Changing Times

Re “Moving thoughts,” editorial, July 27

I was pretty sure I wouldn’t like whatever “move” The Times was making when I saw your editorial about another change in the paper, especially as you were taking two-thirds of a page to justify it. But I like this one. I never understood why you made the two sections, Sunday Opinion and Book Review, separate from the rest of the paper in the first place. My only concern at this point is whether this move means less content for each section. I certainly hope not, as both deserve full coverage and are favorites of mine. So congratulations on coming to your senses. It irritated me to have to turn Sunday Opinion and Book Review upside down to read, and now I won’t have to. Thank you!

Skip Pedigo

Huntington Beach

As much as the Book Review/Sunday Opinion (do I have it backward?) format used to annoy me, I have to admit now that “upside down” was better than “gone for good.”

On a similar front, I see you’re passing off obituaries as editor’s notes these days and moving them to the front pages of selected sections (see the July 27 Real Estate section). I dread the day a similar note will appear on the front page. Do I hear the death Zell being rung?

Harry Gordon

Long Beach

“Moving thoughts” hits the nail on the head. Stirring up the public causes us to think things through and exposes us to different viewpoints and facts we may not have been aware of. It is your job, and you do it well. Too bad you are moving; now I will have to sort through pages of advertisements to find you.

Frank Hanrahan

Costa Mesa

I have been a Times reader for more than 50 years and have enjoyed a vast number of stories and features, photographs and opinions while reading your excellent printed newspaper. I understand your need to shrink the paper and its expenses, but I am not keen on dialing up your website to read what I have been able to access easily in the garden or in rooms where we have no computer monitors.

Readers are forced to seek a sometimes inconvenient medium, which some readers may not have, and they will be shortchanged. We have two computers, and I write most of the day on one, and do not find it relaxing to squint at a monitor to get news, views and photographs.

Editor Russ Stanton’s announcement last Sunday is disconcerting. I’ll have to buy a laptop to discover what I’m missing when all the news is not fit to print -- on paper.

Lou Jacobs Jr.

Cathedral City

You could have saved yourselves a lot of effort by simply replacing Sunday’s half-sheet letter from Stanton with a big middle finger directed at Times subscribers. The content of this letter can be best summed up as: “Please continue to buy our product for the same price as we deliberately and continually reduce its quality.”

I am a longtime, loyal Times reader, and I don’t plan to quit any time soon, but as you continue to strip the paper of content, I feel as if I’m fighting to remain a subscriber against a concerted and well-planned campaign to force me to cancel. I’m not giving up easily, but as each useful or interesting feature is eliminated or moved online, I feel my resolve weaken. Be careful. One of these days, you just might win.

Jason Daly

Pasadena