more conservative management, which was blind to the cultural differences between Los Angeles and Chicago and a changing media market. But this article isn't really about the Times — it's another drive-by lambasting of L.A. because it isn't New York, or Boston or God knows what — and it hasn't died on the schedule of its naysayers. L.A. is the city everyone loves to hate and it indeed has many problems — that comes when you're trying to meld many different groups into the most diverse region of the nation spread across miles and miles. I've endured riots, earthquakes, fires and storms — and I wouldn't trade it for anything. Construction is booming; this is the most interesting restaurant scene in the country, and the city continues to be a center of creativity in countless ways. I don't plan to leave. And by the way, it's just silly to say that "Disney Hall almost didn't get built" more than a decade after it opened its doors.
56
The decline of the LAT began before Tribune took over, when the Chandlers allowed the firewall between the editorial and advertising departments to be breached. It hasn't had, nor deserved, much respect since.
4
Boston, New York, and Washington D.C. were developed before the world changed from an three mile an hour world, and they have centers which were well defined and about which the cities grew. San Francisco and Chicago have similar centers from which they grew. Los Angeles developed a whole lot differently. The main constraint was a lack of water which as the need was meant generated different centers for development which were very widely dispersed. It remained a small city until the 1930's and 1940's when it began a boom which lasted for over half a century which turned it into an area populated with tens of millions across thousands of square miles, extending almost continuously from the Tehachapi Mountains to the Mexican border and from the Ocean to within an hour's drive of the Colorado River. And the main paper during that boom time was the L.A. Times. It had Metro sections for every local region and the paper was assembled and even printed in several locations. When Tribune took ownership, they shrunk the whole operation and fired both journalists and editors, to improve profit margins and without any concern for the paper for anyone where it was sold, figuring they could turn it into a big flyer for local entertainment and still attract advertisers. The need for a good paper remains, and it could be revived with a serious publisher who wanted it to.
7
The family of the Chandler and Otis publishers bailed and it was taken over by a Chicago publisher who eviscerated the paper a decade ago to use it as a cash cow. Since then the paper has just not attempted to serve as many people as the focus became creating an lean and mean business instead of newspaper that served the whole region. USC has been closely tied to the paper since that time and using anyone from that institution as a source without using less involved sources to determine why the paper has failed was probably not smart and is why the causes seem to be really vague and far less that definitive.
2
I have read the L.A. Times my entire life. They should just close it up now. Their website is pathetic and their paywall is overpriced. On Sundays/weekends, they have 4-5 sections on Hollywood movies, t.v. shows, and upcoming movies/tv shows. Their book section usually is 1-2 pages. Their business and hard news sections sometimes are 3-4 pages. Their stories have inflammatory titles online, but totally different titles in print. They have had a vendetta for years against public service employees,yet their older writers were forced out, and they finally voted for a union 15-20 years too late. The current owner knows nothing about newspapers and eventually Tronc will just be a third-rate website.
7
I lived in LA for 12 years and never read the LA Times. I didn't know anyone who did
The reporters mention that LA ranked 14th and San Diego 1st in charitable giving, according to Charity Navigator. I followed the link. Indeed, the chart there does show that ranking, but it's not for money donated. Here's what the website says the study's purpose is:
"Charity Navigator recently completed our 13th annual national study to analyze differences in the financial, accountability and transparency practices of charities located in various metropolitan markets across America."
When you select the "overall" drop-down menu choice, you get the ranking mentioned above. But when you select "total contributions," LA is ranked 3rd and San Diego 18th.
I think this example is fairly representative of the analysis provided in the article.
6
is it just me, or is this article trying to stretch isolated instances to imply trends, and in general figure out what its focus is? It mentioned LA Times in a cursory fashion, then started talking about the stumbling city and surrounding counties. Huh?
7
Even though I don't like the editorial policy of the LA Times, it's sad decline is one of the things I think of that just aren't the same way they used to be. I can remember in my 20's reading the Sunday LA Times when it was a large newspaper with a separate editorial selection (leaning pretty left, but still interesting), a separate book review section, an LA Times Magazine, and a hefty front page section. The LA Times had overseas bureaus and for a while they had a section called World which I believe was published on Tuesdays and had interesting articles about global affairs. They also had the Calendar section, which contained encyclopedic coverage of the worlds of art and entertainment, from movie reviews and news about upcoming releases to album and concert reviews. To see it now is sad.
6
You need a reading i.e., literate society to have a well-written paper that is supported by the public. Unfortunately, LA's reading enclaves are small and getting smaller. When the Herald went bankrupt and the SD Tribune and OC Register were bought up by the LAT the writing was on the wall.
In response to the wailing and gnashing of teeth about a lack of civic involvement, what did anyone expect? When you have uncontrolled illegal immigration from diverse ethnicities this is what you get. Ethnicities grouping together socially, economically, religiously, and linguistically. There is no other way around this except to embrace the destruction of the common sense of belonging and social capital that comes from that sense of belonging. Good job Immigration Act of 1965.
If I want to go to Mexico, Central America, India, or Korea I don't travel to those countries any longer. All I have to do is drive to LA. I'm not sure that was a good trade-off.
5
The profit-driven publishers of the LA Times have been plundering the newspaper in a quest for more dividends. But you can't constantly squeeze the staff and coverage, and expect to still increase earnings-per-share. At some point, the orange has no more juice. It's a loser as a business strategy. And as a journalistic endeavor, less never means more, rarely means better. The work of a metro daily has to result in the linking of people, communities, ethnicities and events through expansive and intensive coverage. If the audience is interested in their own daily circuit and ignorant of everything else, you might as well be a weekly shopper.
2
I work in LA philanthropy and remember LA Times' publisher Austin Beutner's effort to raise $$ to fund more education stories. Then Mr Beutner was fired by his Chicago bosses, and his dream of more coverage held on barely...as editors and writers and 3 more publishers eventually departed. Whomever is the next publisher knows it's just a matter of time before he gets the axe. (I remember a female LAT publisher who lasted maybe a year). Any institution, whether a newspaper or corner lemonade stand, will suffer if beset by remote ownership, a revolving door, and flailing identity. As someone born in LA, and lived in Chicago, NY, San Francisco, I've seen large metro newspapers. The LA Times isn't the best, but ain't the worst either. Can you imagine an LAT story about the NYT or WaPo? People in LA have better things to do.
Meanwhile, all my NY / East Coast friends who "hate" LA...? You'll all be living here some point soon. And loving it... Welcome to our imperfect paradise.
6
How is it that the liberal mouthpiece of a liberal city in a liberal state is on the down swing? How did Donald Trump and the Republicans manage to pull that one off?
3
“...Los Angeles has not developed the political, cultural and philanthropic institutions that have proved critical in other American cities.”. Yet LA and California in general feels it’s so superior and enlightened as compared to the rest of the country. Along with huge homeless populations and gripping poverty, out of control taxation and overpopulation, to name but a few issues, maybe they should stop lecturing the rest of us and look in the mirror (for something other than self-admiration).
3
“It’s a younger city. We’re growing up.”
HARDLY. That's an excuse for lack of development and forward thinking. We've had good and bad governors good and bad weather, but we seem to lack planning and good financing for the state to survive. It is too expensive to live here, the weather now is not all that Mediterranean. There are too many people who lack skills to make the wages to pay the taxes to keep the state afloat. And, now that we are a POT state, whatever money that might have gone into "regular"consumer goods will go up in smoke, though the state will benefit from the taxes.
fear not about the LATIMES--a rag by any other name that has unionized too late in the digital revolution thereby shooting itself in the foot yet again.
In ten years California will be the place that people will say they are FROM.
the is an outmigration of people who can afford to move or who have job skills for jobs elsewhere. California is great on the environment but there are too many against having clean air and unsullied soil. Too much bugspray and so much more.
My suggestion would be , don't waste time worrying about California--it is too late.
1
They're like locusts. Next they'll move to Colorado, ruin that state and be on to the next place. I hear Maryland was once nice as well.
It's not that we are ambivalent, It's that we lost this paper years ago. tronc may or may not become a worse iteration, but the LA Times was already severely wounded by the Tribune. It's why I cancelled my subscription a decade back and am reading this paper today.
1
I recently had to refer a friend to a story in a NY tabloid about an outrageous abuse by the police on duty. I lived for a decade in Los Angeles. No body cares.
The internet will eventually serve the people with news and things to think about. They never got it from a paper there.
The LA Times has been broken for as long as I can remember (at least the last 20 years). What it lacks for in quality it makes up for in bias. As a long time So Cal resident who recently canceled his subscription to the LA Times, I can only wish for a full reset of the entire paper. Unfortunately, with the vote to unionize, we are stuck with a third rate paper here.
Unnecessary scathing of such a fantastic city.
It must be pointed out that Los Angeles Times always has remained a subpar news agency. Never quite entered into the Orange County market dominated by Orange County Register or SD region, dominated by SDUT. LA Times has always seemed a few hours behind the likes of NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ, Politico in pushing out national news. The industry evolved over the years but LA Times did not.
Failing of LA Times does not imply that Los Angeles and its diverse population have been deprived of good news content over the years. Los Angeles has plenty of regional, cultural, lingual newspaper sources scattered all over the city - Jewish Journal, Korea Times, Glendale News, La Opinion, OC Register and many more. It has a socially conscious, well educated & a well aware population.
I do agree however that LA does not have strong institutions that bind cities like institutions do in other cities. Antonio R. Villaraigosa, the former 2 term mayor, referenced here in this article, failed to ameliorate institutions in this city. Garcetti, despite his ambitions, at least has proven himself as a unifying figurehead that the city has lacked, whereas tech boom SF has lifted the state by the back of its neck.
3
Fascinating that a story that goes deep enough to use Harrison Gray Otis as a hero (steal water from the Owens Valley? Great Idea!) can't wait to skip past the lonely quote about Otis Chandler, whose leadership turned the LAT from a parochial, Republican house organ into a national paper competitive with ... well, you know.
I think it's good that the correspondents remind their New York readers in this dispatch from the faraway, relatively young land of Los Angeles (founded in 1781) that L.A. has two football teams (both of which will play in Los Angeles, as opposed to a neighboring state) while curiously ignoring the greatest crosstown college rivalry in all of sports. Weird.
2
As a native Angelino having traveled, lived, and worked on the East Coast, I love New York City and the institutions it offers....took me about 5 minutes to figure the whole place out. L.A. on the other hand, requires several lifetimes to fully explore. And the notion of relating a failing newspaper such as The Los Angeles Times to binding together the city is incongruous. You see, L.A. is boundless, and we are moving too fast down the New Millennium Freeway to cling to some antiquated institution(s) appearing in our rear view mirror. Of course, let's not dwell on L.A traffic, but the brutally competitive road ahead offers infinite choices like no other city. In deference to the one and only New York City and the Times, methinks thee protests too much.
27
As a Northern Californian not used to praising LA, I surprisingly found myself cheering for the sharp and articulate readers who came to LA's rescue in critiquing this article. Maybe California is unifying itself and leading the way for the rest of the USA!
1
The culture of Los Angeles is utterly different from NYC--to the extent that this schism could never be captured in a single newspaper article dissecting print media and institutional traditions --particularly not one written by a New Yorker. The resulting befuddlement is abundantly reflected in this article.
2
California is one of the largest economies in the world. Say what you like, but comparisons to the east coast are apples to oranges. The west coast is the evolutionary location, the rest of you can follow.
2
It seems some Angeleno's take exception to the theme of the article, if the comments are to be believed. Unfortunately the article is right. LA doesn't have deep roots. It grew by leaps and bounds after WWII as bulldozers turned orchards and farms into tract homes and strip malls. There are few community ties since you don't have families that have lived in the area for generations, many in fact moving to CA in the great waves of the 60's and after. Nor do ties persist since the constant lure of cheap land just beyond means that as kids grow up they move to the boundary 20+ miles from where they grew up. Los Angeles proper was never and has never been a destination for people to go to the way downtown Philadelphia, Boston, or NYC are for those living in those areas.
2
The problem with LA is that there is no "There", there. Its just this big sprawling mess with no sense of civic unity, with awful traffic and people who take the freeways to work and then quickly leave at the end of the day. As noted in the article people identify with their particular suburb more than "Being From LA." They may go to a specif event or use the airport, but all of that must be planned around the traffic; as a result they leave as quickly as possible lest an hour trip be turned into a 3 hr odyssey.
2
This is happening from coast to coast. Newspaper owners see journalists as an unnecessary expense, as I was informed several years ago before being laid off. Owners are in the business of selling ads, not rocking the boat with reports on government and business corruption, which usually go hand in hand. No news means no oversight. The looting of taxpayer coffers is well underway.
2
I visited LA in Nov. for the first time in years. I was not looking forward to it. Turns out, I had a fantastic time. Like all great cities, it has its problems. But it has grown up so much since my last visit. Still wouldn't want to live there but I highly recommend it as a travel destination.
1
"The newspaper was four pages and cost a penny.
As a lifelong LA Times reader, I can tell you that the paper has been shrinking toward four pages and is arguably worth a penny. I continue to subscribe because 1) I need to do something with my hands as I drink my coffee at the breakfast table, and 2) I want to keep it on life-support as I pray for a miracle.
4
There is an old joke about LA known as the loose marble theory. It posits that the entire lower 48 states are tilted slightly to the Southwest and all the loose marbles dislodge and roll into Los Angeles.
I became one of those marbles at age 28, traveling west for a new opportunity after (as a student of Russian) having been laid off from a good job in Moscow after the financial crash.
I had wanted to go to San Francisco, but with a film degree I never had used, and friends out there, I begrudgingly settled in LA., I had all the east coast prejudices about the city.
Yet, I grew to really fond of the place. I had the fortune to work with some of the smartest people in my working career in LA. The arts scene was extensive. There was no better place to see independent film. The music scene was out of this world. The LA Times was not the best paper, but LA had amazing public radio--a good thing for long commutes.
An hour drive got me to a local ski area, 40 minutes in the other direction, and I was at the sea. Mountainbiking in the Santa Monicas, hiking in Griffith Park. The Sierras were a few hours north, Mexico a few south, and the amazing desert country all around. I learned to whitewater kayak and met my better half doing so.
My partner's job lead us down under, but if someone told me I had to move back, I would not be upset. The city and the surrounding region has a lot going for it, and I have grown to love it.
The traffic is still awful, however.
30
I've lived in Los Angeles since 1970 and have subscribed to the L.A. Times since I moved out of my parents' house in 1981 and no longer read their copy. I still subscribe, but the LA Times is a pathetic shadow of its former self. I kept the main section of the paper for the day my daughter was born, in 1993. that section had 42 pages. I looked at the paper 25 years later. Today's front section has 14. There's no separate business section on Monday. There's no magazine on Sunday. The View (lifestyle type stories) and Calendar (arts) sections have long since been combined into one section. The Sunday travel section is 4 pages most weeks. There's almost no news from the rest of the country unless there's a catastrophe or a really major event.
I now subscribe to the NYT as well. I get much more news from that. I keep thinking about dropping the LAT because the costs have risen and the content has fallen, but I still want to keep up with local news and support my hometown paper. Yes, we need a major voice. Without subscribers and advertisers, I don't think we're going to get it.
7
Prior to 1950, there was in the Greater Los Angeles area a grid of streets that supported both private and public transportation, however as a result of the power exerted by a consortium of private transport, (auto companies and related) the tracks were removed from the streets and slowly a network of freeways emerged. Almost from the beginning, by the time a new freeway, or an addition to an already existing one opened it was already out of date. Many sociologists cite the rise of the Los Angeles freeways as the cause for much of the city's problems, because of the way their construction negatively impacted well established neighborhoods. This was once an area of low rise buildings, just recently a tract in Hollywood whose primary tenant is a super market with surface parking, was rezoned for 700 apartments. In much of the city, whether in single family residences or smaller apartment/condo complexes you had at least a speaking acquaintance with your neighbors...mostly, that's no longer the case.
The L.A. Times was a family business, you knew where the Chandlers stood on issues, and whether you agreed or not you could form your own opinion based on that knowledge.
Los Angeles deserves way better than what is presently on offer, it's time that all those alpha males get their stuff together, accept Bucky Fuller's theory that we are, willing or not, all passengers on "Spaceship Earth", and try to make our ride a bit less bumpy.
1
At a time when the newspaper industry is fading to leave most locals as shells of their former selves as the NY Times, Journal, and Post assume the place as national newspapers/media organizations, I don't accept the thesis that the failure of the LA Times is an indication of something unique to Los Angeles. LA has long been more concerned about looks and cars in one segment of the population while another segment suffers in some of the worst urban poverty. The LA Philharmonic has made great strides to become one of top orchestras in a great hall regardless of the difficulties of that journey. That can't be ignored. The whole West Coast suffers from a homeless crisis in the big cities. The whole West Coast, even rich Seattle and San Francisco, lack truly world class encyclopedic art museums like Boston, New York, and Chicago have even as they overcome that with individual efforts like MOMA in San Francisco, the Getty in LA, and the Asian Art Museum in Seattle. If San Diego has tons of philanthropy, where is the money going? I love SD but it's not known for its museums or music culture despite having the best zoo facilities in the world. Sorry, I don't agree with the basis for the article. The situation at the LA Times has much more to do with a national trend than a local abandonment of civic pride in Los Angeles where pride is tied to such things as the Dodgers, the export powerhouse of the entertainment industry, and having summer in the winter.
17
Sadly, an analysis that is way wrong. The LA Times had a golden age from about 1975 to 2000 with serious, world-class reporting (and the awards and prizes that signify that). Always a diverse city (much more like London than NY), LAT provided civic focus and cohesion well before the demise of the Examiner or the Mirror. The decline began with the asset raid of Sam Zell (a Chicago property speculator) coupled with the increasing pressure on print media. By the time that TRONC (a Zell spin-off from the other income producing Tribune properties) took over -- the Metro section of the LAT had articles from other Trib properties (most memorable was the Chesapeake Bay story shared from the Baltimore Sun), indicating no real LA presence. I had subscribed ever since college in 1962, but by 2011 even that loyalty had faded due to poor editing, weak direction, and repeated stale old truisms. There was simply more news about Los Angeles in the NYT, WSJ or Times (London). Alas this is a story about speculative greed and the destruction of a civic identity.
25
I just want to add to my other comment (in case you saw the other "wehoscott" post) but there's no edit function while pending moderation:
I am a native New Yorker. Born and raised there, and lived their until I was nearly 27. Then Philly for 11 years. Now LA for the last 20 years. I wouldn't live anywhere else (even on days it infuriates me here - but that's mostly just traffic issues; I am lucky that I can walk to work and I take the Red Line often so it's not that bad).
One more thing, about civic activity. We had, by far, the largest turnout of ANY city 2 weeks ago for the Women's March. LA was one of the few places where the crowd came close to last year's size. It's also a strong union town that supports the LA Times Guild and have managed to secure one of the highest minimum wages, which mostly benefits hotel, restaurant, and janitorial workers - thanks to CIVIC ACTIVITY.
The LA Times has had corporate owners (after the Chandlers departed) not because there's something wrong with LA. WaPo is kicking ass, not because it's a DC institution (which it is), but because Jeff Bezos came to the rescue and thank God he's not a conservative like Murdoch. He's letting the paper do it's thing.
39
When the "owner" of the San Diego Tribune sold the paper to the Los Angeles Times conglomerate (TRONC), it marked the beginning of the end for the San Diego Tribune. The paper is printed in Los Angeles and then must be distributed really late via train to San Diego. This means the news is outdated and useless. Why pay $50 for that?
6
Even prior to the acquisition, the UT read like a small town newspaper, concerned mostly with the mayors office, the Chargers, and the Padres. Not much seems to have changed. For a good source of civic activism, I'd recommend San Diego City Beat or the San Diego Reader.
1
As a transplanted East Coaster now in LA for 31 years, I was raised reading The New York Times (mailed to us in South Carolina way before the national edition was ever delivered) and as an adult I’ve been a devoted subscriber. I never have subscribed to the LA Times which in all honesty (and not mentioned in this article) has always been a very weak and superficial effort in journalism.
14
Not true at all, it was a very good paper under Otis Chandler.
3
31 years and you've never taken the paper? But you know it's poor? I've lived here and in NYC, SF and elsewhere. LAT has been a great newspaper and, since coming under attack by greedheads, a struggling paper. A shame you never bothered to enjoy or support the excellent journalism when you had the chance. Can't help wondering what else you've missed out on with your nose in the air.
5
LA Times reporters and editors have been under siege ever since that guy from Chicago came out and used the LA Times' employee pension fund to leverage control of the paper. Then bankrupted it.
Countless insults and injuries later, LA Times is out-reporting NYT. Every day. LAT reporting more inquisitive, less self-referential. We subscribe to LAT and NYT. If I had to choose one - LAT hands down. One subscriber's opinion.
30
Sam Zell. The same guy who did the same thing to the Broadway department stores and their employees. Money above all, is the corrupter.
6
ellay -
I've held a subscription to the LAT for over 20 years and in that time I've seen the slow decay of good journalism into something that is less than good journalism. More often than not the stories in the LAT could be compared to something you would find in Mexico City's El Universal or the China Daily publication.
I've read the NYT daily as a non-subscriber as long as I have read the LAT and it was Trumps continued attacks on a free press that inspired me to finally subscribe and support the NYT and I'm glad I did. In my experience I find the NYT far surpasses the LAT in quality journalism hands down.
If I want reporting about what is happening in California I read the California Today section in the NYT.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/us/california-today-the-los-angeles-t...®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Plus the fact that the LAT consistently attempts to raise the price of subscription every three months which only inches me closer to just canceling my subscription to the LAT all together.
This is just another subscribers opinion.
2
Yes. Sam Zell (rhymes with "hell") laid the groundwork for LAT's current troubles with his leveraged buyout and complete ignorance of a newspaper's civic responsibilities. The out-of-town Tribune management has been a disaster. It's a wonder that the LAT is as good as it is. The shrinking editorial staff works with one hand figuratively tied behind its back. Nevertheless, as a writer/editor myself, I will continue to subscribe while hoping that the new union and management can work together for the good of the newspaper and the city.
4
When you only report radical liberal propaganda instead of the news you pay the price.
22
You mean as opposed to conservative lies?
6
Would you say the same of FOX News or is your comment just more Conservative bias?
5
The LA Times has been an awful paper for at least 20 years. The future lies in the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, and other national papers, supplemented by strong local coverage -- all on the internet of course. But also the small weekly community print newspapers that each area has (or should have).
8
I love the NY Times and the LA Times. I find the Washington Post a complete bore. Im not sure what else is out there ?
Nothing as far as I am concerned.
1
It is true the LA Times has been rudderless for a long time and that is sad. It has potentially the largest audience west of the Mississippi and for that not to be capitalized on seems ridiculous. However, the news business is in flux. At first I was irritated at the NYT’s increasing coverage of California, since it seemed to send east coast-based reporters to cover our culture with an outsider’s tin ear; however, given the vacuum of local coverage (though the LA Daily News does good work), and the torrent of transplants from NY to LA, the NYT is filling a need that dearly needs to be addressed. So thank you for that. But LA is a city of the future and its media is future based: a daily paper thrown on your driveway is a thing of the past. We have KCRW, we have blogs, we have people interested in reporting and in knowing. Hopefully someone will take up the LA Times mantle and make it into the multimedia platform it should be that covers our state in a contemporary way. It’s just sitting there waiting for someone to take it — like the oil Mr. Doheny and other SoCal entrepreneurs capitalized on a century ago. What do you think, Elon? Maybe more useful than tunneling underground?
23
What about the non-white"KCRW/BLOGS" people in L.A.? They deserve a newspaper,instead of more internet chatter.
I hear what you say and entirely agree - however the age of paper is over, for everyone. All communities have to be online or get online — admittedly a social justice challenge — but that’s all there is to that. Nobody relies on the town crier anymore either.
I agree with you entirely but paper is over, for everyone. People must be, or have to get online. Admittedly this is a social justice issue, but it's a fact. No one relies on the town crier anymore either.
When I talk to a New York transplant here, they tell me they're from "Brooklyn" or "the Bronx" or "the West Side." How is this different than an Angeleno saying "Glendale" or "West Covina" when asked?
55
Those are neighborhoods, not municipal governments with their own school boards, police departments and street crews. Trying to organize 88 cities is like herding cats. St. Louis has a similar problem, with 90 plus municipal governments. Small government at its best and worst. The worst are hopelessly corrupt and exist only to line the pockets of officials. With no reporters to look into this, it's open season.
3
The difference is Brooklyn and the Bronx are still parts of NYC, so we care about what impacts the other. Glendale is its own town.
2
The city and county of Los Angeles -- whose combined population is 25% greater than New York City's -- have been able to grow in positive ways due to strong local leadership. The L.A. Times has had the opposite since it was taken over by the Chicago-based Tribune Co. Few people realize how much Chicagoans despise both New York and L.A., and I believe the damage wrought on the Times has been mostly out of this spite. That even at this late date Tronc, the L.A. Times' successor owner to the Tribune Co., continues to appoint Chicago-based leadership at the newspaper suggest things are not going to get better. I would not be the least surprised if one day the paper simply shut down altogether. We got along fine without NFL teams for 20 years; we may have to muddle through without a major newspaper as well.
But I would not be surprised if some new form of media, shepherded by local ownership/management, would fill in the gaps in new and creative ways. KPCC, one of the local NPR affiliates, now has the second-largest news-gathering staff in L.A. County. It does an excellent job reporting on local issues in a compelling manner, with both audio and online resources.
11
I always assumed the Tribune was bleeding the Times. Last time I was in Chicago, I picked up the Tribune. It is a terrible paper, much worse than the Times. So I would say it is their business model rather than spite.
2
You must know a different bunch of Chicagoans than i do if you think they despise LA. Go to a Dodgers Cubs game in LA, and count Cubs hats - a whole bunch of them have moved here.
2
Ron S. "Few people realize how much Chicagoans despise both New York and L.A., and I believe the damage wrought on the Times has been mostly out of this spite."
Chicagoan born, educated (journalism) and lived for 40+ years here. What you have posted above is a load of nonsense. Chicagoans do not despise New York or L.A.--they merely wish to be acknowledged as an important player in the United States that they are. You know, people like Hillary Clinton grew up there and Barack Obama adopted Chicago as an adult.
Further, the financial debacle you describe is about greed. Unfortunately greedy people are everywhere and L.A. Times' issues have nothing to do with regional spite. Perhaps you are unaware but Chicago is a leading journalism town with two solid major newspapers: the Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune.
The Sun-Times has always been directed mostly to Chicagoland residents and skews Democrat while the Trib has always been Republican and wanted to be a national paper. When the Sun-Times was taken over by Murdoch decades ago, he was booted and the employees took over ownership.
Chicago also has deep civic support and roots which Los Angeles needs to develop. The L.A.Times new editor has come in from the Chicago Sun-Times, not the Tribune and he will be shepherding a fine newspaper, Let's give him a chance.
4
Not mentioned in the article is the recent evisceration of another Los Angeles journalistic institution, the LA Weekly, a left wing bastion that also provided extensive cultural commentary and coverage, which was purchased by a group of conservative investors who fired most of the staff. Weeklies are struggling everywhere, but the Weekly's reconstitution also represents the passing of an era.
20
That is very sad to hear. I lived in LA for 6 years, and the Weekly was my go to paper for arts and culture.
1
Overlooking that major development in the LA print media market was only one of several giant misses in this bizarre article tying the deliberate destruction of our major newspaper by out of towners without a clue to the dilapidation of the city as a whole. Methinks someone got crabby about it being 20 degrees there while it's 78 and sunny here.
1
Living in San Francisco where any notion of a local newspaper has long since faded, the LA Times was always the next best choice. Lately it has been a little off for sure. However its a ridiculous stretch to extrapolate from that all these other conclusions about Los Angeles. LA has incredible institutions -- the Getty, the Universities, the vast creative community that underpins film and tv production... the list goes on and on. It's also always been a radio place (you know, hours spent in the car lend themselves to listening, not reading) and a TV place (those hovering helicopters would send the pages of your paper scrambling). The one truly major crisis in LA is the collapse of transportation. Driving there has become monstrously dangerous and stressful. Its like driving in Manhattan except on freeways and in distances measure by miles instead of city blocks.
22
The massive disinvestment in the LA Times by its parent company in Chicago is what caused the paper's precipitous and tragic decline. When I moved here in 1990, the LA Times was a fat paper full of good to great journalism. I read it every day as a subscriber. We had columns like humorist Steve Harvey's "Only in L.A." and fantastic automotive journalist Dan Neil, to name just two. Then, in 2007, greedy Sam Zell took over Tribune, laid off a 1000 LA Times employees and basically trashed our paper. It was not taken well here. On a local radio talk show, I heard a female caller bemoan its diminished content, exclaiming, "I wish I were that thin!" It has yet to recover. I still get it on Sundays out of loyalty, but we get the NY Times delivered daily. Even though it costs a fortune, we feel it's a great value. In the mean time, local civic leaders have tried in vain to bring the LA Times back to local ownership. You can't see it from New York (where I used to live), but behind all the goofy tabloid coverage of celebrities and the sensationalist coverage of brush fires, LA has many dedicated, if underappreciated, civic leaders. We all hope to get our paper back someday.
44
But California is the world's sixth largest economy, and intelligent Californians read newspapers published in New York or Washington. No wonder there is so little diversity of opinion in California.
5
You don't seem to actually know very much about California, which has a significant rural population.
2
It may be also the time zones that de-value the L.A. Times. The fact that The Washington Post and The New York Times can publish news at least 3 hours sooner than West Coast makes the L.A. Times seem like an "also-ran" in the news cycle. The earlier time zone on the East Coast creates a de facto standard for East Coast institutions as a whole, not just in the newspaper industry.
4
The most important thing to understand is that LA is not a city, it is a place. Coming from the east coast, it is somewhat mind blowing in terms of scale. I first drove down to LA from San Francisco to visit my brother who "lived in LA" and I passed the LA county border sign and figured I wouldn't be far away. Turns out it was still almost another hour drive without much traffic. I lived in LA for 6 years and I always felt that LA was more a state of mind than a physical place. Even after living there for 6 years, it is hard for me to put my finger on what LA is all about.
20
I left LA some 20 years ago and remained a subscriber to the NYTimes while a resident there while never subscribing to the LATimes. The reason? Too much paper, not enough news.
8
This story goes out of its way to avoid talking about what's tearing the LA Times apart. Employees recently voted to unionize, and out-of-town owners are trying to rebuild the paper without them.
19
the key part of your comment is out of town owners. a local paper needs local owners who care about something other than profit.
5
I have grown up reading The Times (LA, not NY). Now we get three papers (NY Times, LA Times, WSJ) because we are readers. Our children are not. That's the story of print media, not just in LA. And with the LA Times ownership a corporate entity in Chicago, we've seen laughable cost-saving measures like having syndicated pieces about "winterizing our basements" appear in print. They keep firing the local columnists who help us make sense of our sprawling and wonderful home. I'm more concerned about LA Weekly and LAist issues to be frank.
13
Let's just say this was an off-day piece...not sure how the perceived lack of strong civic institutions parlays into the supposed demise of the LAT. The issues I see confronting the LAT are an inability to truly adapt to the online platform and the use of multi-media like the NYT has...additionally the lack of financial backing limits their ability to cover global issues like the NYT or even the Washington Post. To say it’s somehow related to civic institutions and compare LA to East Coast cities is a case of apples vs. oranges.
While LA might be decentralized and lack a proper transportation infrastructure our progressive politics, weather, diversity and laid-back way of life still have produced a vibrant art/entertainment scene (LA museum of Art, Disney Concert hall, Pantages, etc), rising food culture (modern food trucks originated in LA), and robust economy (LA ports, entertainment industry, manufacturing, etc) that attracts people from all over the world. Yes there are problems in LA (education, rent affordability/homelessness) but name me one city that isn’t afflicted with these societal issues.
17
Los Angeles has a lot of major problems, housing costs and homelessness, traffic congestion, policing, poverty pockets, and a highly decentralized metropolitan area. The Los Angeles Times is not one of them, although it's rapidly decayed since being taken over by the Chicago Tribune Co. now TRONC (yes, that's really it's name), a self-infatuated holding company enthralled with electronic and edgy media. And while the Times has decayed, Los Angeles has actually become a much better place than it was in the 1980s, particularly in terms of social integration, public transportation (the subway is great and getting better), and police relations. Compare to Chicago, which goes from bad to worse in all facets, even with two newspapers, although only the Sun-Times seems committed to civic improvement beyond the "feisty" Tribune's divisiveness and ultra-conservative corporate mindset. TRONC indeed.
9
The decline of the Times has nothing to do with LA being noncohesive (which I don't agree with), and everything to do with how the Tribune decimated it when they bought it from the Chandlers. Within a few months the paper wasn't worth reading any more. And by the way, New York is a series of neighborhoods within a larger whole, just like LA.
21
What a bizarre article, condescending to and denigrating an entire city as well as the LA Times. A city that never quite came together? A lack of civic institutions? No philanthropy?? Yes, LA has problems; every city does. But we have the LA Philharmonic, LACMA, MOCA, and the Getty, and a government (City Council, Mayor, many neighborhood councils) that tries to deal with the problems all cities face. We have UCLA, USC, and many other institutions of higher learning. We have the entertainment industry and many philanthropists, with Eli Broad being just one of them. The LA Times is going through a rough patch, but in addition to the major networks we have excellent public radio stations such as KCRW. Of course, we have mountains, beaches, and parks. Most important, we have a hugely diverse and vibrant city, in which many cultures and ethnicities come together.
50
You left out drought,dying lawns, fires, mudslides, and obscene housing costs, due to lack of protections for the middle/working class.
1
Los Angeles is indeed a decentralized place, physically and civically. But as someone who lived there for 8 years I hardly recognized the Los Angeles described in this article. Yes, the LA Times is struggling, badly -- but so are many regional newspapers that lack the international presence of the NYTimes. This says more about mismanaged priorities than it does about the city's civic health Meanwhile, LA has two world-class public radio stations, KPCC and KCRW, that are deeply engaged in the city's cultural life (should this come as any surprise in a media market where car is king?). It has a dynamic arts scene that frankly makes New York look a little boring. USC and UCLA are far more integrated into the public life of the city than Columbia or NYU can claim to be.
80
+1 on the public radio stations. KPCC and KCRW are the best local media outlets, and one of the most universally accessible since they're the immediate option every time you get in your car. Airtalk, Take Two, Which Way LA, and Press Play are an excellent sources of local news.
It IS a huge and endlessly diverse population and landscape, which is something most of us value. You live in the area that generally suits you best, but if you wake up and feel like you want something different, drive 20 minutes in any direction. But no matter where I explore in LA, there's one commonality that I find everywhere these days: we HATE Trump!
Evidence: http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-california-neighborhood-electi...
2
About the only thing this article gets right is the decline of the L.A. Times since its sale to Tribune Co. The so-called “new media experts” Tribune and now Tronc have brought in have created the worst digital newspaper I’ve ever seen. Perhaps they were too busy sexually harassing the staff to do a proper job?
What we need here are more locally-owned and -focused media, not more out-of-town bloodsuckers.
L.A. is different. Moving here 31 years ago was one of the best things I’ve done in my life. I appreciate the NY Times coverage of L.A. and California in general, but if you stopped trying to fit it into your NY mold, your coverage would improve.
30
The LA Times was sold for one simple reason. The conservative agenda called for too many national publications, preferring USA Today over what was seen as a liberal newspaper. Dean Baquet can provide the details of its relegation to a local cabbage leaf.
LA suffers from decentralization, problematic transportation logistics, resulting from years of gentrification.
Some Metrolink lines run on one track! Almost no one working in Santa Monica can afford to live there.
The 5 (North South ) and the 10 (East West ) are joined on 4 lanes next to downtown in a mainly residential neighborhood.
My 45 to 60 minutes commute would take more than 2 hours with public transportation, and at a higher cost.
So what is the relevance of talking about the influential aspect of a newspaper in an age of social media which promotes individuality?
The system is at the hands of political entities on short term assignments.
4
I was just there visiting for a week, it's a great city. Sure, no place is without problems. But for example, what other city has recently built an extensive subway system?
9
It only took 75 years to build any subway lines...
1
I’ve lived in LA for 11 years and never read the LA Times, and never been tempted to subscribe. It is subpar at best and does a terrible job covering this city. (I read curbed and eater to get good LA coverage, and some local blogs)
Having moved from NYC, I’ve kept my nytimes subscription. And last year subscribed to the Washington Post, because Trump. So I’m happy to pay for quality journalism, sadly there is no offering here.
One big issue this city has, which this article glosses over or just gets wrong, is it is not one city. Beverly Hills and Glendale, mentioned in the article as neighborhoods are actually stand alone cities with separate mayors, police forces, tax codes, etc. This is also true for West Hollywood, Culver City, and Santa Monica.
Imagine if the upper west side had a different mayor and didn’t contribute to the NYC’s tax code?
That’s what we have here. This is not a united city, because it is separate fiefdoms.
I’ve always found it absurd. To really unite this city you’d have to have these rouge neighborhoods return to the city of LA.
17
I can see the campaign now -- "Unite the rouge!" You're really on to something, Tim.
2
That's hilarious you'd rather read Eater than Jonathan Gold in the L.A. Times.
2
If you count Greater New York with its real boundaries, the Poconos to the Hamptons and Princeton to Yale - it’s even more fragmented than LA. And lower density, by the way.
I lived in LA County (Monrovia, just east of Pasadena) for 10 years from 1998 through 2008 after moving from NYC. I worked first in Hollywood and then in the Miracle Mile on Wilshire. My daily commute by car took me through all kinds of neighborhoods and ethnic populations. I LOVED it (the variety, not the traffic, though I learned over time to manage the commute). Many of my eastern friends warned me of a cultural wasteland; I found the exact opposite to be true. Precisely because it is so de-centralized, I found many pockets of small galleries and music and theater venues in the different communities that were full of very talented people. Artists could afford to live there, unlike in Manhattan or Brooklyn. As to large institutions, we often went to the LA Phil, to Pantages Theater, to events at USC or UCLA, the Wiltern, the Greek, the Pasadena Playhouse, LACMA, etc. Somehow it all worked. I live in DC now, and like it very much. But boy, for all the lumps it takes, do I miss Los Angeles.
20
I grew up in Los Angeles before 95% of the freeways were built. It was beautiful then. Now the highlight of the city is two new football teams and the 2028 Olympics. Ponder that as you sit on the freeway going to work.
7
Do you have a bunch of webcams feeding into your Scottsdale quarters? It's amazing how much people who don't live here feel like authorities on its pains and pleasures.
If there are two cities that are alike, it is L.A. and Houston.
The paper here, in a city that claims to be the fourth largest in the country, reminds me of papers in towns of 1,000,000 in the Northeast.
But as some others have already said, it might be that decent newspapers are a 20th century phenomenon. I'm sure Houston will never have one; no one in Texas even knows how poor the papers are here and in Dallas...and Austin's is even worse.
4
One reason Los Angeles can't come together is because it isn't so much a city as a collection of cities. The City of Los Angeles occupies less than a quarter of the land area of Los Angeles County, and most of the rest is a collection of small cities like Compton, Downey, Santa Monica, etc.
5
Here's the one thing that no one's mentioned that I would also think might be a factor --- I've tried reading the LA Times electronically, over the years, and I just never found the writing that compelling. I have absolutely no idea whether others feel the same way, but if you look some other "national" papers (NYT and WSJ -- USA Today is a different animal), the writing seems to me to be just better/deeper/more incisive on a regular basis (regardless of whether or not you agree with their views).
3
The idea that Los Angeles has no cohesiveness is challenged by the new and booming downtown, which is alive and having a resurgence. I understand why that wouldn't be mentioned, as it doesn't fit the thesis that the article so strongly tries to argue for. An institution that should be mentioned in support of the "failing institutions" thesis is the Los Angeles Unified School District, which has had an "in abstentia" superintendent for the last year and the position has turned over 5 times in the last 10 years. While all wish the ailing Ms. King well, it is no way to lead an institution constantly lacking direction and bureaucratically clumsy. The LAUSD also exemplifies the balkanized nature of the city, where San Fernando school issues are different from those of the Westside or Eastside of the city.
7
Interesting piece, but not compelling. All of us live in places that have problems of their own. Best of luck to Angelenos as they confront theirs.
3
Isn't there an editor somewhere at the NYT that knows well enough to see through this tired, old, "there's no there, there" trope about LA and Southern California? Ambivalence or no re: the LAT is not a symbol of a lack of civic structure -- there's as much, and as corrupt -- structure here as in NY, you just have to look deeper than Tim Arango, Adam Nagourney, and your editors have bothered to look.
51
Nonsense. L.A. not only lacks strong civic institutions, it also lacks a sense of civic pride and unity of any sort. Probably the most segregated city in the U.S., it is comprised of vast blocks of small "towns" divided by social economic status which, in many crucial cases, actively dislike each other and work to maintain its wealthy borders intact. Los Angeles has refined and expanded the concept of NYMBY to monumental proportions.
3
If NYC has a homeless policy that is more coherent than LA's, it is because of the work of the Winter Civic Association, which uses sub-freezing temperatures to export its homeless population to places like L.A.
15
News flash: LA is not an East coast city; California is not as East coast state. LA and California are different; they are much younger and their institutions are younger approximately 200 years younger - huge in our very young country. Comparing LA and CA to the East Coast is misplaced. As far as, "the absence of strong institutions to bind it together," I always thought the entertainment industry was something they had a little bit of in LA.
37
LA is a cautionary tale to the major metropolitan cities with multi mini cities that have fractured infrastructures which weakens the fabric of the area.
15
When you write about LA, and all but one of your sources is white and old, you inevitably portray an incomplete picture of our city. I'm more worried about the closing of LAist and the evisceration of the LA Weekly than the decline of the LAT. Where's your discussion of KPCC or our Spanish language media (our highest rated local television news programs)? When discussing civic engagement, how can you ignore new institutions like CicLAvia or Night on Broadway? Please stop relying on outdated stereotypes about our region. That said, I am hoping Kendrick Lamar or La Santa Cecelia or some K-pop genius produce the successor to I Love LA....we need one.
97
This article is way off. True, the LATimes has deteriorated but it does a good job on local news. I still subscribe. There are only two things wrong with this city: the awful traffic and poor public transportation. Oh, and it doesn't rain enough.
21
My great-grandparents came to LA in the 1880s and started their family there. I spent the first 40 years of my life in towns and cities around the periphery. LA was where we went to see baseball games and plays; to hear symphonies. It wasn't where people lived--at least people I knew. It is the product of oil, (stolen) water, Hollywood, and early aviation. It is also the product of hucksters--CC Julian, Aimee Semple McPherson, and the Otises/Chandlers. No surprise the Times is imploding. Only wonder why it took so long.
6
Oh sweetie, I hope you enjoyed your jaunt down memory lane but the people you cite are long departed, as has their influence. I wonder if you've ever lived here. Or perhaps you're like my SLO cousins who've made a solemn vow never to travel south of SB? Because that makes them, um, righteous, or something.
1
This is the kind of analysis that brings tears to the eyes of old, retired newspaper editors. It perhaps wasn't meant to be a piece on American news media in general, but that's what it is. It is about a newspaper being, or not being, a defining part of a community. That's not what's happening today, and America's brand of democracy is suffering for it.
22
I read into this story that same context -- the sad fortunes of daily newspapering in America. It's a greatly diminished realm. I worked at The Miami Herald when, in the 1990s, it suffered from a lot of the same factors bedeviling the LA Times and other surviving papers. Frequent staff cuts, a rapacious demand for profits, an exodus of great and demoralized journalists, and a narrowing mission. As a result, we also struggled to cover a diverse population, a bumpy patchwork of communities, and weak and sometimes corrupt government leaders.
I'm sure you and others have similar stories to tell -- depicting the one kind of crucial trend that we never envisioned having to cover. We old salts have to stick together and hold on to the memories of better times. Let's all hoist a beer to those memories.
2
Los Angeles' establishment media having no influence is a strength of Los Angeles, not a weakness.
9
This article is off on on several fronts. The entire premise - making the newspaper some sort of parable or metaphor for the city as a whole - is misguided.
First of all, LA is not an "eastern establishment" city. The LA of today, the "metropolis" that it is, is a modern (i.e. 20th century) city. Here it doesn't matter what your family name is, who you are, where you came from. LA was built by people coming here with a dream and trying to make a go at it. It's a spirited western town that has grown (and matured) into a liberal, educated, cultural urban center. The writers of this article are stuck in an old NYC image of LA as a cultural void, spread out, no core, no heart, etc.
Angelinos don't worship the rich (although we do put Hollywood on a bit of a pedestal, but that's another debate). We don't worship oligarchs like Bloomberg, Trump, Helmsley, et al. It's a different place. A different kind of place. Much more of an egalitarian place.
Finally, we DO have institutions that bind the area together. UCLA & USC. The LA Philharmonic. The Hollywood Bowl. Vibrant theater. The Getty Center. Disneyland (yes, it's in the Metro Area). The LA Lakers. The LA Dodgers. I can go on and on.
168
Great comment. I’ve only been here two years, and it’s become obvious the only people who buy into these stereotypes of LA are people who’ve never spent much time here. I had no idea how much community and culture existed here until I lived here, and I’d been coming for years. It’s not a city you can visit and understand. This place has a lot of heart, a lot of regular people working hard to make their lives better or their dreams come true, and—despite not having the “establishment” support for the arts that NYC has—a thriving arts community paving its own way with its own ingenuity. It’s harder to live here than people imagine. But few outside perceive this because there’s an optimism baked into the culture.
16
I should add (as I did in a subsequent comment but it's easy to miss) that I'm a native New Yorker. Born and raised there, lived there until I was 26, and I do still love NYC. I've been out in LA for 20 years now and I can't imagine living anywhere else. I'm also lucky that I live 5 blocks from work and can walk LOL. Loving LA and NYC is OK - they're not mutually exclusive loves. They're just different. LA is, however, hip, and trend setting, and culturally diverse, and has a million things to do and places to see. I also added in my other comment that LA does just fine in the civic activism & civic activity world! A week and a half ago we not only had one of the few Women's Marches to nearly equal last year's turn out, it was by far the largest march in the country that day. Larger than DC's & NYCs. We are a strong union town and the unions and Latino coalitions have marched and rallied and managed to get our minimum wage among the highest, benefiting restaurant workers, hotel workers, and janitors. All because of a cohesive activist spirit. I used to spend the late 1970s & early 1980s defending NYC, a la Woody Allen. My folks were NYC snobs who thought LA was a cultural void and only people who couldn't make it in NYC moved there. They were wrong, and they found out for themselves when they retired in LA in 1994 - three years before I was lucky enough to relocate here. They loved LA until they passed away.
3
UCLA and USC do bring people together but they do not bring people together as well as other major universities do. There are a ton of empty seats at UCLA and USC football games. Out of all the major athletic programs in the country UCLA and USC have by far the weakest fan bases.
1
"The region has become increasingly economically and ethnically diverse, a challenge for any political or civic leader looking to unify a community."
Is this a talking point at the Times now? Diversity sows distrust and disunity? I've seen it suggested so often in these pages recently, I wonder how it got there.
Interestingly, New York, Houston, the Bay Area and Atlanta - for starters - immediately disprove the notion.
23
I like your points and can see where you are going, but am left wondering if the notion of diversity as stated is more of a reflection of many parts not unified as one. How many immigrant communities are very strong and do a great job of looking out for members of the community, but there is little integration into a larger community or body politic?
Having gone to school in, and followed NY politics for years, I have observed citizens of NYC are very proud to call themselves New Yorkers.
If citizens tend to align themselves to smaller communities, either by ethnicity or geography or other, then I would think it becomes more difficult to rally around challenges that affect a larger population.
Is there something about NYC that engenders a greater body politic than LA? I have no idea whether this is the case or not, but were this true, than trying to rally a large group of smaller communities that do not possess an inherent connection with nearby neighbors, would certainly present a challenge.
5
The LA Times, which i just canceled after many years, dropped the ball years ago. Unlike the NYT's, which puts out a marvelous, if biased, product every day, the LAT just phoned it in. Most of the type was devoted to opinions about Trump, a few food articles, and pictures of the beach. LA is a wonderful , diverse city with a seething cultural scene that is so laid back that it appears to lack the energy of the NY scene. I guess the West is just exactly what East coasters think it is.
4
I think you sell the LA Times a little short. Yes it has declined. Yes the exit of the Chandlers and entrance of corporate ownership has hurt the paper. It peaked a decade or two ago and I agree it often phones it in, but it still puts out great investigative pieces, and thoughtful pieces by people like Steve Lopez (his homeless series have been amazing). It really doesn't do the "national news" thing like WaPo or the NYT but it does have its moments.
That said, using the paper as a metaphor for LA as a whole is ridiculous. LA is not NY. True. That is on purpose. It is a world class city, with world class institutions (something of which the writers of this article are unaware), a million things to do, and a healthy economy. It's one of the most diverse cities (demographically) in the world. I don't even find LA laid back anymore. Its pace is nearly as fast as NY (maybe everyone stuck in traffic is in a rush when they get out of their car LOL).
10
I suspect there are a few causes. One, the rise of digital media, second, the overwhelming left and illegal immigration bias which is turning people off, and, third, the declining quality of journalism and writing ("journalists seem more concerned with pushing their opinions rather than reporting the news).
8
I read both the NY Times and the LA Times, but I only subscribe to the NYT despite living in California my whole life. This is because I know that I will sometimes be challenged to think outside the box or will be presented with conflicting viewpoints, some that I agree with, some that I disagree with. The LA Times for a very long time positioned itself as representing a stereotypical California liberal ideology. It has caused the journalists and writers to be blind to problems around the state and therefore irrelevant. It's unfortunate that most of us have depended on Governor Brown, a politician, to do what newspapers usually do in calling out hypocrisy, injustice, misspent funds and government overreach. Maybe out of the ashes of the LA Times, a real newspaper and muckraker will emerge.
10
Los Angeles is very different city than New York. Having lived in both, I find the bitterness, mean-spirited bias, and passive aggressive consternation of haughty New Yorkers like the one who wrote this article, to be laughable. Stop judging a 21st century city by your 20th century standards. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to select a nice T-shirt to wear out in the 72° January sunshine.
58
I agree. I've lived in LA, SF, and NYC and loved them all for their unique strengths. It would be absurd to knock NY for not providing the beautiful views of nature we get in SF and LA, just as it's absurd to gripe that suburbs in LA don't have bodegas on every corner. LA is always the easy punching bag of both other cities and all I can say is, Please, haters, stay away! The rest of us are busy living in and loving our unwieldy paradise.
3
100% agreed. Thank you.
Los Angeles did not steal Owens Valley water. The city bought water rights from those Owens Valley residents who were willing sellers, which then put pressure on the remaining residents who found it hard to keep going in a valley with reduced economic activity. Owens Valley got caught in the application of western water use law.
11
Has the author of this article spent any time in Los Angeles? I am so very proud of my diverse city, which only a few weeks ago saw hundreds of thousands of peaceful marchers gather downtown for the Women's March. We are a diverse group, with Caucasian residents in the minority, more than 240 languages spoken, and a mayor who is a model civic leader. I witness philanthropy every day, and not only by those on Eli Broad's financial level. Yes, we grapple with crippling traffic, but that's because so many people want to live in our sanctuary city, whose beauty includes miles of shoreline, mountains, desert and valleys.
Los Angeles is a template for what America can and should be, where tolerance of others is as natural as sunshine.
108
Thank you for these elegant words about Los Angeles, a great world region-city with enough well-knit neighborhoods to have a sense of community if one seeks it.
Precisely because of its openness, LA is interesting and dynamic therefore prosperous and enjoyable.
8
Some of the activist things you mention are also why people leave Los Angeles and California - they get sick of having it constantly rammed down their throat. I guess Malibu is the same now, too. I grew up on the Point. Remember when Mayfair Market had a hitching post for horses?
1
LA is a wonderful city, I love LOVE LA. But, traffic is terrible, major roads poorly designed/planned, multiculturalism issues (foreigners could do more to become American rather than try to live like they are still back home), welfare state issues, and poor city planning over the years. Taxes too high. Try to make stronger families, encourage families to stay together, raise your kids with stronger values should fix many problems over the next couple of decades. LA is a wonderful city. I like the Times too, just has to keep up with the times. Paper edition can survive, albeit leaner...
6
The way the L.A. Times is about to look, in a very obvious way, reflects what's been happening to local and regional media for the last thirty years. It's ugly. It is yet another clear sign, not only of how polarized we've become, but why and how that came to be.
Much of our media has now been relegated to the role of mouthpiece for this or that interest, propagating propaganda of whatever bent, masquerading as news.
Who loses?
---
www.rimaregas.com
2
The problems with the LA Times have been decades in the making and started when the Chandler family sold it. What would happen to the NY Times if the family sold it? Fortunately for the NY Times, it has a huge readership outside of New York City since it has never had the greatest circulation among New York City papers.
As far as Los Angeles not having institutions that bind the metropolitan area together, balderdash. It has major universities and medical centers. And as for the supposed lack of cultural institutions, the Los Angeles Philharmonic is a world class orchestra. The local theater scene is vibrant, and many of New York's Broadway's most celebrated shows were premiered in Los Angeles. All the professional sports have at least one team here. Tourists come from all over the word for the multitude of attractions here.
As Randy Newman said, We Love LA!
73
The statement about NYT circulation is neither historically or currently correct as many sources will indicate, this among them:
https://www.cision.com/us/2014/06/top-10-us-daily-newspapers/
Nevertheless, the article does imply a sort of condescension which is also not entirely fair. New York and Los Angeles are both amazing, singular cities even though they are quite different from each other. And, I love them both precisely because of their differences.
1
I agree with the comments about the unorganized nature of the article.
In addition, according to the author, everything that is missing from LA (unity, philanthropy, civic spirit, etc.) is caused by either the presence (e.g., diversity) or absence (e.g., big companies, business leadership, etc.) of things the "progressives" hold dear or are against. Ironic.
15
If there was ever an article figuratively whistling past the graveyard, it’s this one. The issue isn’t a city adrift, it’s the fact that traditional media is expendable in a digital world. LA is a harbinger, not the outlier.
62
What the NY Times fails to recognize is The Los Angeles Times is a CORPORATION and not a civic institution.
Newspapers are going the way of livery stables.
11
Unfortunately, the best description of Los Angeles isn't La-La Land or Tinseltown or City of Angels. It's "Forget it Jake. It's Chinatown."
7
It's difficult to support a paper that's inundated with popup ads while reading as you scroll down, a comments section that's occupied by racists, and owned by a failing parent company in Chicago that has no ambition nor direction. It's lack of local ownership is why LA Times is no longer LA's paper. The health of LA Times requires returning it to local ownership, and severing ties to it's parent company, but Tronc would rather drive the paper into the ground before letting that happen. And with NYT covering California as if it were located there, Angelenos have managed without the local paper.
As far as "a city that never quite came together," that's an out-of-touch assessment. City pride, conversation and politics are stronger now than it's ever been, despite the downfall of LAT. This is a city that voted overwhelmingly to tax itself twice to address homelessness and expand public transit. And then you have a philanthropic community trying to finance an Academy museum, a new building for LACMA and now it's two satellite campuses. The never-ending ambitions of Los Angeles means a lot is asked from their citizens, and Angelenos have given plenty to their community even if local politicians and the writers of this piece fail to recognize it.
103
Alas, no follow-up heated discussion or debate on this article. Perhaps proves the point that no one really cares about the LA Times, or maybe we cant see beyond our neighborhood enough to realize there’s another paper on the east coast running a critique on our institutions, or lack thereof.
1
Grew up in Los Angeles and lived for close to a decade in Manhattan. It is a sort of game that NYC plays to run down LA. I would like to note that LA does not have the sort of tabloids that have so degraded journalism. It was these tabloids that elevated Donald Trump to a household name. I would also note that the degree of casual racism found in the boroughs of NYC was unlike anything I experienced in LA. As for hanging with the group on the stoop and then popping over to the local magazine shop before a trip to the diner....I think maybe you have seen to many schmaltzy movies. Today it is quite likely that all the apartments above the stoop cost 3000 a month and the magazine store and the diner are either closed or have been turned into one more drug store. Maybe the NYTimes out to take a look into its own city and its lack of civic institutions other than investment banks.
200
LA used to have "tabloids" back when WR Hearst owned two papers. And the LAT used its platform to "run down" other newspapers.
2
Except for the passing references to Nixon and Reagan, the article fails to mention that the Los Angeles Times was a right-wing newspaper that became a poor fit for a region moving leftward politically. This, of course, in addition to the forces which have battered all newspapers.
43
The L A Times has not been right wing since about 1966.
Maybe the Papers' blatant bias in favor of the Liberal Democrats might have something to do with it. I closely followed the City of Bell payroll scandal, and if you only read about it in the Times, you would have Never had known that all of those involved were Democrats.
4
City elections don't run on the two-party system so party affiliation is not germane.
1
From a native Angelino who has subscribed to the LA Times since I delivered it on my bike, I will venture my perspective on it's fall from grace...lack of good writing, poor choice of stories and most abysmal, the online edition offers no cohesive identity. NYT is now my paper of choice simply because it still reads like a newspaper.
32
Agreed. I stopped regularly reading the LA Times years ago -- largely got tired of the daily front and center tally and description of murders. I did not want to start my day, every day, thinking about that -- especially living in an area where it was not a problem. Too many wonderful things about LA get ignored.
4
Though I've read the paper version of the NYT daily for years, its journalistic standards have declined significantly in the past few years, especially with the elimination of the independent copy editing desk. If the Washington Post had a national edition, that's what I'd be reading over my morning coffee every day. Unfortunately I have to make do with the digital version.
8
Garcetti is not a source of pride. He is incapable of living up to his lofty promises from homelessness to pot holes.
8
I guess you spend your weekends driving up from OC to inspect both issues? What is it with people who don't live here acting like they have some clue about how things are going?
This is kind of an aimless article that strings together a bunch of unrelated quotes in support of the trope of LA as a soulless mess of a town. Granted, the LA Times has been self-destructing for years, but that isn't emblematic of the city.
83
Eric Garcetti traveling the country is NOT a source of pride. He's our mayor and needs to be in LA. Instead, he’s a joke.
And yes, traffic has definitely shrunken my world, but I like it just the same. I’m lucky and live close to work, and on weekends I mostly walk or ride my bike to run errands.
12
Garcetti is an empty, yet very expensive suit
8
I read this with sadness. I love newspapers, especially those printed on paper. Of course I recognize the inexorable shift to the electronic, but it does not mean I have to prefer it.
Nevertheless, regardless of format, a good, daily newspaper is like sitting around a fire, pondering life's myriad happenings. The loss of this binding comfort and all that flows from it weakens the intellect, diminishes the sense of community, robs us of a certain surprising joy.
Maybe it is simply what life is becoming; a place of Amazons and limitless TV channels. Various forms of soma. Let's read or re-read Huxley's "Brave New World." Maybe that's where we are going, no matter what. After all, Yale is now offering a course to kids that teaches them how to be "happy" -- as though personal happiness should be our most desired goal.
I believe the world is demonstrably a less beautiful place than it was 100 years ago. God knows we have many more people as we strip the world of its resources and it fights back with natural disasters and disease.
Perhaps the crumbling of the LA Times is another symptom of the times and when humanity destroys itself and all but the most simple organisms, the whole shebang will just have to start over and repeat the last few billion years. Now that's something to ponder.
14
This piece overemphasizes a buggy whip: the modern newspaper. While I still happen to like buggy whips, most don’t. They get their news from other sources.
The LA Times has been declining in relevance for decades, and even at its peak the paper was not comprehensive enough for the vastness of LA. When I lived there I had to have three or more local daily newspaper subscriptions to keep up, and even then I still needed the New York Times for reasonably good world and national coverage.
22
The L.A. Times offered local news sections for every region of Southern California in addition to it's main section. There were printing and assembly locations all across the region. It was a big an comprehensive operation which served all of the greater L.A. area right down into Orange County.
3
A region lacking in civic institutions? Your New York bias is unusually clear this morning.
98
What is this article even about? Trouble at the newspaper? Or demographic and social change? It seems a bunch of complaints about everything, without any focal point.
175
At least LA has legal marijuana. They can hallucinate all thew news they need.
9
Yet another example of what happens when leftist dogma is infused. The host dies.
7
The host, in this case, is the Chicago Tribune Co., now known as Tronc. Ah, yes, the very left-wing Tronc is killing the LATimes. No doubt when they've finally dispatched that commie-leaning LATimes, they'll start a new, electronic rag, that will give us all the true electronic fake news we deserve.
23
Tronc is right wing.
5
This story is a confusing mishmash of observations about Los Angeles without ever telling us what the problem is. Is the LA Times closing down? The publisher was accused of sexual harrassment? Is that it? Last time I checked, the LA Times Web site was up and running with more interesting content than I find on the NYT site. LA has no civic institutions? I guess that would be news to the Los Angeles Philharmonic and the Hollywood Bowl. Heck, they even have a subway now.
158
let’s face it LA. is just one big massive soulless suburb.. been there many times for work but always the city for me is new york!! sing it mr. Sinatra! does L.A. even have a song..???
4
Randy Newman, "I love LA"
8
Yea, it has a song:
Randy Newman - I Love L.A. (Official Video) - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcADqxnQA_4
12
I Love LA - Randy Newman
12
Summary of the article: Angelenos don't act the way New Yorkers think they should act.
202
My takeaway exactly! Also, I'm thinking the NYTimes is taking credit as an 'institution that is binding the city together.' Seriously?? Guess NYC would be lost and adrift without the NYTimes.
4