HOME > Chowhound > Food Media & News >
Are you making a specialty food? Get great advice
TELL US

L.A. Times food section???

l
lambrusche Nov 14, 2008 08:32 AM

I think its time the L.A. times packed up the food section...I know its only about two pages now when you strip out the Bristol Farms add, but will anyone really miss it?

  1. r
    RicRios Nov 14, 2008 09:03 AM

    Yeah, Sam Zell will miss the adds.

    1. f
      FED Nov 14, 2008 09:04 AM

      hmmm, wednesday's section was 10 pages. i wonder what you're looking at?

      6 Replies
      1. re: FED
        420 Reasons to eat Nov 14, 2008 09:12 AM

        10 Pages? I checked you are correct, I did doubt. I will say that 3 of those pages are full page ads, 2 pages had no ads, and the other 5 pages where an avg of 40% advertising. Not that I have a problem with the ads but I use to look forward to the Food Section and now I find myself disappointed most of the time.

        Maybe they can expand on the 4 pages, Would a 60% articles and 40% advertisement really hurt?

        1. re: 420 Reasons to eat
          j
          janeh Nov 14, 2008 09:16 AM

          I live in AZ and read it on line - no ads!

          1. re: 420 Reasons to eat
            Ruth Lafler Nov 14, 2008 02:51 PM

            Wow. I remember 25 years ago when I was living in So Cal the LA Times food section was actually two sections with about 36 pages each! Even though they were mostly ads, that was still more than now by about a factor of ten. BTW, I believe 50 percent ad space (averaged over the number of pages, not including inserts and supplements) is standard in the newspaper industry. Back then, the LA Times was well-known for its long, rambling features and multi-part stories that existed mostly as a way to fill up the pages between the huge number of ads their sales department was bringing in.

            1. re: Ruth Lafler
              l
              latindancer Nov 14, 2008 10:09 PM

              One of the saddest things living in this great city is the current LA Times.
              Every morning walking out to bring it in only to find it becoming thinner and thinner by the day.
              What is the statistic? Something like 40% of the staff has either left or been cut?
              They blame it on the economy...I say it's those people who prefer, like the people I see with their laptops sitting in a cafe on Beverly, getting their 'news' off the internet along with the blogs.
              I don't look for the LA Times for anything other than an occasional editorial and the thought of quitting it altogether? Never :)

            2. re: 420 Reasons to eat
              p
              Papuli Nov 14, 2008 05:16 PM

              "Would a 60% articles and 40% advertisement really hurt?"

              They think so. The current goal there is 40% articles and 60% ads. (And yes, I know whereof I speak.)

              1. re: Papuli
                b
                bulavinaka Nov 14, 2008 11:55 PM

                David Carp is a walking encyclopedia on all things fruit. It's a shame they cut him years ago, but Russ Parsons is still a draw for me. The Times probably saw these two as making the Food section as too produce heavy with two heavyweights so they cut Carp. Virbila has some good things to say but I usually don't line up with her reviews and she plays in the shadows of J. Gold. I still enjoy reading it - it's a good read while I pile down my oatmeal.

          2. c
            cstr Nov 14, 2008 03:32 PM

            I always look for Obama's column for unbiased food reviews.

            1. c
              condiment Nov 17, 2008 01:08 AM

              In the '90s, it was hands down the best food section in the country. Since then, not so much. And I do wonder how it manages to operate after both its last editor, interim editor, test-kitchen chief, copy editors and most of its staff writers were laid off - although oddly enough, last week's section, themed around L.A. bagel culture, may have been its best in years.

              Show Hidden Posts