At issue here is the NYTimes, not the relative "status" or personality of any of our members.

More specifically, the problem is the Times Food section which has slid way downhill in the past few years. Frankly, I find it a bore on most Wednesdays. When they started giving space to that busty , loud, and tasteless Englishwoman a while back I thought they had hit bottom- but no, they then promoted Azimov to chief wine writer – a disaster if there ever was one.

As I said previously, the Times Food section has a blatant elitist attitude- if you are a "nobody" (even if you have gained great knowlwdge in your area) you are not worthy of a credit, if you are wellborn, wellconnected, wellschooled, your name comes up in 12 point bold type.

A case in point is the infamous GA Pig. Some well connected yuppies started a faux "old South" BBQ joint and the Times fell all over itself to promote the place. The fact is; the food is mediocre, the attitude borders on felonious, the service stinks, and the place is best described as backwoods kitschy.

Once I used to regularly clip interesting recipes from the Food section. I don’t think I’ve found one recipe worth clipping in the past six months. They too often call for hard to find ingredients, exotic tools, and fussy preparation.
They have lost touch with this reader, and I don’t think I’m alone.

So, why do I still read it? Perhaps masochism, or an inability to quit a bad habit, or maybe just because it is an institution I love to hate. If it wasn’t for Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, and Frank Rich I don’t think I would keep my subscription.

Cheers, John