A Return to Essentials

Last week's big news? The publication of our long-awaited, heavily anticipated list of 99 Essential Restaurants, of course. Readers were happy to see the issue's return. Writes Conchinita Bouza, “Thank you. You're great!” Adds Skip McCraw, “Great feature! The map is informative, and the write-ups on each restaurant are concise and well-written.”

Inevitably, there were critics.

Writes Greg539, “Great list! My only complaint is putting food trucks on a restaurant list. Not sure that is fair. If you did a list of top 99 food trucks, don't you think it would be weird to include a restaurant?”

Paul Bobadilla's concerns are geographic: “No South Bay love?” Sweets9933 adds, “The Valley includes a full third of Los Angeles. I think it deserves a little more representation. There are quite a few worthy mentions beyond the two included.”

Then there's Antoanet Aburto Zolezzi, who takes issue with our entire premise. “Ninety-nine!?! C'mon! A great five or 10 would have been a better article!” Antoanet, have you seen the size of this city?

Signs of the Times

Who will buy the L.A. Times? Hillel Aron raised just that question in his March 1 feature, “Los Angeles Times for Sale.” Readers were thrilled with the result. Writes Brady Westwater, “This is one of the best-written — and researched — stories I have ever read in the L.A. Weekly — or any other L.A. newspaper.

Formerly Disgusted also is a fan. “Great article,” he writes. “But the L.A. Times has become nothing more than a delivery vehicle for ad inserts and 'special publications' that have no editorial content worth mentioning. I get home delivery, and on Mondays, if the winds are strong, the paper gets blown away. It's too far gone now to bring it back. Go for a walk in the morning and see how few papers you see in driveways.

L.A. Native writes, “This is a fascinating account of what happened at the Times. But I wish the idea that the paper's economic and readership declines were inevitable, due to the sad state of newspapers and the terrible economy, would die a well-deserved death. If the series of inept owners had promoted their 'product' instead of brutally slashing staff and tearing it down publicly (à la Sam Zell's idiotic comments), perhaps the Times could have weathered the severe economic downturn in the industry, as has The New York Times. (Which does have problems, I know.)”

Then there's reader Old Norse Bruin, who enthuses, “The kind of panache in this article is what I want to see from the Los Angeles Times!!! Very, very informative, lively, fascinating behind the scenes digging/reporting! I only wish the L.A. Weekly would buy the L.A. Times.”

Now that would be a crazy good time!

You Write, We Read

Please send letters to L.A. Weekly, 3861 Sepulveda Blvd., Culver City, CA 90230. Or write us at ReadersWrite@laweekly.com. Full name and contact info preferred.

Advertising disclosure: We may receive compensation for some of the links in our stories. Thank you for supporting LA Weekly and our advertisers.