She did mention LA as an epicenter of Thai culture twice,
"They’re part of a sea change that in recent years has produced ambitious and acclaimed Thai restaurants around the country, particularly in West Coast cities like Los Angeles and Portland, Ore."
The Thai Consulate in Los Angeles estimates that there are more than 200,000 Thais in the state, enough to have restaurants that cater only to them.
neither comes close to mentioning "la as an epicenter of thai culture". but my point is not that l.a is an epicenter of thai culture (though it is--more thais there than anywhere outside thailand, i believe) but that if you want to discuss how thai food in the u.s is pitched and how it is changing (and has changed) referring to los angeles only in generalities is not very useful.
the first quote above gives the impression that the thai food scene in los angeles is equivalent to the pok pok-led scene in portland. in fact, it's nothing like that.
the second would be more usefully fleshed out by actual discussion of a place where there is a whole section of town catering to thais, with quite a bit of regional specificity. it's the new york times--they could probably fly the writer down to los angeles from san francisco for a day or two.
my annoying opinions: whisky, food and occasional cultural commentary
current restaurant review: piccolo (minneapolis)
current whisky review: rampur select casks (indian single malt whisky)
current recipe: keema chops (indian-style croquettes)
facts are meaningless. you could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!