|
|
|
Email is rolling in (OK trickling, but coming in nonetheless) making a point I should have noted when announcing the L.A. Times hire yesterday of an automobile critic. An auto critic is nice, but it's been at least 18 months since the paper has had a regular drama critic. When Michael Phillips left for the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Magazine called it "a step up" on the basis that theater there was taken more seriously than here. Maybe, but there's a lot of good (and mediocre) theater in Los Angeles. Apparently the Times has interviewed several top candidates and has been unable to close a deal -- same with the TV critic job that Howard Rosenberg just vacated.
One emailer, a Times subscriber, also complains about being unable to find reviews of recent Carol Channing or Tony Bennett shows at the Hollywood Bowl:
She also reports numerous failed attempts to sign on to the new Calendar Live. [If she had got on, she'd have found a Channing review, from the Monday Aug. 11 paper, by Daryl H. Miller]
The Times coverage of culture is insane these days, but the thing is, nobody cares, because nobody gets past the first two parts anyway. It is almost charitable for you to keep covering their nonnews sections here--it's kind of like covering the Classified ads. My suggestion is, when you happen to buy an LA Times (please don't tell me you actually subscribe), lift the News and California sections, and immediately dispose of the rest of the paper, which will only cause you to digest your donut with difficulty if you should happen to try to read it.
Posted by: joseph at August 27, 2003 10:36 AM
of LA Observed
Why is it so hard to hire a drama critic? Can't they just try 5 or 6 unknowns for a while and see if any of them turn out to be good?
Posted by: Martin at August 26, 2003 03:50 PM