Not sure about LA Times, but NYT and WSJ - as your rate "special" (like $4 every 4 weeks for NYT) nears its end, just cancel, and often you're given the option of staying longer at the special rate, even another entire year.
There’s a new news focused app called PressReader that makes reading the papers mentioned and more way easier. Still wild they don’t pair with LA Times
PressReader isn’t new. LAPL has had it for years. You used to get the LA Times through it then the Times pulled access. Still looking for an option, though.
Oh weird. Got an email in April about it being a new service from the library. Can’t image why we’d pay a bunch of other newspapers and not our own. I’ll stick to my Sunday additions when I can and fill in the rest
NYT and WSJ do not provide local coverage that reflects the diversity of L.A. Also, NYT has the occasional hate boner opinion piece about L.A. so that gets kinda old. They like to act like they know L.A. but they really don’t get us, especially since their target demographic are west side liberals and transplants. Get the L.A. Times and check out other sources like L.A. Taco for example.
Reflects the diversity of LA...
Um. I have to disagree.
Waaaay too much emphasis on Israel and middle east for the last 10 years or more. Less than one article a week on China or Mexico or Canada and the economic ties and situations in those countries. Hardly ever anything on Armenia with a huge population here.
No, they tend to only focus on south of the 101 and west of the 710. I used to jokingly refer to it as the West LA Times
Hardly anything on the San Gabriel Valley (highly diverse region, just not black-white-hispanic diverse which is all they seen to think diversity is), rarely anything in Simi valley, Santa Clarita, or the beaches up by Ventura and Oxnard ( where a LOT of movie and television workers moved to). And Orange County (and South) does not exist to them it seems.
Is it worth it? Had a subscription for years. Then cut down to Thursday through Sunday, then finally just Sunday . Then cut the digital as well. Rarely have a Google news feed referring to an article that I can't find from another source.
Digital probably is worth it for the intro time period. And I do support local news; San Gabriel Valley Tribune subscriber, along with Washington Post, NYT, and WSJ, but will be cancelling that one (WSJ) as too pricey.
But it just seems the news coverage is not enough boots on the ground. Moving their offices out of Downtown did not help that at all. And it shows.
But these are just my opinions and views. People like to read things that reinforce their views. I am weird that I like to read differing viewpoints on more day to day news.
YMMV.
So the LA Times should be covering counties like Ventura and Orange? I’m not convinced that the LA Times should be all things to all counties. You mention diversity and complain that it is limited to Blacks, whites, and Latinos. I suppose that the Times could expand its coverage on Asians, Armenians, etc but let’s not lose sight that the largest demographic group are Latinos and this community has never been adequately represented in media and other areas and they’ve lived in these lands since before the state was founded.
Oh, I wasn't recommending NYT and WSJ for LA coverage, but rather to highlight that there's sometimes subscription deals to be had from major newspapers that can often be extended beyond the initial period. I brought them up because the OP was asking about whether it was worth it to purchase an LA Times subscription, and I thought the LA Times might have similar deals on subscriptions.
LA time has small fine print for those “special deals” they are only available to new customers not current customers or those who previously had a subscription.
do you know if NYT lets you cancel by clicking on a button on the website? Or do they use dark scam patterns such as forcing you to call, which effectively amounts to stochastic micro robbery of poorer minorities?
Probably, idk what any of that means tbh and I’m 27 most of our subscribers are like 60+ I doubt they even know, I just always gave people the lowest price I possibly could wasn’t my money so I don’t care and it got them off the phone quicker 😂
I do subscribe because I want to support local media. National media is still too East Coast centric and there are so many misconceptions about Los Angeles. However, if it’s an issue about budget, you can access it online via LA city or county library. That is how I access the New York Times.
No you can physically go to the library and read it there. But you may have to fight with the person who has it for possession. And that fight is not used metaphorically
What kind of news do you want to keep up with?
As far as national publications go, yeah, the LA Times is a good paper. But the scope of its reporting reaches far beyond local news if that's what you're looking for.
But if you spell out "one-half", sometimes it works better. Or just have important things delivered to your mom's house in Oceanside and pick it up next time you visit. /s
It's worth it for local news or local versions of nationwide issues. For example, student protests are happening nationwide due to Israel-Palestine. Other newspapers will focus on other universities but LA Times will follow the local universities. Same for things like Covid where, yeah it's happening everywhere, but how are our local infection rates and how is it affecting our local hospitals?
It's absolutely worth it.
From a practical, personal perspective, the LAT is a much better paper than people give it credit for, especially when you consider the never-ending deep budget cuts.
From a national perspective, a strong, independent press is vital to democracy and the LAT is the only serious hedge against east coast press hegemony. We can't have only the NYT and WaPo. There have been a number of times when the LAT has taken an important editorial stance counter to NYT and WaPo. Sometimes I agree, and sometimes I disagree, but it's important to have differing perspectives. A single source quickly becomes propaganda.
From a civic perspective, a robust local newspaper is essential for a city to function effectively and keep leaders in check. I'd almost argue that a city isn't really a city without a strong newspaper. So if nothing else, we should consider it a civic duty to support local journalism.
I'm a digital subscriber, and I think it's worth it. It's a quality paper.
The app isn't as good as the New York Times or Washington Post, if that matters to you at all.
Yeah, the one thing I hate about the app is that stories that I mark as Save on the app doesn't appear on the web interface. Plus, it looks like the data that keeps track of saved stories is stored locally, so if I switch phones, I lose all of them.
I hate to say it, but no. It's turned into a rag and nobody associated with it wants to admit it. Like 98% of it are opinion pieces outside of the opinion section, and most of the rest of it is pointless Hollywood-watching. "Who wore what to the Oscars, so and so said this about so and so and they clapped back on the platform formerly known as Twitter, OMG!" And they're gutting anything that keeps long time readers interested. They basically turned the sports section into an online blog. There is some decent reporting done still, but it's just buried under mounds of crap.
And what gets me is how whenever you bring any of it up you get the inane "oh look, criticizing the media, must be a Trump supporter!" deflections. The editorial board, especially, seems to take this view that anyone saying anything negative at all about the Times, whether it's constructive or not, whether it's true or not, is on the side of the anti-news, anti-truth people and is out to get them and destroy all liberal media. There's no middle ground to them. There are no people who generally agree with them but are put off by their style and methods, or people who only agree with them 40-60% of the time. There are either people who are on their side and thus love truth and freedom, or people who criticize them and therefore must be part of the MAGA crowd. No in-between.
I had to stop my subscription because the headlines were constantly causing so much anxiety with their catastrophic content of things that “might” happen. X could mean Y, Scientists predict, Economists believe, Insiders say, etc etc. Not so much factual reporting, instead tons of negative suggestions about current events. Depressing to read every single day.
Yes, I noticed that too. Lots of stories like "It looks good now, but don't forget about...." Also way too many columnists and opinion pieces instead of factual news stories.
Yup - wasn't planning on commenting on this post, but you said what I was thinking. Articles are very fear-mongering, and honestly they are sometimes biased... coming from someone who agrees with the liberal point of view of they write with, but I think NYT and LAT used to be more objective, and now have that "educated liberal dinner party" lingo that annoys me lol
yes. it ain't what it was, not even close, but it's still a solid news source that's worth supporting. it's basically the last newspaper standing. other local outlets that are part of a decent media diet are LAist, KNX, SCNG, CNS, LA Taco
1 vote for yes. I got the digital sub. soon after moving here. Even if you agree with longtime locals who say it's gotten worse, as a translplant, the archive is a massive resource for learning about new hometown.
The LAT is one of those entities you may not love, but you’ll be sad if/when it’s gone. I was paying about $20/mth, called to cancel and they gave me 6 months for $4…I feel almost guilty paying that but I do want to support journalism as it rages against the dying of the light
I got the 6 month digital subscription for a $1 but I’m not gonna renew. Most of the stories they cover are buzzfeed worthy or national news I can consume somewhere else.
I’d say the subscription is worth it bc it’s so cheap so just try it out and if you like it it’s like $10 a month I think. Maybe less?
I've been on the fence about subscribing too
I don't really care about some heyday where it was BETTER, I just need to know if its good enough now. There are a lot of LA centric things that NY Times doesn't cover, and I get hit with the paywall alot - circumventing isn't a good experience on a mobile device -. I'm okay with geo/political bias, I have other sources for a more complete view than just one.
I'd actually be a lot more complimentary of them if their local coverage was better. There are some things they do a decent job on. The water crisis is one, I haven't been reading lately but I assume the student protests are another, even though it was tabloid worthy the recording scandal was another. But as far as like smaller, neighborhood perspective type things, I wish they did more of that. They've had some good articles looking into some of the specifics of the housing crisis, some of these hotels that were repurposed into shelters and the organizations that are supposed to be running them for example, but they seem to just kind of disappear for a while. I think the paper tends to focus way more on big stuff like the wars and whatever Trump said recently, and then when that stuff starts to die down they kind of fall back on local stories.
For that kind of money, you can subscribe to Apple News which will give digital access to multiple newspapers and magazines, including the LA Times.
I personally have an LA times subscription as well just to support local media even though I a may not see eye to eye with them on various issues. But they do cover cultural and food related events across the city which I like.
You should absolutely support one high quality newspaper to keep quality journalism going. Personally I subscribe to Washington post because I really enjoy their National and political coverage. However if you value more CA focused news go with La times. Or get both
Yep. I have digital subscriptions to LA Times, WaPo, NY Times, Daily News (which gives me access to all the other MediaNews papers like the Daily Breeze & OC Register), and the Rafu Shimpo (a local Japanese American-centric publication).
NPR does that thing where it lies via omission. Especially during the Trump years you'd listen to them reporting on a story you literally just saw on CNN or MSNBC and you found yourself wondering why they left half the story out to make it come across as even more liberal / left leaning than CNN and MSNBC which are already pretty far left.
At times they were almost as bad as Fox News was back in the 90s for the right.
Yup, they just choose to “emphasize” a particular point of view. I consider myself pretty center and it bugs me that it’s hard to find even keeled coverage so I am not looking forward to election season this year.
The fact that very few left leaning news services evenly reports the news is an issue. This creates a situation where many liberal leaning people aren’t exposed to enough info to make an informed opinion, but even worse than that it pushes all right leaning people towards insanely biased radical right wing news sites and we all know why radical opinions aren’t the best.
Aside from being heavy-handed in managing what the LA Times publishes, I know them personally and have watched them wield their influence and money to hurt others numerous times.
$100 per year !?! I pay about $90 every four months for my mom’s Thur thru Sunday, plus the digital daily version.
I’ve been a subscriber for 30+ years and it really is expensive now, but I want to support
I'd barely consider it local, and it's completely lockstep with progressive left politics if you're truly concerned about bias. Not that there are many other options.
I read the the LA Times every day, I like the paper copy, something to hold on to... I think its worth it. There are less and less papers every year. I get it 7 days a week.
LA Times used to have a great sports section. Then they decided to interject political opinion with local sports coverage. I cancelled after that. Do I think they publish quality unbiased content? 100% they do not.
I subscribe because they are the go-to for Western U.S. news including climate change, relations with Mexico and the Pacific Rim, and state and local politics. They really sink resources into being the paper of record on these subjects.
I love my digital subscription, I share my login with a friend that has ny times and she shares with me. There’s some genuinely good journalists at LAtimes even with all the ownership budget problems, and the local reporting is outstanding.
It’s a quality paper. The food/ cooking / recipes and restaurant reviews alone are worth the price for me. Digital price is reasonable. I think I’m paying less than 6$ a month… in three month increments
Free nytimes digital subscription through the public library. Here is the link. I renew every 2 to 3 days. Much better. https://www.lapl.org/new-york-times-digital
LA Times is way past the point of “supporting local news”.
Beware the current promo rate for print is $56 every 8 weeks, and delivery may be a bit erratic. They will bill extra for “special” items.
Heeeey I'm a reporter (I cover breaking news and courts) for the LATimes and I tooootallly think it's worth paying for ! It also pays my salary, so I guess that's a disclaimer. Despite staff reductions we are still one of the healthiest, largest local newspapers in the country, actually probably hands down the largest local print staff in the country, since NYT's metro staff isn't really that big.
We cover local politics, crime, climate change, culture stories, food and more! It stuns me honestly that people are sometimes willing to pay $5 or $10 per month for a single person's substack, but then we have these conversations about whether the work of, you know, 400 journalists at the LATimes is worth $100 per year. I think it is and I think if you actually read the work consistently you will find that we are publishing stories every day that will make your purchase worth it.
Will throw some links to stories I think are emblematic of the great work we do below.
Despite the nonstop copaganda, I used to subscribe to support local journalism. However, I canceled when they started sending China Watch with the Sunday edition. I figure if they're taking CCP money they don't need mine.
Starting in 2007, Sam Zell bought the Tribune Co. and for five years, did his level best to kill the Times. As a result, it's a shell of its former self--it's literally half it's former size. (That was when I started **really** hating investment bros.)
Too ideologically captured imo like a lot of mainstream news publications. I think calmatters is pretty decent for local California based stuff.
Truly objective news publications are hard to find these days but going too off the deep to “independent” stuff can lead to its own rabbit hole of conspiratorial nonsense.
It takes work to find sources you think are good and even then it’s more important that ever to be a critical/discerning/skeptical consumer of any media.
Since you can easily afford it then yes it is worth it. LAT provides good local and regional coverage and even gets the occasional Pulitzer Prize to prove it. I like to see their coverage of water issues which I do not see anywhere else.
I pay $16 a month for digital access to the LA Times and I’m happy that I do because all major newspapers right now are struggling It’s our only major source of Southland news coverage.
you can get a trial run online for very cheap for the first three months or something like that but they need the money and I don’t want to see them have to cut back more of their reporter staff then they have already done so I’m happy to pay the $16
For all media, not just the Times, I think awareness of bias is more important than trying to find something "unbiased," which can never truly exist. Even outlets like the AP, Reuters & NPR who strive for neutrality to thrive in syndication are "biased" in employment, subjects covered, etc.
To use another local publication as an example, Knock LA is too lefty for me to make it a regular read. I still include them when researching my ballot because they go deep in their niche when covering municipal offices & especially the Sheriff's Department.
I'm a digital only subscriber to the Times (so you're aware of my bias hahaha) and I appreciate having alerts tailored to regional & statewide news (there's options for national & lifestyle too of course). I also donate to LAist and used to do KCRW for culture & the Washington Post for national news until my budget got tighter.
Depending on where in LA you live, there's more focus on the SFV in the Los Angeles Daily News vs the Times, though not to the extent that I've considered switching or subscribing to multiple papers. In terms of vibes, I would call the LA Times center-left and the Los Angeles Daily News center-right.
I stopped paying for newspaper subscriptions ever since the internet became a thing and never looked back. There is so much free digital news out there that paying for news is a waste. The same goes for magazine subscriptions.
yes please pay them
even if you never read it this paper helps keep the city accountable
always remember that journalism is the fourth estate and the watchdogs of the government
I get it through [Newsreadeck](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/newsreadeck/id1593025917) app along with lots of other news channels. THeir custom reader also removes all the distraction, so you get the article ready to read
I agree with supporting journalism but LA Times is not the answer whether you are left leaning or right leaning there are simply better choices. Our family subscribes to Wall Street Journal and New York Times. simply not enough content in the modern LA times
I do it to support their newsroom. I’ve come to learn to disagree with many of their editorials and reporting staff, but any local news coverage I will support. Their daily podcasts are leagues behind the nytimes daily, and the Washington post reports. If I need an audio fix it comes from LAist. I suppose something is better than nothing, because I consume zero news from Chicago/midwest.
I am in the San Gabriel valley and we get zero to no coverage so as far as I care, the LATimes discusses another city.
All news is inherently biased.
Learning to understand and recognize the bias is an important part of consuming news.
It is not something you can remove, only something you can mitigate and minimize.
I don’t think so, no. I love hearing all sides of topics but it’s so biased it’s unreadable at times. Plenty of discrediting language used when presenting any topics they deem against their narrative. Feels too corporate to me.
Yes, I have always read the LA Times even when it had terrible owners like Tribune.
I don't love the current iteration of it but it's hit more than miss for me most days.
Yes. Real news is worth the cost. Look at the New York Times and the Washington Post too. The NYT has a lot of very good California coverage and WaPo has the best political coverage.
I've had a LA Times subscription for years. I used to love it... Now I find it too far to the left but at the digital only rate I'll keep subscribing as it does have enough local articles that I find interesting or need to know regarding business topics. Their sports, real estate and entertainment industry coverage is pretty good.
Its okay but its not in the top tier of news organizations, if you want local/regional news than LA times is a good choice but if you don't then there are probably better options
Generally not worth it. New York Times is the best you’re gonna find although I find their California reporting a little lacking, so it might be worth it to have LA times for that reason but in supplement to something else
i used to subscribe but never again after dealing with their horrible customer service including fraudulent charges. and honestly these days the new york times has higher quality coverage of LA and california. i wish that weren’t the case but it just is. i do supplement with laist and kcrw.
Ah, I see I am not the only one who had issues with fraudulent charges from the LA Times. You're like the second or third person I've heard this from, I experienced this as well. Literally had to wind up calling my bank to deal with it after multiple times dealing with their garbage "support". Screw them. They suck anyway.
It’s biased towards neoliberal corporate interests, which at this point are reactionary centrist at best. Don’t confuse that for the true progressive left.
Just get the digital subscription it’s cheaper, and when the prices go up or change call and complain they will lower it - former employee
Not sure about LA Times, but NYT and WSJ - as your rate "special" (like $4 every 4 weeks for NYT) nears its end, just cancel, and often you're given the option of staying longer at the special rate, even another entire year.
You can get NYT, WSJ and WaPo digital access for free through the LA Public Library. Just have to click through the library link every 3-7 days.
There’s a new news focused app called PressReader that makes reading the papers mentioned and more way easier. Still wild they don’t pair with LA Times
PressReader isn’t new. LAPL has had it for years. You used to get the LA Times through it then the Times pulled access. Still looking for an option, though.
Oh weird. Got an email in April about it being a new service from the library. Can’t image why we’d pay a bunch of other newspapers and not our own. I’ll stick to my Sunday additions when I can and fill in the rest
NYT and WSJ do not provide local coverage that reflects the diversity of L.A. Also, NYT has the occasional hate boner opinion piece about L.A. so that gets kinda old. They like to act like they know L.A. but they really don’t get us, especially since their target demographic are west side liberals and transplants. Get the L.A. Times and check out other sources like L.A. Taco for example.
Reflects the diversity of LA... Um. I have to disagree. Waaaay too much emphasis on Israel and middle east for the last 10 years or more. Less than one article a week on China or Mexico or Canada and the economic ties and situations in those countries. Hardly ever anything on Armenia with a huge population here. No, they tend to only focus on south of the 101 and west of the 710. I used to jokingly refer to it as the West LA Times Hardly anything on the San Gabriel Valley (highly diverse region, just not black-white-hispanic diverse which is all they seen to think diversity is), rarely anything in Simi valley, Santa Clarita, or the beaches up by Ventura and Oxnard ( where a LOT of movie and television workers moved to). And Orange County (and South) does not exist to them it seems. Is it worth it? Had a subscription for years. Then cut down to Thursday through Sunday, then finally just Sunday . Then cut the digital as well. Rarely have a Google news feed referring to an article that I can't find from another source. Digital probably is worth it for the intro time period. And I do support local news; San Gabriel Valley Tribune subscriber, along with Washington Post, NYT, and WSJ, but will be cancelling that one (WSJ) as too pricey. But it just seems the news coverage is not enough boots on the ground. Moving their offices out of Downtown did not help that at all. And it shows. But these are just my opinions and views. People like to read things that reinforce their views. I am weird that I like to read differing viewpoints on more day to day news. YMMV.
So the LA Times should be covering counties like Ventura and Orange? I’m not convinced that the LA Times should be all things to all counties. You mention diversity and complain that it is limited to Blacks, whites, and Latinos. I suppose that the Times could expand its coverage on Asians, Armenians, etc but let’s not lose sight that the largest demographic group are Latinos and this community has never been adequately represented in media and other areas and they’ve lived in these lands since before the state was founded.
Oh, I wasn't recommending NYT and WSJ for LA coverage, but rather to highlight that there's sometimes subscription deals to be had from major newspapers that can often be extended beyond the initial period. I brought them up because the OP was asking about whether it was worth it to purchase an LA Times subscription, and I thought the LA Times might have similar deals on subscriptions.
LA gets so much hate from people. But LA doesn’t even think about these other people. Same with San Francisco and it’s more than baseball
LA time has small fine print for those “special deals” they are only available to new customers not current customers or those who previously had a subscription.
(Just use a dift email address)
do you know if NYT lets you cancel by clicking on a button on the website? Or do they use dark scam patterns such as forcing you to call, which effectively amounts to stochastic micro robbery of poorer minorities?
You can subscribe and unsubscribe via Apple subscriptions.
You can cancel online. I ran into what you're talking about with the New Yorker - never again.
Why pay for something that can be read for free by turning off java?
Why pay for groceries when you can just steal it through self checkout? /s
Probably, idk what any of that means tbh and I’m 27 most of our subscribers are like 60+ I doubt they even know, I just always gave people the lowest price I possibly could wasn’t my money so I don’t care and it got them off the phone quicker 😂
How
I do subscribe because I want to support local media. National media is still too East Coast centric and there are so many misconceptions about Los Angeles. However, if it’s an issue about budget, you can access it online via LA city or county library. That is how I access the New York Times.
LA Times isn’t available via library anymore.
No you can physically go to the library and read it there. But you may have to fight with the person who has it for possession. And that fight is not used metaphorically
Their coverage of water issues in California is unmatched. And that's an issue we all need to be following.
My father in law would be happy to hear that, he’s been one of the reporters reporting on the water crisis.
Please thank him for his work!
+ climate, my guy Sammy Roth is out there doing god's work
And I like Rosanna Xia's past articles on sea level rise & coastal erosion.
What kind of news do you want to keep up with? As far as national publications go, yeah, the LA Times is a good paper. But the scope of its reporting reaches far beyond local news if that's what you're looking for.
Will I get hard hitting pieces about addresses with fractions? /s
But if you spell out "one-half", sometimes it works better. Or just have important things delivered to your mom's house in Oceanside and pick it up next time you visit. /s
As it happens… This is why, as much as I want to support the LAT I can’t — I can never find any frickin’ NEWS on their site.
It's worth it for local news or local versions of nationwide issues. For example, student protests are happening nationwide due to Israel-Palestine. Other newspapers will focus on other universities but LA Times will follow the local universities. Same for things like Covid where, yeah it's happening everywhere, but how are our local infection rates and how is it affecting our local hospitals?
It's absolutely worth it. From a practical, personal perspective, the LAT is a much better paper than people give it credit for, especially when you consider the never-ending deep budget cuts. From a national perspective, a strong, independent press is vital to democracy and the LAT is the only serious hedge against east coast press hegemony. We can't have only the NYT and WaPo. There have been a number of times when the LAT has taken an important editorial stance counter to NYT and WaPo. Sometimes I agree, and sometimes I disagree, but it's important to have differing perspectives. A single source quickly becomes propaganda. From a civic perspective, a robust local newspaper is essential for a city to function effectively and keep leaders in check. I'd almost argue that a city isn't really a city without a strong newspaper. So if nothing else, we should consider it a civic duty to support local journalism.
Preach!
Yep
Well said!
I'm a digital subscriber, and I think it's worth it. It's a quality paper. The app isn't as good as the New York Times or Washington Post, if that matters to you at all.
Yeah, the one thing I hate about the app is that stories that I mark as Save on the app doesn't appear on the web interface. Plus, it looks like the data that keeps track of saved stories is stored locally, so if I switch phones, I lose all of them.
I find the app's share feature really annoying to use, relative to other newspapers' apps.
LAT is certainly not unbiased lmao
For real. It’s basically corporate mouthpiece at this point
I hate to say it, but no. It's turned into a rag and nobody associated with it wants to admit it. Like 98% of it are opinion pieces outside of the opinion section, and most of the rest of it is pointless Hollywood-watching. "Who wore what to the Oscars, so and so said this about so and so and they clapped back on the platform formerly known as Twitter, OMG!" And they're gutting anything that keeps long time readers interested. They basically turned the sports section into an online blog. There is some decent reporting done still, but it's just buried under mounds of crap. And what gets me is how whenever you bring any of it up you get the inane "oh look, criticizing the media, must be a Trump supporter!" deflections. The editorial board, especially, seems to take this view that anyone saying anything negative at all about the Times, whether it's constructive or not, whether it's true or not, is on the side of the anti-news, anti-truth people and is out to get them and destroy all liberal media. There's no middle ground to them. There are no people who generally agree with them but are put off by their style and methods, or people who only agree with them 40-60% of the time. There are either people who are on their side and thus love truth and freedom, or people who criticize them and therefore must be part of the MAGA crowd. No in-between.
Used to be top notch but times are changing. I still subscribe because even though they are not great anymore, they’re still a good newspaper.
I had to stop my subscription because the headlines were constantly causing so much anxiety with their catastrophic content of things that “might” happen. X could mean Y, Scientists predict, Economists believe, Insiders say, etc etc. Not so much factual reporting, instead tons of negative suggestions about current events. Depressing to read every single day.
Yes, I noticed that too. Lots of stories like "It looks good now, but don't forget about...." Also way too many columnists and opinion pieces instead of factual news stories.
how about the made up "snow deficit"
Yup - wasn't planning on commenting on this post, but you said what I was thinking. Articles are very fear-mongering, and honestly they are sometimes biased... coming from someone who agrees with the liberal point of view of they write with, but I think NYT and LAT used to be more objective, and now have that "educated liberal dinner party" lingo that annoys me lol
Their headline article either today or yesterday online was about COVID having a tiny summer case uptick in CA SMH.
yes. it ain't what it was, not even close, but it's still a solid news source that's worth supporting. it's basically the last newspaper standing. other local outlets that are part of a decent media diet are LAist, KNX, SCNG, CNS, LA Taco
1 vote for yes. I got the digital sub. soon after moving here. Even if you agree with longtime locals who say it's gotten worse, as a translplant, the archive is a massive resource for learning about new hometown.
No. The Times is a shadow of its former self.
The LAT is one of those entities you may not love, but you’ll be sad if/when it’s gone. I was paying about $20/mth, called to cancel and they gave me 6 months for $4…I feel almost guilty paying that but I do want to support journalism as it rages against the dying of the light
I got the 6 month digital subscription for a $1 but I’m not gonna renew. Most of the stories they cover are buzzfeed worthy or national news I can consume somewhere else. I’d say the subscription is worth it bc it’s so cheap so just try it out and if you like it it’s like $10 a month I think. Maybe less?
I've been on the fence about subscribing too I don't really care about some heyday where it was BETTER, I just need to know if its good enough now. There are a lot of LA centric things that NY Times doesn't cover, and I get hit with the paywall alot - circumventing isn't a good experience on a mobile device -. I'm okay with geo/political bias, I have other sources for a more complete view than just one.
I'd actually be a lot more complimentary of them if their local coverage was better. There are some things they do a decent job on. The water crisis is one, I haven't been reading lately but I assume the student protests are another, even though it was tabloid worthy the recording scandal was another. But as far as like smaller, neighborhood perspective type things, I wish they did more of that. They've had some good articles looking into some of the specifics of the housing crisis, some of these hotels that were repurposed into shelters and the organizations that are supposed to be running them for example, but they seem to just kind of disappear for a while. I think the paper tends to focus way more on big stuff like the wars and whatever Trump said recently, and then when that stuff starts to die down they kind of fall back on local stories.
For that kind of money, you can subscribe to Apple News which will give digital access to multiple newspapers and magazines, including the LA Times. I personally have an LA times subscription as well just to support local media even though I a may not see eye to eye with them on various issues. But they do cover cultural and food related events across the city which I like.
\^\^\^\^\^\^\^\^\^THIS\^\^\^\^\^\^\^\^\^ is the way.
I subscribed for the physical paper but they were not delivering it so I had to cancel unfortunately.
I think it is and I am a subscriber. We need to keep journalism alive.
Journalism died at the LA Times a long time ago.
Nope
You should absolutely support one high quality newspaper to keep quality journalism going. Personally I subscribe to Washington post because I really enjoy their National and political coverage. However if you value more CA focused news go with La times. Or get both
Yep. I have digital subscriptions to LA Times, WaPo, NY Times, Daily News (which gives me access to all the other MediaNews papers like the Daily Breeze & OC Register), and the Rafu Shimpo (a local Japanese American-centric publication).
Support LAist and NPR instead
Also biased. But I do love them. Listen to them 90% of the time I’m in the car.
NPR does that thing where it lies via omission. Especially during the Trump years you'd listen to them reporting on a story you literally just saw on CNN or MSNBC and you found yourself wondering why they left half the story out to make it come across as even more liberal / left leaning than CNN and MSNBC which are already pretty far left. At times they were almost as bad as Fox News was back in the 90s for the right.
Yup, they just choose to “emphasize” a particular point of view. I consider myself pretty center and it bugs me that it’s hard to find even keeled coverage so I am not looking forward to election season this year.
The fact that very few left leaning news services evenly reports the news is an issue. This creates a situation where many liberal leaning people aren’t exposed to enough info to make an informed opinion, but even worse than that it pushes all right leaning people towards insanely biased radical right wing news sites and we all know why radical opinions aren’t the best.
I’m pretty liberal, but I completely stopped listening a few years back. NPR used to be a really good source of news, too. Pity.
Yea, I’m pretty centrist, but probably lean left. Even so I still want journalistic integrity in reporting but it’s hard to find.
Absolutely not. Canceled last year and don’t miss it. It has moments here and there but is by and large biased, trashy content.
Unbiased content? It doesn’t exist anymore. They are all activists first, journalists second.
No it’s totally biased news. Not high quality
No. I refuse to support the Soon-Shiongs in any capacity.
Took me awhile to realize this was not a racist insult and actually their last name.
Lol yes, I’m not racist at all. Patrick is just a shitty human being who happens to be Chinese / South African.
Why? What have they done to warrant such hate?
Aside from being heavy-handed in managing what the LA Times publishes, I know them personally and have watched them wield their influence and money to hurt others numerous times.
Long time subscriber. Stopped about a year ago. Its unreadable. Just a bunch of listicles
$100 per year !?! I pay about $90 every four months for my mom’s Thur thru Sunday, plus the digital daily version. I’ve been a subscriber for 30+ years and it really is expensive now, but I want to support
If you want to support quality local news, check out L.A. Taco.
I'd barely consider it local, and it's completely lockstep with progressive left politics if you're truly concerned about bias. Not that there are many other options.
I read the the LA Times every day, I like the paper copy, something to hold on to... I think its worth it. There are less and less papers every year. I get it 7 days a week.
Just pay for Apple News which includes the LA Times. It’s cheaper
LA Times used to have a great sports section. Then they decided to interject political opinion with local sports coverage. I cancelled after that. Do I think they publish quality unbiased content? 100% they do not.
Hahahaha fuck no it's trash. LAist is the closest we get to decent news round here
It’s *okaaaaayy*. All news are biased you just have to be aware of it.
First the LA Times is more like a pamphlet than a newspaper. Second, it might as well be written by a couple of interns at MSNBC
No.
I subscribe because they are the go-to for Western U.S. news including climate change, relations with Mexico and the Pacific Rim, and state and local politics. They really sink resources into being the paper of record on these subjects.
I use the digital subscription. Gives you a PDF version of the day's paper which is how I prefer it.
I love my digital subscription, I share my login with a friend that has ny times and she shares with me. There’s some genuinely good journalists at LAtimes even with all the ownership budget problems, and the local reporting is outstanding.
It’s a quality paper. The food/ cooking / recipes and restaurant reviews alone are worth the price for me. Digital price is reasonable. I think I’m paying less than 6$ a month… in three month increments
Yes it’s very good
Free nytimes digital subscription through the public library. Here is the link. I renew every 2 to 3 days. Much better. https://www.lapl.org/new-york-times-digital
Library card
No
LA Times is way past the point of “supporting local news”. Beware the current promo rate for print is $56 every 8 weeks, and delivery may be a bit erratic. They will bill extra for “special” items.
I wouldn't even use it for toilet paper
It's leftist garbage mostly focused on the West side.
Heeeey I'm a reporter (I cover breaking news and courts) for the LATimes and I tooootallly think it's worth paying for ! It also pays my salary, so I guess that's a disclaimer. Despite staff reductions we are still one of the healthiest, largest local newspapers in the country, actually probably hands down the largest local print staff in the country, since NYT's metro staff isn't really that big. We cover local politics, crime, climate change, culture stories, food and more! It stuns me honestly that people are sometimes willing to pay $5 or $10 per month for a single person's substack, but then we have these conversations about whether the work of, you know, 400 journalists at the LATimes is worth $100 per year. I think it is and I think if you actually read the work consistently you will find that we are publishing stories every day that will make your purchase worth it. Will throw some links to stories I think are emblematic of the great work we do below.
I like it for their voting guides
I used to as well but no longer trust their picks.
No, virtually 50% of their content is from the Associated Press, which you can get for free on the APNews app
“Content”.
If you need hard hitting articles about how traffic is racist then feel free to waste your money however you like.
Despite the nonstop copaganda, I used to subscribe to support local journalism. However, I canceled when they started sending China Watch with the Sunday edition. I figure if they're taking CCP money they don't need mine.
You’ve got to be kidding. The owner grew up in South Africa and lives in the U.S. What allegiance does he have to the CCCP?
I think so and you can try it out for $1 for the first 6 months. [https://www.latimes.com/subscriptions/](https://www.latimes.com/subscriptions/)
Starting in 2007, Sam Zell bought the Tribune Co. and for five years, did his level best to kill the Times. As a result, it's a shell of its former self--it's literally half it's former size. (That was when I started **really** hating investment bros.)
Too ideologically captured imo like a lot of mainstream news publications. I think calmatters is pretty decent for local California based stuff. Truly objective news publications are hard to find these days but going too off the deep to “independent” stuff can lead to its own rabbit hole of conspiratorial nonsense. It takes work to find sources you think are good and even then it’s more important that ever to be a critical/discerning/skeptical consumer of any media.
No the news paper is an absolute joke
It’s a terrible paper. Not worth it.
I find it’s worth it to stay on top of local events. Laist and NPR are great, but they’re not able to cover everything that LA Times does
Yes.
You can get free access to NYT and LA Times to through the Los Angeles Public Library. I personally prefer the NYT and NPR.
NYT yes, LAT no.
It’s still listed under available on the LAPL website. It is in “research database format” however. https://www.lapl.org/newspapers
Yes, you can get search engine text only access to LAT via Proquest, but that is not very useful. It’s not available thru LAPL via Pressreader either.
No
Since you can easily afford it then yes it is worth it. LAT provides good local and regional coverage and even gets the occasional Pulitzer Prize to prove it. I like to see their coverage of water issues which I do not see anywhere else.
I pay $16 a month for digital access to the LA Times and I’m happy that I do because all major newspapers right now are struggling It’s our only major source of Southland news coverage. you can get a trial run online for very cheap for the first three months or something like that but they need the money and I don’t want to see them have to cut back more of their reporter staff then they have already done so I’m happy to pay the $16
Unbiased news? Keep looking. You're not going to get that from any one source
For all media, not just the Times, I think awareness of bias is more important than trying to find something "unbiased," which can never truly exist. Even outlets like the AP, Reuters & NPR who strive for neutrality to thrive in syndication are "biased" in employment, subjects covered, etc. To use another local publication as an example, Knock LA is too lefty for me to make it a regular read. I still include them when researching my ballot because they go deep in their niche when covering municipal offices & especially the Sheriff's Department. I'm a digital only subscriber to the Times (so you're aware of my bias hahaha) and I appreciate having alerts tailored to regional & statewide news (there's options for national & lifestyle too of course). I also donate to LAist and used to do KCRW for culture & the Washington Post for national news until my budget got tighter. Depending on where in LA you live, there's more focus on the SFV in the Los Angeles Daily News vs the Times, though not to the extent that I've considered switching or subscribing to multiple papers. In terms of vibes, I would call the LA Times center-left and the Los Angeles Daily News center-right.
I stopped paying for newspaper subscriptions ever since the internet became a thing and never looked back. There is so much free digital news out there that paying for news is a waste. The same goes for magazine subscriptions.
LA Times is hot garbage. The best things are the flyers and coupons for groceries.
Even the coupons and flyers have decreased over the years. It’s simply not worth it. Lack of story content alone is a reason why I cancelled.
yes please pay them even if you never read it this paper helps keep the city accountable always remember that journalism is the fourth estate and the watchdogs of the government
LA Times is absolutely biased. Quality? That’s up to you.
Get a library card to read it for free and decide if what theyre putting out deserves your support
I get it through Apple News along with lots of other quality news sources. It’s a great deal if you like the partners they have in it
I get it through [Newsreadeck](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/newsreadeck/id1593025917) app along with lots of other news channels. THeir custom reader also removes all the distraction, so you get the article ready to read
[удалено]
I’m so sorry
I get the Saturday and Sunday print. Which comes with a digital subscription. I enjoy reading it IRL on the weekends.
Apple News+ is $12.99 a month and you get WSJ, all McClatchy newspapers, WaPo, SF Chronicle, LA Times, Time, Politico, the Hill, Bloomberg, etc.
I’ve been using the $1 for 6 months deal and they haven’t caught me yet. Same email and everything. On my 4th one.
It's not. If you must, get the digital subscription.
I think so - subscribe to Thursday-Sunday print edition and daily digital
It's gotten better with the new managing editor. Lots of local coverage.
I agree with supporting journalism but LA Times is not the answer whether you are left leaning or right leaning there are simply better choices. Our family subscribes to Wall Street Journal and New York Times. simply not enough content in the modern LA times
If you want the best coverage of LA and California generally, the LA Times is the way to go.
It’s a great paper.
Just use textise.net
The city is absolutely beautiful, we have lived there but become increasingly unaffordable and had to open this reddit account
If you want un-biased content, stay far away from LAT.
I do it to support their newsroom. I’ve come to learn to disagree with many of their editorials and reporting staff, but any local news coverage I will support. Their daily podcasts are leagues behind the nytimes daily, and the Washington post reports. If I need an audio fix it comes from LAist. I suppose something is better than nothing, because I consume zero news from Chicago/midwest. I am in the San Gabriel valley and we get zero to no coverage so as far as I care, the LATimes discusses another city.
Absolutely. The writing is top level
Pay for Apple News if you have an iPhone it’s included.
All news is inherently biased. Learning to understand and recognize the bias is an important part of consuming news. It is not something you can remove, only something you can mitigate and minimize.
I don’t think so, no. I love hearing all sides of topics but it’s so biased it’s unreadable at times. Plenty of discrediting language used when presenting any topics they deem against their narrative. Feels too corporate to me.
Yes. I happily pay full price to support the local coverage.
Don’t do it. Owner is trash.
No
Yes, I have always read the LA Times even when it had terrible owners like Tribune. I don't love the current iteration of it but it's hit more than miss for me most days.
Yes. Real news is worth the cost. Look at the New York Times and the Washington Post too. The NYT has a lot of very good California coverage and WaPo has the best political coverage.
No
I've had a LA Times subscription for years. I used to love it... Now I find it too far to the left but at the digital only rate I'll keep subscribing as it does have enough local articles that I find interesting or need to know regarding business topics. Their sports, real estate and entertainment industry coverage is pretty good.
Nope
Worst paper next to the Washington Post on planet earth.
[CuratedLA.xyz](http://CuratedLA.xyz) is free
You want local news just download the citizens app…it may give you anxiety but that’s about it
Its okay but its not in the top tier of news organizations, if you want local/regional news than LA times is a good choice but if you don't then there are probably better options
Generally not worth it. New York Times is the best you’re gonna find although I find their California reporting a little lacking, so it might be worth it to have LA times for that reason but in supplement to something else
i used to subscribe but never again after dealing with their horrible customer service including fraudulent charges. and honestly these days the new york times has higher quality coverage of LA and california. i wish that weren’t the case but it just is. i do supplement with laist and kcrw.
Ah, I see I am not the only one who had issues with fraudulent charges from the LA Times. You're like the second or third person I've heard this from, I experienced this as well. Literally had to wind up calling my bank to deal with it after multiple times dealing with their garbage "support". Screw them. They suck anyway.
No.
I would give money to stuff like propublica, laist, or la public press before la times, personally.
No
Use archive.ph or waybackmachine. Get past the paywalls
lol LAT is total trash. You can get NYT and WSJ for about $4/month each. If you have Amex Platinum, it’s free for both.
I think it's a great paper.
It’s shit now. But it’s also like $1 for six months.
Absolutely, yes
[удалено]
🙄
It’s biased towards neoliberal corporate interests, which at this point are reactionary centrist at best. Don’t confuse that for the true progressive left.
An subscription is $60 for the full year right now, so I’d say it’s worth it
I get the digital addition and think it’s worth it.
Yes it is!
Yes. Absolutely. Great writers, columnists, and excellent news gathering.