Readers Respond to the New York Times' Los Angeles Coverage

One of the trickiest things to write about if you are a reporter covering Los Angeles for a New York-based newspaper — as I have been for close to eight years — is the subject of Los Angeles itself. I was reminded of that this week when I, along with a colleague, Tim Arango, wrote a piece about the turmoil at the Los Angeles Times and explored what it said about the lack of civic institutions in Los Angeles.

The angle was new, but it’s not a particularly new observation or thought. The Los Angeles Times addressed many of the same questions in 2006 and again in 2015, when an organization was founded by longtime civic figures here to respond to what they saw as a civic vacuum. I am also well aware of the (in truth, well-founded, in my view) wariness Los Angeles readers have of East Coast media coming in and offering look-down-your-nose judgments on life here. (Botox! Day care for dogs! Traffic!) It is a trope that I and my colleagues in the bureau here have tried at all costs to avoid.

Part of the challenge and allure of covering a place like Los Angeles is people have very strong opinions of, and loyalty to, the place where they live. I expected the story would ignite a hearty and thoughtful debate, though I wasn’t quite prepared for how my Twitter feed blew up the night it posted. And the next morning. And the next afternoon.

The story is based on interviews with prominent Los Angeles figures, including a former mayor and two people who headed commissions that tried to deal with governance in the city. And on a personal note, I not only love living here, I think this is one of the most — if not the most — interesting municipalities to cover in the nation, if not the world.

So in that spirit, here are some of the responses The New York Times got, on social media and in emails to the Times’ newsletter, California Today. They have been edited for clarity and brevity.