The L.A. Times is A Damn Good Paper..So There.

So Kurt Anderson thinks the LA Times is irrelevant in its own city? What garbage. So he polls a few of his New York snob friends to determine that the LA Times is meagerly read by the educated class? And this is what passes for reporting? First of all, you need to live in a city in order to determine whether that city's paper is worthwhile or not. I'm wondering how assiduous Anderson's LA Times' reading might be. LA Times-bashing is becoming one of those odious West L.A. cliches; all of those virtuous liberals who are so proud of the fact that they only read the New York Times and hang on Frank Rich's every word. Do these folks even know who George Skelton is, and that he writes the best column on local politics in the city -- in the LA Times? The problem with most New York transplants is that they really don't give a shit what happens in this city, so their denial of the LA Times is justified. This is just an indication of their willful myopia and blinkered cultural outlook. I love both papers (I write for both of them, as well) and if you read them both daily, you find that they compliment each other quite nicely.

Please folks - ragging on the Times is not going to make anything better.