Writing over at Native Intelligence, New York Observer columnist (and LA Observed regular from Hancock Park) Bruce Feirstein says the Los Angeles Times is losing the war for the hearts and brains of Angelenos and has only itself to blame. With rare exceptions such as Steve Lopez, he argues the Times has failed to offer anything close to a must-read. It also commits the unforgivable sin of being unexcited by its own city (even though most everyone else is.)

I was one of the people Kurt Andersen spoke to for his column in last week's New York Magazine about the paper’s misguided attempt to be a national newspaper when it barely covers Los Angeles.

In my case, I estimated that less than 15% of the people I come in contact with actually read the paper....

This is where the L.A. Times falls down so badly: By not covering the city as an interesting place, it isn't an interesting newspaper.

I could go on here — about the website that I can’t navigate, or my impression that the paper’s promotional efforts seem more targeted to the 10,000 people who read Variety, instead of the 10 million people who inhabit the city. (Last year, I shook my head in bewilderment every time I passed the L.A. Times billboards that said "For her 18th birthday your daughter wants an agent." Ergo, subscribe to the L.A. Times. Hey guys: This is Los Angeles. If your daughter wants an agent for her 18th birthday, you’re going to subscribe to Variety. I can’t help but wonder if Peter Bart was sending you residuals for this.)

Read the rest at Native Intelligence, the blog where LA Observed contributors write about whatever is on their minds.