Readers' Opinions

From Jacob Sundstrom on July 1, 2010 at 11:01 AM
I agree about the wrap ad. This is the third or fourth time the Times has done this, and it is very depressing to see a once great paper destroy itself like this.
From 166.137.138.11 on July 1, 2010 at 11:10 AM
I don't have a problem with it. A part of the reason old school journalism is talking fire is it's stubborn insistence on an outmoded sense of what constitutes journalistic integrity. This is clearly a promo and in no way dies it change my perception of the Times.
From Robert Niles on July 1, 2010 at 11:23 AM
I should explain the "LATEXTRA" thing for out-of-LA readers, too.

Last year, the Times made a deal to print the Wall Street Journal locally that resulted in the Times having to back up its deadline for the front section of the newspaper to the early evening to accommodate the WSJ press run.

In order to get news that happens after, oh, 5 pm into the LA paper, the Times added a new section, which it called LATEXTRA, for those stories.

As a result, the "traditional" front page tends to be dominated by staff-driven feature and investigative pieces while the actual breaking news ends up in LATEXTRA. (It has to be in all caps to work the pun between LAT-Extra and Late-xtra. LAT being the acronym for the Los Angeles Times.)

So, ultimately, this ad is a sell-out of a sell-out. How very meta.

From steve lee on July 1, 2010 at 11:25 AM
Speaking of what's on TV, tonight's episode of Ace of Cakes features the opening of I-305 at King's Dominion (they provided the cake for Media Day).