GORDON I THINK YOUR GUESS IS WRONG, WHY CAN'T SOMEONE WHO WATCHES THE THREE EVENING NEWS BROADCASTS READ EVERY BLOG THAT'S OUT THERE?

But for local chicago coverage, the tribune is really second rate compared to the tabloid (literally) Sun-Times.

In my opinion the NYT, WSJ, and WaPo are head and shoulders above the LA Times for the very reason you mention. When was the last time the LA Times broke an important story (or at least had an article that everyone was talking about)? You can say what you want about the NYT editorial page, but the paper is a great source for news.

Personally, I read the NYT, WSJ, and WaPo for news but I prefer Foxsports.com for sports.

I'm not surprised at the struggle between the LA Times and the Tribune. I've always been under the impression that the LA Times considers itself the West Coast NY Times, but I consider it more in the next group (with the Tribune, the Boston Globe, etc.) All are solid papers but are not among the elite. It must be difficult to be owned by a paper you feel is your inferior.

I grew up in California and thus thought of the LA Times as a national newspaper, and still include it among my sources of news. But I must agree with your intuition Gordon, most people outside of the West Coast don't refer to the LA Times in the way that they refer to the NYT or WSJ. I also noticed in my (very limited) travels outside the country that you tend to see the NYT, WSJ and USA Today--not really the LA Times. Maybe part of the issue is that the LA Times at least views itself as a leader of the "West Coast" a kind of contrast to the NY Times role on the East Coast, and in that regard they view the Tribune in a different class.

The LA Times may not be as bad as people think (then again, I read the WSJ and NY Times and don't touch other dailies). Below are the list of the 2005 Pulitzer Prize winners.

PUBLIC SERVICE

Los Angeles Times

BREAKING NEWS REPORTING

Staff of The Star-Ledger, Newark, N.J.

INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING

Nigel Jaquiss of Willamette Week, Portland, Ore.

EXPLANATORY REPORTING

Gareth Cook of The Boston Globe

BEAT REPORTING

Amy Dockser Marcus of The Wall Street Journal

NATIONAL REPORTING

Walt Bogdanich of The New York Times

INTERNATIONAL REPORTING

Two Prizes: Kim Murphy of the Los Angeles Times

Dele Olojede of Newsday, Long Island, N.Y.

FEATURE WRITING

Julia Keller of the Chicago Tribune

COMMENTARY

Connie Schultz of The Plain Dealer, Cleveland

CRITICISM

Joe Morgenstern of The Wall Street Journal

EDITORIAL WRITING

Tom Philp of The Sacramento Bee

EDITORIAL CARTOONING

Nick Anderson of The Courier-Journal, Louisville, Ky.

BREAKING NEWS PHOTOGRAPHY

Associated Press Staff

FEATURE PHOTOGRAPHY

Deanne Fitzmaurice of the San Francisco Chronicle

born and raised NoCal, in grad school, avid news reader. in no way is LAT a national newspaper or in the same tier as NYT, WSJ, WaPo. I can't even imagine anyone thinking it is.

I seem to be one of the few people who read this blog and actually currently reads both the LA Times and the NY Times (I read the WSJ less, and WaPo not at all now).

The LA Times absolutely deserves its reputation as a national quality newspaper. The national and international coverage is as good as the NY Times, though the arts and literature sections are not. The comments above suggest two things: 1) a confusion between quality and circulation (in the latter category the LA Times is woeful, but not the former), and 2) a lack of familiarity with the improvement in the quality of the LA Times over the past ten years.

A couple late questions:
Why do you read so many newspapers?
Why do you read the ones you do?

Anthony, I read from multiple sources because I pick up a wide variety of stories and because different reporters focus on different aspects of important stories. The world is a complex place, and I don't trust one outlet to give me a complete picture.

Why NYT, WSJ, and WaPo? Because all of them cover national stories and they generally do it pretty well. I have added FT to my list of newspapers because I like the European perspective.