We realize we beat up on our local paper, but, in all fairness, we read it regularly and feel it’s our right and responsibility. And, again to be fair, we beat up on news outlets we don’t consume regularly. All’s fair when it comes to making fun of the press.
As part of our regular routine, we read the Los Angeles Times Book Review section from cover to cover*. Then, for fun, we look at the local bestsellers. If we were the type to do those charts and graphs, we’d see there is no correlation between the reviews and charts. Oh sure, you can have your statistical burps, but we’re professionals here — the overlap is not worth mentioning.
Now rumors are flying (okay, they’ve been flying for some time, but we can’t keep up with everything) that the LAT may be losing its books editor. We wish we could say this upsets us, but, as noted, we read the section regularly. It is rare that we find a book we must have. It does happen, but not often enough. In a recent poll of our peers, we learned we are pretty much the only regular reader of the section. This strikes us as wrong. Again, we believe that to be considered viable and reliable, a book review section of a major newspaper should appeal to a broader cross-section of readers. Sure you want to introduce hidden gems, but if the section heads straight for the recycling bin without passing Go, it’s not doing its job.
And, no, we are not applying for the position. It seem to require a careful application of work, and we can’t get behind that concept.
* – It’s short, so one mustn’t think we’re taxing our mind.
- Leave West, Young Man? (Note: This may or may not be open to subscribers only)
