WTF is the point of the "LA" Times if there's no local section? I may as well take the Denver Post, or the SF Chronicle, or a New York paper.

I'd rather they got rid of the rest of the paper and just kept the California section. It's the only one I ever read. The rest goes in the bottom of the birdcage.

The California section has been anemic for some time. Chopping it further and folding it into the main section makes the downfall of the LA Times that much more rapid...I wonder if Steve Lopez will be axed...

Anytime you hear the word "facilitate," think: What corporate speech!

"These are necessary to facilitate greater efficiencies in how we approach our operations, production and distribution"

gah...

It's just so sad ... soon, LA and OC will be a HUGE news vacuum dominated by the celebrity-fucking local television media.

Hold on OC Weekly ... PLEASE!

"The rest goes in the bottom of the birdcage."

Speaking of material that only merits parrot shit on it, how about axing the dismal Image? Sure, the Sunday paper's getting to be thinner than Paris Hilton's nose, but Image makes even the pathetic Parade magazine - with its fatuous cover-story headlines - come off like the New Yorker. It should be renamed Mirage (or maybe Oakland) coz there's no there there. Folding California news into the main section? Unfrigginbelievable. Infuckinexcusable.

So let me see if I understand this, not only is the L.A. Times cutting their "Calfornia" section, but they're also going to charge me $0.75 ($1.50 Sundays) to Boot?!?!

The California section is the only part of the paper my wife reads. Of course, the Lakers/$C/UCLA section of the paper isn't quite what it used to be. Those one-line descriptions of LB State, UCI and CSUF basketball games just aren't quite enough for me. I still subscribe because I got a rather deep discount last year and the value of the coupons and the Target ad in the Sunday paper cover the cost.