It certainly doesn’t help that so many independent bookstores have closed in LA.

Nice, thoughtful post, WBC. You’re right, David U., like me, is assuredly on the left (and a good friend), but he’s also a great and very knowledgeable lover of books—both high brow and not (we first bonded over our fanaticism over certain mystery novels).

Yet, if people like you feel left out when you read the BR, that’s not good. That suggests mre of a balance is needed. In terms of Opinion, I know there’s a strong effort to print and recruit conservative Op Ed writers. I certainly see ‘em in the Opinion section—but then again, my pal Susan Brenneman is usually the one who edits those folks (for some reason) and I keep an eye on her work.

LL—I’m afraid that the LA Times isn’t going to do more stories on gangsters being saved by poetry. That’s my job. AND you’ll be delighted to know that there’s another such story coming this week—probably tomorrow morning, Friday latest.

Also, about City Hall, I think David Z.’s excellent AND he works his butt off, I promise you. But they need more than just him and the editors need to let him off his leash—which is I think what likely irritates you. When he was at the LA Weekly, he was far, far more critical of City Hall. Now he’s stuck in the land of LA Times neutral speak, which is not the best use of his talents, in my personal opinion.

Hi RLC, for my money both Wasserman and Ulin are great BR editors—each with different strengths. But Wasserman got out before the slashing, burning and pressure to dumb down began.

Unfortunatly, Same Zell is of the Woody variety. Do you have any books at all Woddster except accounting texts and Regnery hatchet jobs?

This cartoon (LINK) may explain the value and expertise of those who review books. You can get anyone to make up the reviews. Just don’t expect a private company to pay for them just because you want that and write letters.

The L.A. Times just needs to write a few more stories about the poor misunderstood gang members being victims of society who just needing to read poetry to be a reformed outstanding citizen, to provide the “balanced” reporting some complain about. And maybe another sob story about the poor immigrant being deported back home for the 5th time.

My real concern is what old newspaper will I now use to line the bottom of my parrot’s cage, the parrot really enjoyed the L.A. Times and put it to good use.

But I’ll admit, one reason I stopped taking the LA Times review too seriously is the leftist bias in most of the regular reviewers (like David Ulin), which often colors the review too much with personal bias; and it’s also reflected in many of the the books they choose to review. (This leftist bias has been noted by a lot of readers as a criticism of the Opinion section, even the slant of the articles themselves lately, even the headline slants — which I’ve noted on an occasion or two.)

Despite all this, if there were a genuine commitment to saving let alone improving the paper, it could be done just by focusing on more diverse points of view, including some from the more conservative writers that left-leaning intellectuals and professor types have a personal contempt for, but who speak for some readers — just look at the online comments. Most people, in my opinion, just want to be informed of what’s going on in their communities and City Hall, without a political slant at all, insofar as possible.

But Zell’s leveraged buyout, as discussed in your earlier thread, never contemplated anything but taking it apart. If it’s any consolation, he seems to be dessimating his hometown paper the Tribune, too, though not quite as thoroughly.