Where were the L.A. Weekly endorsements? The “Voters’ Guide” you offered this time around [Nov. 3–9] was sadly lacking in any real substance. The L.A. Weekly has always prided itself on investigative journalism and frankly probably the most important investigative journalism the Weekly has done since its inception are the endorsements every election cycle. While I didn’t always agree with the rationale for the endorsements, at least I was given a well-researched opinion backed by a thoughtul argument. This voter guide is pathetically thin on fact and devoid of researched opinion. It does not represent the L.A. Weekly I know and trust, and if this is an example of what the new ownership is up to, then we have truly lost the independant voice of the city.
Please continue to provide in-depth election coverage and endorsements. For me, this is the single most valuable feature of the L.A. Weekly. I am fairly well informed — I read the articles that interest me in the New York and Los Angeles Times, and listen to Democracy Now! and NPR when I can. But when it comes election time, I need a detailed analysis of each candidate and legislative item on the ballot. The L.A. Weekly can put everything into context — if a politician has promised one thing and done another, the Weekly should point that out. If I consider a bond measure, say, to fund schools, I want the Weekly to remind me that such-and-such a measure was passed just four years ago and the money was misspent OR that the money is necessary because of such-and-such reason. I admit that I am not a regular reader of the L.A. Weekly. I occasionally read the reviews, I refer to the Calendar section, I read the investigative political stories that grab my attention. But every election, I rush out to get the paper because I rely on it to provide the history, analysis and context to guide my voting choices. Please consider including discussion of judicial candidates as well. People are voting blind on these candidates. Thank you.
Who Wants Yesterday’s Programs?
Why did your TV critic Robert Abele write an article [“Battle of the Network Stars,” Oct. 27–Nov. 2] comparing two shows that are so obviously on the way out? I mean, is there anything more pathetic than an outdated article on one show (Studio 60) that has declined so precipitiously in the ratings in less than two months that it is being canceled while your issue about it is still on the racks and another show that arrived stillborn with ratings that wouldn’t keep it on the air if it were on the USA Network? Worse yet, the “insight” provided by your writer has already been hashed out by numerous posters online, making his article both irrelevant and redundant.
I think a more interesting article topic would have been why networks continue to hire the same big names to produce their shows even as their ratings continue to decline each and every year. Or maybe just examine why a show as funny as 30 Rock couldn’t even get a fair shot in today’s television climate. Anything but a standard review of two shows we already know are finished. It is just plain irrelevant.
I, too, like Kate Sullivan, am suffering with Franz Ferdinand “Take Me Out” mashup symptoms [Rock & Roll Love Letter, “Do the Monster Mashup!” Oct. 27–Nov. 2]. In my case, the similarity is to Ringo Starr’s “Back Off Boogaloo” (circa 1971). To me, the signature Franz Ferdinand guitar riff mirrors the chorus melody of Ringo’s hit. Please forgive me if I’ve introduced another looping mashup in your head, but you probably woulda come up with it eventually . . . and I had to tell somebody who would understand.
Question begged: Where are the boundaries where the more recent song in a “mashup” becomes homage? Becomes derivative? Becomes rip-off?