Today's question was:

What's eating the L.A. Times? Would the paper be better off outside the Tribune Co. empire? All week, Marc Cooper and Patrick Frey discuss the future of The Times and journalism in Southern California.

The 'readers' respond. Some say it's the Chandler family's fault. Some blame their paper delivery people. Some blame Sam Zell.

Then there were these comments:

For years you have encouraged the increased immigration of Third World people and their numerous offspring to this area. Now you have a population that cannot read a sophisticated English-language newspaper.

And these:

Advocacy journalism is the reason why I stopped subscribing. The only difference between the Times and Lou Dobbs is that Dobbs is less secretive. With Southern California being on the illegal immigration frontline, there is a great story to tell from the perspective of our economic, political, human-behavioral, and education systems, a portent for the nation. However, as Lou Dobbs reports only a certain view, so does the Times. For example, last week, the NY Times and others reported that illegal immigration was the EU's biggest concern. The Times did not. While La Raza and others may protest Dobbs, we protest the Times' by unsubscribing.

And these:

It's simple. We don't trust what you write and you don't have the guts to just admit you are pushing an agenda.. Your PRO-Illegal immigration stance is a real turn off to your subscribers, which made me cancel my subscription.. How can the Times be going under there are plenty of Illegals to subcribe now, so you don't need me paying for subscriptions.

And these:

Greed! Or the new term of "conspicuous consumption" is the initial blame for the decline of the LA Times. I cancelled home delivery after 20 years because I was tired of the total editorial content being pro illegal immigration. Every section was about Mexicans and illegals. Never in reporting about LAUSD did the Times mention illegals as a problem in schools, test scores.

The only real problem at the Times is the un-American support for illegal aliens and other criminals. The Times could become very profitable should it decide to get on the side of Americans and expose illegal aliens and the criminal employers of them. Americans spend the advertizing bucks in publications that support the USA and Americanism. American readers shop where the advertisers offer value. There are no readers of any import of the Times simply because it is an appologist rag for Tony Vilar and other criminals who pander to illegal aliens.

And these:

LA Times: (1) liberal (2) slanted (3) biased and (4) pro-illegals. It's a very simple formula. Even the pictures and headlines are slanted: see crying Mexican girl (picture) with (headline) "the effects of arresting illegal immigrants." However much the Times would like to believe every person wants slanted liberal news, nobody actually takes it seriously. Just because it's the noisiest media output, doesn't mean it's the most substantial. We are a people who respect the law, love our country, work hard and are traditionally conservative. More importantly, honest news is valued. Start doing that, we'll buy your paper.

Illegal immigrants - is there anything you can't take take the blame for? Is there any complicated issue that we can't just flippantly hold you solely responsible for? You're the putty in the cracks of our accountability. What could we do without you?