Hey, let's not make such sweeping accusations. As a Washington Post reporter in the Food section for ten years until recently, I (and my colleagues) never assumed readers were primarily interested in a window onto the epicurean world, or pumped products from advertisers, or worried about sounding like an old-school home ec teacher. And we certainly weren't and still aren't in league with politicians supporting any particular point of view regarding industrial food or price supports.

Reporters writing in food sections are supposed to report, not opine. The Washington Post section did and certainly still does offer readers a broad look at what's going on, whether recipes for the home cook or stories reflecting what's going on at restaurants responding to whatever the political realities are or the food fashions of the times.

Magazines have longer lead times, and can't respond as quickly, but they do and will continue to reflect reality.

I do agree that people have to cook--not with haute cuisine culinary skills, but with basic skills that can take advantage of seasonal produce and less expensive proteins. And that can be a problem for people used to relying on the commercial food system.

As for actual dollars and cents, that can be (and is) done in general terms. But stories that do that with hard numbers will always risk being wrong, depending on where readers shop, and how often prices change.

These are all complicated issues, and of course the press should reflect readers' concerns or just plain what readers want to read about. I share similar concerns about food costs and how to serve readers best, but it's just too easy to damn the so-called food press.

I am glad someone else spoke up about this matter. As a food journalist and independent scholar, who spent a long time on the staff of a noted daily newspaper, I agree with the writer of this response.

The original piece gives a hugely oversimplfied description of the food press, and what it does, and why. Of course, an emphasis on high-tone food and cooking exists in many places, but it does so to varying degrees from newspaper to newspaper, and magazine to magazine, and would rarely be the publication's entire food section mandate. Even in the New York Times, there are many recipes that are not wildly costly.

It is true that the once to-be-expected emphasis on eating more economically (yes, in earlier times one of the hallmarks of food writing in America), has faded. But the reasons for that are socially complex. And it is going to be very interesting to see, whether with the financial crises that are upon us, newspapers and magazines feel they again have to turn to articles that instruct the cook in how to economize, and also if they turn to running budget-conscious food columns again.

I refer here to columns actually labeled as such and pitched to the public that way. The problem is that such writing is practical, and worthwhile, but not "sexy," and it is sexy (in the broad sense) that sells newspapers--and, in the face of competition from the Internet, newspapers and magazines need desperately to sell.

We often hear that people read cookbooks for pleasure, but don't necessarily take them to the stove. I am sure that is equally true for some of the more tony recipe suggestions in the food sections. (A similar situation exists with fashion. We see models wearing outfits, outre to beautiful, that very few could afford, but still there is pleasure in watching the models take those dresses down the runway.Then we go out and buy ready to wear.)

Whether food pages respond to the failing economy with more dreams or with a good dose of reality, remains to be seen. But whatever they do, they will have a sense of responsibility to the reader, of what the reader wants, in mind. They always do. They have to.