I want to see all the good journalists come together and run their own dailies, free from bad decisions made for money only.

I'm not in agreement with random commentor entirely, but I think the seeming outrage over the number of reporters working the Hollywood beat is a little misplaced - it's the town's number one industry! If anything, the Times should be congratulated for covering it thoroughly - doesn't seem like our sorry excuse for a daily puts that much effort into software or aerospace coverage.

Next thing you know, they'll be firing their reporters and shifting the burden of news and politics reporting onto the backs of their books editor, visual art editor, drama editor, interactive media editor, and 8 interns.

It's like reviewing the performance of the band on the last night of the Titanic.

Heh. That's a lot of mileage from one snide comment.

I assume the working artists of LA are generally far from rich, and I empathize with the effect this has on them.

However, I did not say that was "just fine," but rather that the "museum directors" to whom you referred (not "anyone") were entitled fucks for demanding that the paper favor them with coverage, rather than other issues of broader importance.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

Hollywood and the movies are a big industry, but from the Times perspective the important thing is that they have a MASS audience that advertisers are willing to pay for. In contrast, only a tiny fraction of the readers would be interested in the niche arts.

Since galleries, art museums, opera, dance, etc are not popular enough to make advertizing in the Times particularly effective, the management of arts organizations might do better to try to organize their generally wealthy clientele to make a grant to the LA Times to support a reporter, somewhat like an endowed chair at a university. This model wouldn't work in every market, but in a town with many very deep pockets, why not?

If we don't rein in this business mentality that seems to be our god these days, we are going to end with a very stupid country that is depressed because they have no idea how to enjoy their lives. Our predatory economic principles are eating us alive. It is killing our schools and is on the way to sapping every bit of creativity out of us. This "if you can't eat it, it is worthless" mentality will be our downfall.

And let me add that while I'm peeved at being misquoted here, I quite enjoyed your feature article in the latest dead-tree edition. <3

And on third thought, my original comment did not *specifically* refer to the letter of protest from the museum directors, so I retract the claim of misquoting. It was not my intent, but "...my niche industry" could be construed to be referring to you or the signatories of the petition.

@5, I imagine a patron-paid position would create a serious conflict of interest. I'd rather read coverage from someone who knows little about the subject than paid advertising masquerading as reporting.

I can see why LA would have a disproportionate amount of reporters covering Hollywood and movies. However, is it really necessary to cut the one local arts and culture reporter while 16 dwell on a subject also covered by countless newspapers and blogs nationwide?

@9 Three responses:

A. Not really a conflict of interest. Does the symphony select the concert master based on the guidance of the biggest donor? (Maybe they do. I'm not in the arts. I'm pulling all of this straight out of my butt, of course.) I'm assuming that you can squeeze checks out of enough people who don't really have a dog in the hunt and who just want to be a patron of the arts coverage, not those with an interest in the projects covered. It's unlikely that Jeffrey Katzenberg or Angelina Jolie is going to take offense at your review of an opera or gallery show and not cough up again next year for that reason, and if they do, there are still a few other big fish in the sea.

B. And reviewers of things that are sold by advertisers DON'T have a conflict of interest not to savage the product?!?

C. So what? Would you rather have a reporter, or no reporter?

Take your pick.

And note that if someone sponsors the article, they have to label it "advertisement." I don't know if there is a similar issue with sponsoring the reporter, not the page space.

The only reason the arts are the province of the rich is because the rich have carefully crafted model and system THAT ENSURES THIS IS THE CASE. From making arts education outlandishly expensive (or by filtering public arts education by restricting funding) to unpaid internships it all makes it virtually impossible for art to get a foothold in the working class.

@10

A. Personally, I've not known a symphony that hired based on donor preference, but I'm not in the music scene. Still, I've seen donor preference influence the musical selection. So do donors directly influence hiring? Maybe not (or rarely). But, logically-speaking, many wouldn't risk hiring an edgy concertmaster if they thought it imperiled the bulk of their funding.

You mentioned squeezing checks out of people who wouldn't pose a potential conflict of interest, but how would you apply that principle? Screen donations? If so, by what guidelines? And yes, there are always other fish in the sea if one or two primary donors withdraw in a huff. Still, knowing you might have to scramble to fund your position if you write the "wrong" review sounds like an impediment.

B. The paper itself acts as a buffer between advertiser and reporter. Being paid by the donor(s) directly removes that buffer.

C. I already answered: I'd rather have a generalist than a sponsored reporter. Ideally, I'd opt for a specialist.

I rarely read articles labeled as advertisements. I imagine I'd adopt the same policy with a sponsored reporter, and I doubt I'm alone in that. Sounds like a good way to kill the value of the coverage entirely.

Newspaper editors are products of the same education system and subject to the same societal forces that have rendered most Americans visual illiterates. The only surprise is that they didn't axe the visual arts reporters sooner. Tragic.

@11, I'm confused. The arts are called the province of the rich because the rich tend to buy. Yet your comment seems to deal with the cost of becoming an artist in the first place, addressing the supplier rather than buyer. Despite how expensive a formal arts education can be, and how crappy or non-existent the pay, there doesn't seem to be a lack of artists. Don't get me wrong: I too find the expense of higher education disturbing (in all areas), and am dismayed by the lack of arts education funding in public schools. I'm just not sure just how that relates to the buyer end. Could you clarify?

I've long thought that the reason buyers tend to be rich is because, in many cases, art's an expensive luxury item. Not to say I think it's generally overpriced - when you consider the amount of hours that can go into a piece, in many cases the artist is being paid under minimum wage. Still, you can't eat a painting: food, rent, utility bills come first. I know I'd love to buy more work and see more performances, but I've a very limited budget (and a wish list a mile long).

Who cares?

Great article. Depressing comments.

Here's a well-written, good read on the subject of why we need professional critics:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jul…