For my part, I find it hard to get worked up over which section of a newspaper in which a particular story belongs. To be sure, the story in question is indeed a business story; but the business in question happens to be the art business, and opinions can differ as to whether its likely audience is best served by placing it in one section or another. Almost any sort of art news, after all, can be ruled out of the arts press along the same lines of reasoning: the wrangling over the Barnes is a legal story, not an art one, the coming and going of museum directors belongs in the employment pages, not the arts section, interviews with artists belong with the human interest stories. An arts section consisting of nothing but reviews, pretty much the only items strictly about the art, would be a welcome development if it meant more of them, but I don't see anything wrong with bundling other arts-related coverage into a section with them to make them easy to find for those of us less likely to consult the financial pages, etc.
I'd focus rather on two complaints: one, we need more arts coverage, especially reviews, overall, and two, the problem with much of the writing about the art market isn't which section it appears in, it's that it stinks. Unlike Tyler, I admire a wider range of writers on the market than Ed Winkleman (though he's very good, and a cultural icon to boot.) The writers at Artworld Salon and Tyler's own guest blogger, the much-missed Todd Gibson, come to mind (Todd had a pithy piece of market analysis up during his time at MAN, in fact, that made the case for an art market correction well before the Times did, and it read far better, too.) The problem with a lot of other writing on the art market lies in the fact that it comes from art critics and the like, who have not been known for their economic expertise. Everyone has a good word for Jerry Saltz, but I can't think of a single one of his periodic discussions of the business of art that amounts to more than a bunch of rueful head shaking. Not that I could do better, mind you, or that I do; but the lesson might be that it's not so much where the article appears as the expertise of the person writing it.
(On a final note, Tyler also points to this very enjoyable post by urban planner Elizabeth Currid over at Gawker. Currid has this new book out, about which perhaps more later; for now let me just say, regarding her post, while I don't disagree at all with her criticisms of those who attack the artworks of others or the possible motivations for doing so, I don't think I've read such a bald statement of market determinism in quite a while. It's one especially tenuous given that it relies on current, ever fluctuating, market values as an indicator not only of current status but implicitly as an argument for lasting value, monetary and otherwise. More, I hope, later. UPDATE: Also, Tyler may not care for the blog, but this item truly is funny. You really always want to have a good relationship with your art handlers.)