Where Do I Get My News?

I start my day with the New York Times. I don't know why. I wasn't even that big a fan of the New York Times when I lived in New York. But when I moved back to Chicago, I lost all patience with the Chicago Tribune as a source of information.

For starters, any violent or sensational news that happens anywhere in the tri-state area will appear above the fold--either real or virtual. And the Trib is supposedly the respectable paper in town. Why is it I am reluctant to get my news from a paper that will headline an 11-year-old boy abandoned at the Taste of Chicago for a whole week?

This is not a recent development either. For a long swath of the 90s, Bob Greene ran approximately 9000 columns on the outrage of a biological parent being able to reclaim a child that had been put up for adoption without his knowledge. He would drag out one tragic five minute interaction between the adopted parents and the child (Baby M?) outside a courtroom. "And with that, Ms. Adopted Mom reached into her bag and handed her child a box of raisins. But for how long would mother and child be able to share moments like this? Tomorrow: A biological father who doesn't even know if his child prefers juice boxes or chocolate milk." For weeks, months, years on end. (And the whole time, he refused to acknowledge the fundamental logical inconsistency in his columns: If it had been his biological child, he would have fought to the death for custody and everyone who read his columns knew it.)

A lot of the columnists do not even live up to this standard--the auto critic Jim Mateja has had a baldly pro-SUV, anti-fuel efficiency stance for as long as I've been alive. If he's ever written critically of an SUV's abysmal fuel mileage, I've missed it.

So I begin my day by scanning the New York Times. Then I hop over to the Wall Street Journal. Then I check with the Trib, to make sure Chicago hasn't fallen in the lake. And then, because I now I live in Los Angeles, I go to the L.A. Times. And what I find makes my blood run cold.

The L.A. Times is owned by the Tribune company. Half the stories are reprints from the Trib. FROM THE TRIB! IN CHICAGO! Or vice versa! Way to inspire faith, guys. How can you serve the reclusive, cold-weather-trapped readers in Chicago and the outdoorsy, sunshine-drenched readers in L.A. with the same piece? How? (Oh, by the way, both the Trib and the L.A. Times reprint a lot of NYT stories. So there's another reason to cut out the middle man.)

(Seriously, the two cities have very, very little in common. Chicago is so weather driven that the gyms all have tiny tvs on the cardio machines. Los Angeles is so appearance driven that I've only found one gym with tiny tvs--one gym in an entire city! Chicago has a viable public transit system used by everyone from $11K welfare moms to $200K lawyers. In Los Angeles, nobody takes the bus unless they have to. And don't even get me started on restaurant desserts. I haven't had a decent tiramisu in six months.)

The headlines on the L.A. Times front page leave me ice cold. Okay, right now, the NYT top head reads: "Incoming Democrats Put Populism Before Ideology." The subhead reads: "Newly elected Democrats say they were given a rare opportunity by voters, many of them independents and Republicans, and now they have to produce."

I am heartily glad to hear this. I think I understand what this story has to say, and although I don't have time to read it right now, I'd happily look through it if I were on a two hour plane ride.

Meanwhile, red hot nails couldn't make me read the L.A. Times "Centrist path in Congress may rile Democrats' base" or the accompanying subhead "After toppling GOP in a hard-fought election, Democratic leaders find themselves in another difficult struggle -- with their own supporters."

I'm embarrassed to say that I'm not a sharp enough media critic to spot the key difference between these two stories, but I know I'd read one and line my cat's litter box with the other.

In little ways, the New York Times taught me about my adopted home when I lived there. Although I didn't read it every day and the Metro Diaries or whatever it was called (that weekly collection of Reader's Digest-like twee observations about our fair city) was a little much for me to take, I did eventually gain an understanding of the different populations of Manhattan, Queens, Staten Island, etc.

I keep TRYING to read the L.A. Times, but I just can't do it. I'm more likely to read all the Los Angeles-related pieces in the NYT than I am to read LAT. (In fact, I often feel like an NYT piece is more accessible, because it starts by explaining to me why I should care/think about the person/place/thing the article mentions.)

But I'm not a geographist. I will happily read stories about any quadrant of the planet, if it seems worth my time. I might be slightly more intrigued by some place I actually know, but not by much. Yet, oddly, I have already read the Alabama-centric "Sports Artist Sued for Mixing Crimson and Tide" (NYT) and I can't bear to even try reading "Pasadena facility honors marine." I've never been to Alabama, I don't watch football and I adore Pasadena. So, go figure.

I do listen to a lot of NPR, and that's where I get the majority of my CA news. My other news sources: Slate (although they are so relentlessly contrarian that just reading the headlines is a little exhausting), Consumer Reports, Ain't It Cool News and if forced, The Daily Trojan. (Although they did have a fascinating article on cruising last month--I'm waiting for the day "Veronica Mars" does a cruising plot.)

Yes, of course, I almost forgot my other "must read" stop: Television Without Pity