How I Learned to Stop Worrying, etc.
We are into Day Four of the L.A. Times' Manhattan Project (for background, see the links and especially comments at this post, and also this one). Commenter Gingerguy has divvied up the reader suggestions/diagnoses so far thusly:
8...liberal bias of the Times
7...improve the content
4...focus more on regional news
3...increase online vs print
?...could not figure out what they wanted
4...all other opinions
To further the discussion into the concrete, here's a tripartite question for the peanut gallery:
1) Name three features you think the paper should add.
2) Name three features you think the paper should kill.
3) Name three features you like just the way they are.
"Feature" can mean anything from Column One to a comic strip to a columnist to My Favorite Weekend, etc.
Meanwhile, here's the latest batch of reax to the not-so-top-secret plan to save the world Times:
The LA Weekly's Nikki Finke continues her enthusiasm for all things Dean Baquet:
So now there's yet another distraction. Seems a couple of those Baquet cultists went to him with an idea to find ways that the paper could reengage readers. Suddenly, the paper drops a bomb: there's a new emergency "Manhattan Project" overseen by some handpicked internal committee of reporters and editors. Sheesh, you couldn't make up stuff this hilarious. The very idea of the lunatics taking over the asylum, down to the ridiculous name that demonstrates yet again that the men who run the LA Times are forever NY-centric in their thinking, sadly. Do these people even know we're in one of the busiest news periods of the entire year? So while the Washington Post and The New York Times are scooping the LA Times on the biggest stories of the day, Spring Street will be wasting its diminishing resources senselessly contemplating its navel. The brass at Tribune Co. must be laughing their asses off: after all, the more time that the LAT worker bees busy themselves with this project, the less time they have to battle the Chicago bosses. The readership problem and its solution don't require rocket scientists, much less a trio of investigative journalists.
Media critic Matthew Sheffield gives some recommendations:
* Stop patronizing to your audience. You aren't better than them. That you know how to write or edit a story says nothing about your intellectual capacity.
* Recruit newer blood into the pages. Expand your employment search beyond the drones coming out of America's journalism schools. These kids have no experience with real life and no educational background beyond journalism. And for god's sake, hire some conservatives and libertarians.
* Put the kibosh on the left-wing bias. Stop with the immature photos of Republicans. Stop treating people who oppose abortion like they're the scum of the earth. Start realizing that most folks don't want higher taxes like you do.
* Expand your outreach to the reader. The regular American has a lot to say.
The blogger known as penraker looks at Saturday's Meghan Daum column in which she interviews a former member of the Weather Underground, and comments:
Maybe the Times would not need a "Manhattan Project" if their writers had anything more than the moral intuition of a gnat.
And a journalist calling himself "Gadfly" observes:
The seven-day daily has never been the same since the AP, Reuters and AFP began providing free online content. And that genie will never be put back in the bottle.
1) Name three features you think the paper should add.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, you should add blog-like features. It's not about "blog triumphalism" but rather a recognition that blogs' strength is their interactivity, and newspapers could learn a lot from increasing interactivity. I'd add comments and trackbacks to every story. I'd free up more staffers to have blogs and give them a freer hand in what they write about. That's at least three suggestions, right?
2) Name three features you think the paper should kill.
I'm uncomfortable making suggestions that the paper "kill" particular features written by particular people.
I've never much cared for horoscopes, but you ever-so-serious papers run them (despite their ridiculousness) because they make you money -- because there are people who buy the paper for the horoscopes.
I'd simply kill the all-knowing attitude. Next time you folks feel so all-knowing, remember that you write for a paper that publishes a horoscope.
3) Name three features you like just the way they are.
I really like the "Outside the Tent" feature -- even when you use it to say things that nobody inside the paper dares say. I don't really like it "just the way it is" because you should run it more often and loosen the restrictions on what's fair game to write about. But it's otherwise a great idea.
Posted by: Patterico | October 15, 2006 at 05:23 PM
The "name three" list sounds like WORK, and I'm not getting paid, so I'll just name a few things I think might make the Times more of a national / international power:
1) Do more series on topics/trends that are more apparent in LA than elsewhere. People reading the NY Times and Wash. Post want the "big picture" on ground-level trends, and the LA Times should seek that same audience. One LA Times series that caught my attention was the one on Skid Row. Other natural topics include anything having to do with how LA differs from NY, but deals with the same problems, like crime, education, immigration, transportation, etc.
2) Get up earlier, or target stories from the night before for the East Coast morning audience. That sounds stupid, but if the LA Times wants to be a national paper, it has to have something ready each morning for early risers on the East Coast.
Posted by: Kurt S | October 16, 2006 at 05:22 AM
Want to know what's wrong with the LA Times? Look at today's front page. The lesbian mom story has been done about a thousand times. You're just reinforcing the impression your reporters are completely out of touch with mainstream readers. "Quick, Martha, hide the newspaper from the kids!"
Posted by: retired | October 16, 2006 at 09:36 AM
Excuse me if I sound snippy...I'm in that sort of mood. Okay, I do get the L.A. Times, but here are some things (I know you asked about features, but I'm ignoring you...again, I'm in that sort of mood)that irk me about the times:
1)The headlines often don't match the story, i.e. "Undocumented Workers Great for Los Angeles" And while the first three paragraphs will try to back the headline's claim up...the remaining paragraphs tell another story. And why are so many substantial facts stuck in the last paragraphs anyway. That's a nasty habit! And it pisses me off.
2)The paper's tone reminds me of some musty smelling professor in birkenstocks lecturing me on how I should think. Stop it!
3)And please, please, get writers less prone to cliches, i.e. "Sense of place" "Felt empowered" Again, they reek of musty stank like a stagnant Marin County hot tub.
I do get the paper but my eyes get tired from rolling them after reading it.
Again, I apologize. I really shouldn't comment on an empty stomach.
Posted by: Michele | October 16, 2006 at 02:16 PM
The paper had new blood-Daniel Hernandez, and lost him to the Weekly, where he did a story on the SouthCentral Farm that was real reporting, as opposed to the sob-sister PC story the LAT ran. How weird is that--the young liberal guy did a hard story that he couldn't do at the LAT!
Posted by: rolanda | October 16, 2006 at 03:32 PM
I’ll have to skip the 3-3-3 due to time constraints. Also, since I don’t see the paper too often, I’ll have to rely on memory.
1) Get “News Analysis” off the front page. This is editorial no matter what you want to call it and it belongs in the Op/Ed section.
2) Do stories that really investigate. Could the Times have done the Dan Rather phony memo story with the same diligence as the bloggers? Can the Times write about who is funding the illegal-immigrant rallies and what their political ties are, rather than the usual Poor Single Mother Yearns for Her Freedom b.s.?
Could the Times investigate the hiring criteria for King/Drew administrative staff and could they write the lede: “Color triumphs competency in King/Drew selection process..” if that explained this ongoing debacle, rather than the usual hand wringing?
3) Go back and look at stories you devoted extensive coverage to and see if they still hold up. Maybe run these on slow news days with updates (or a mea culpa). Did the government programs pan out? Did the dire predictions come to pass?
4) Don’t play games with numbers – e.g.: Item A (in an absolute number), compared to Item B in (percent). I realize that sometimes this would make the story less dramatic. So be it. Maybe it’s a non-story anyway.
While were on it, A Decrease In The Rate OF Growth Is Not A Cut – it’s still an increase. If you need to make flashcards for your editors or a blinking screen saver with this message – do it. Anyone making this mistake should be reassigned to writing pet obituaries for the remainder of the year.
Posted by: TakeFive | October 16, 2006 at 03:49 PM
Re: Rolanda /South Central Farm
I heard some of the "Activists" had been shaking down the farmers for the privlege using the land. Perhaps it wasn't the happy commune it was made out to be. Would an LA Times reporter ask the question? Would it make it into print if it was true?
Posted by: TakeFive | October 16, 2006 at 04:00 PM
Oh boy, I'm going to get slammed for this: "Color triumphs competency..."
trumps trumps trumps (I'll finish writing it 100 times tonight).
Posted by: TakeFive | October 16, 2006 at 04:04 PM
I'll tell you one thing that *was* fine until, apparently, your new publisher came in and screwed it up.
Well, no. I won't tell you here. You'll hear about it in the next couple of days.
Posted by: Patterico | October 16, 2006 at 10:33 PM
Looking for improvements? Well, I suppose that depends on the outcome you're looking for. Are you trying to increase cash flow or generate more respectibility? Do you want to better serve the local community or keep your status as the #3 newspaper in America? Do you want to cut costs to the bone to please shareholders, or provide cutting edge journalism to please readers?
Features to add -
Expand THIS feature. Make it easier for readers to provide feedback through message boards and blogs (I perfer message boards like the NYT). Nobody expects to be even listened to here, but at least a few of us can pretend to feel like we're contributing to the conversation. As Americans, we're suspicious of bluenosed Think Tank pundits feeding us their opinions without any ability to tell them how stupid and out of touch they are. Specific blogs for each staff columnist will allow THEM to better understand their own blind spots, too. Even better, select some of the more coherent posts and PRINT them in the Opinion Section. Not just on-line - spill a little ink on us. Nothing creates loyalty to a paper like being published in it.
Second, break out a separate section on the "Hollywood" entertainment BUSINESS. Not what movie is showing where, or reviews of a recent concert - leave that in Calendar. I'm talking about real inside news about what movie location Clint Eastwood is scouting for a script next year, what industry exec's are thinking about the Fall TV season in 2012, profit and loss figures on all the studios - All the unglamorous stuff that has to be done to make sure the glamour sells. The LA Times is Hollywood's paper and nobody - absolutely NOBODY should scoop you on what goes on in this town. Buy the entire staff of the Hollywood Reporter or Variety if you have to. The entertainment industry isn't that much different from the Auto industry. Report on it.
Third addition - and this isn't an addition as much as a different approach to newswriting - have your reporters print more background research. I am appalled at how little research journalists do these days. Not the hard-nosed interviewing, rounding up sources, and getting shot at - the film noir stuff - but the boring part of looking up some old LA Times articles on Google, Lexis, or whatever search engine you've got in-house. Time after time I read articles that leave out the years-long sequence of events leading up to an event. All I get is the Distinguished Gentleman's quote that whateveritis happened because of somebody else's bad decisions. A good fact-check can and should disprove specious accusations when they are made. And cite day, date, time, place, and exact quote. You lack credibility if you, as a newspaper, can only refute with a vague recollection of something somebody said once. We readers NEED to get a better sense of the history of an event. Otherwise, you're just being led by the nose.
Posted by: Mike Havnaer | October 16, 2006 at 11:34 PM
Things to get rid of?
How about your on-line version? Well, don't actually get rid of it, but do like the NYT, split it into two parts - a pay part and a free part. That way you can at least slow down the exodus of people who figure they don't need to actually BUY the paper to read it, since its ALL free on-line. This will also allow you to split the web Front Page into two and make it simpler and easier to navigate. And the extra revenue would be nice, too.
You could probably lose your Sunday "Book Review" and nobody would notice. In fact, I personally think the reviews would get much more notice if they were placed in their respective subject matter sections. It would give them the status of a news item rather than a publisher's ad.
And I hope you're not paying much for inserting Parade into your Sunday Times. Its such a lame waste of newsprint.
What I like the way it is:
Don't change your "bias", if you have one. 2/3 of this state voted for John Kerry in the last election. A liberal bias suits our newspaper just fine. If you still feel you have to capture the Conservative readers, publish a separate, Conservative newspaper like "The John Birch Daily News" or something. It'd be a good place for trainees to start.
I really like your in-depth reports where one of your staff goes off for a year and returns with a fascinating human-interest story. News Magazines don't do that better than you.
Aww...I like the LA Times just like it is.
Mostly.
Posted by: Mike Havnaer | October 17, 2006 at 12:03 AM
I've recently dropped the Times. It's turning into the Daily News. Conservative opinion and fewer and fewer reporters. I don't know where you get all these clowns complaining about how "liberal" it is. Your editorial page has nixed any of the progressive measures on the ballot this time, because they have the nerve to tax the corporations to pay for it. Yet the current electoral finance system benefits nobody but the corporations.
Plus, there's another candidate for governor. The Times, along with much of monied Los Angeles, is for the dumb muscleman, who this year is pretending to be a centrist. That's until next year, when he'll have to move right to pay off the $100 million they've given to him out of the goodness of their hearts. Get ready to bail, Californians.
But if you follow the general line of advice on this blog, you'll be as worthless as the talk radio morons. My advice? Can you bring Otis Chandler back from the dead? Sell out to the Pattericos of the world, and pretty soon you'll be as worthless a rag as you were before Otis took over.
Posted by: Jim H | October 17, 2006 at 02:46 AM
Bring back the OUTDOOR section!
Posted by: Outside | October 17, 2006 at 07:44 AM
Get rid of the space-waster Joel Stein, bring back the excellent Robert Sheer, along with unbiased reporting across the board.
And, get rid of the comics on the "Current" section, which should go back to the more appropriate title, "Opinion."
Posted by: Susan Alexander Llauget | October 17, 2006 at 07:58 AM
Start providing follow-ups on past stories. For example, in September 2001, GWBush said he would confiscate all the funds of those who had financed the 9/11 terrorists. In October 2001, tho list of the Saudi Arabian and UAE financeers was provided the President and the media by the CIA and FBI. Which bank accounts had the President confiscated? How much was confiscated?
Prod the President. All Visitors to Australia and to many Western European countries have their passports logged by computer on entry and departure. Their systems have been in place since the 20th Century. The US has no such system.
Stop publishing news releases from Arab countries without a disclaimer that a) they've been censored, b) have not verified the claims of witnesses, c) Arabs exaggerate as part of their culture.
Stop publishing advertorials from the Heritage Foundation and other fascist think-tanks just because you are provided them for free.
Posted by: Phillip Good | October 17, 2006 at 08:34 AM
Three items to drop:
1). News
2). Editorial pages
3). Classified ads
Posted by: lance sjogren | October 17, 2006 at 12:50 PM
Jim H’s comments are illustrative:
“…all these clowns…dumb muscleman…talk radio morons…”
This is the thinking of those still pining for the weekly effluvia of Robert Scheer. Any difference of opinion means you’re dumb. An opposing viewpoint makes you a moron.
When the Times caters to this group, is it surprising that fair-minded and intelligent readers won’t waste their time or money on the Times?
While I’m generally a Bush supporter, I have no problem holding his feet to the fire and asking pointed questions about this administration’s policies. But too often, the starting point seems to begin with “this guy’s an idiot and his policies are a failure”. Deviation from that script immediately enrages people like Jim H.
Any business has to decide who their customers are and which ones they can do with out. Which will Jim H be?
Posted by: TakeFive | October 17, 2006 at 12:55 PM
Re: Mike H
"Don't change your "bias", if you have one. 2/3 of this state voted for John Kerry in the last election. A liberal bias suits our newspaper just fine."
John F. Kerry 6,737,355 54.4
George W. Bush 5,501,496 44.4
100.0% ( 24035 of 24035 ) precincts reporting as of Dec 7, 2004 at 6:14 am
http://vote2004.ss.ca.gov/Returns/pres/00.htm
See, this is what I mean about being honest with numbers. It took all of 9 seconds to look that up and it certainly changes the complexion of Mike's argument.
I'm not trying to beat up on Mike, only use him as an example of the lack of fact checking that is so easy to perform yet seems to be missing from many stories (and not just in the Times).
Posted by: TakeFive | October 17, 2006 at 01:16 PM
No one really seems to be answering the questions of what actual features to drop or add.
So, kill:
1) Getting Personal
2) all columnists who talk mostly about laundry or squirrels
3) Screenplay column and/or fast food reviews
ADD:
1) let readers comment online on opinion and feature stories like on Salon or other blogs
2) cover the culture of all the immigrant communities more thoroughly -- why do I feel like I learn more about the city reading a Denise Hamilton article than the Times?
3)More thorough food coverage, of ethnic communities, readers' home cooking, etc.
4) Fashion and design coverage that people might actually be able to afford -- find the people in L.A. who are featured in or writing for Readymade, Apartment Therapy, Bust, etc. and use them!
5) better education coverage -- why should it be better in the otherwise horrible Daily News than in the Times?
Three features I like just the way they are:
1) Patrick Goldstein
2) Steve Lopez
3) Coverage of smaller restaurants by Linda Burum, etc.
Posted by: Pat | October 17, 2006 at 03:32 PM
Editors: Having reviewed all the comments, I suggest you guys apply for the openings at the Santa Barbara News-Press. You'll never make this mob happy.
Posted by: retired | October 17, 2006 at 04:21 PM
I'd like to see you cover more:
1. Quirky human interest stories-
Column One is good. More like it, please.
2. Behind the scene stories-
Show us how things get done in Sacramento,
L.A. City Hall, The L.A. Times, etc.
3. Stories that challenge conventional wisdom-
The article about UCLA and animal research
could have been followed-up with an article
on the growing number of drugs that were
effective on animal research subjects, but
disastrous on humans.
Posted by: sandra m | October 17, 2006 at 05:21 PM
Add:
1. More local news in a beefed up CA section (it's the first thing I go for). Bring back some regional sections, because it seems suburban communities feel no need for the Times anymore. But include all news in each (remember we are a single region - I like that the section is California and not a narrow local view like Ventura or Orange Co.) Also carry this through to the sports sections for high school teams in each region. A community calendar might also be nice - with public meetings, neighborhood councils, etc. all publicized in one place. Los Angeles is becoming more of a cohesive place and the Times is one of the only regionally identified commonalities we have. The Times can serve this role better by raising serious issues that impact the entire city and region and give us a sense that we are all part of the same place.
2. Have a significant week in review section on Sunday, like the NY Times. Several pages with most important news highlights from each section.
3. Make the sunday magazine bigger and better. The recent changes made it too "Hollywood". We are a city about more than that. Make the magazine big enough that it can even be sold separately on news stands in grocery stores. It could even take on a California-wide appeal and be sold throughout the state, since we have no statewide magazine now that the CA Journal is no longer. Have special articles from major columnists on politics, culture, style. Include historical stories or columns about the city and state. This could also help the paper and magazine expand its statewide appeal.
4. Add more architecture and design stories. Not just architecture, but planning and design stories relavent to the city. LA is the center of the most cutting edge architecture and design. Play this up and like you do Hollywood. Also, the city has so much room for improvement when it comes to urban aesthetics. With all the new development in LA, planning should become a regular topic or column in the paper just at the local level in additional to national and international articles.
KILL
To be honest, I like most of what is there now. If anything, I would kill this new kick to somehow make the newspaper more conservative. The paper is pretty center of the road now and definitely representative of the state as a whole. The people who complain the newspaper is too liberal are partisan conservatives who won't be loyal readers anyway - they look for news with a bend (like Fox News). The Times isn't losing readers bacause of its politics, but will if it becomes too conservative (remember, LA is a liberal city).
LIKE AS IS
1. Love Steve Lopez Columns
2. Like the Home section
3. Like the Calendar Weekend section on Thurs.
Posted by: Tom | October 17, 2006 at 06:46 PM
RE: Take5,
I stand corrected. Only 54.4% of Californians voted Kerry. And it does change the complextion of my argument, doesn't it? After all, if only 54% of the state voted to remove the incumbent, that pretty much makes us a RED State. I guess I've been fooled by the Media all this time, accepting their accusations that Californians are crazy liberals, when in fact we can proudly hold our conservative credentials up to the right of Wyoming, Alabama, and Oklahoma.
And my argument falls entirely apart if you look at 2004 voter statistics for LA County, where the LA Times is based.
http://vote2004.ss.ca.gov/Returns/pres/19.htm
(Your link)
I missed my 2/3 claim by a full three and a half percentage points. If I'd realized that only 63.2 percent of Angelenos voted to throw the King out of office, I'd never have claimed that we have a liberal bias down here.
Fetch me the moonshine, Ma, and let's go sit on the front porch.
Posted by: Mike Havnaer | October 17, 2006 at 07:42 PM
Five -
But you ARE right about fact-checking. It was one of my suggestions, too.
I did step in my own doo-doo there, but then I don't get paid to write news.
Posted by: Mike Havnaer | October 17, 2006 at 07:46 PM
And to the Times -
Seems like a lot of your readers miss Robert Scheer.
And your Editorial staff looks a lot more like the Register than the LA Times. Were you just trying to P.O. your readers to get them to write more letters?
Sacking Kinsley was a bad move. He tried a revolutionary change and his bosses cut his feet out from under him. It would have taken time, but his changes would have lifted the Times Editorial staff to superstar stature - like the NY Times staff - Dowd, Friedman, Kristof, Rich, Krugman, and Brooks. When those guys write, powerful people listen.
Who seriously listens to Max Boot?
Posted by: Mike Havnaer | October 17, 2006 at 08:02 PM
1) Lose Bill Plaschke. Worst sportswriter for a major metropolitan daily in the U.S., Non-Jay Mariotti Division. A paper that once sported the likes of Ross Newhan and Jim Murray should be able to do better.
2) Why does the Times carry the openly fascist Max Boot? And, for that matter, torture apologist Joel Stein?
3) Regarding Tom's comment above that Orange County is somehow a "narrow" local interest... well, if he wants to ignore about 3,000,000 people, be my guest, but I don't think it's in the Times' best interest... their editorial page has been sneering at OC ever since the bankruptcy.
Posted by: scareduck | October 17, 2006 at 11:55 PM
3 things to drop....that's ALL you ask for?
How about:
1. The overwhelming, suffocating, liberal bias which leads you to post crap from Stein and Rosa Brooks straight out of Pravda
2. A sports Section which seems to think UCLA deserves top front page football coverage when it loses and USC wins, and often has twice the internal coverage.
3. Editorials on EVERY page, spun left at every turn. Hey, you are supposed to be a newspaper, not a leftwing propaganda mill.
I've got more. You used to be a GREAT newspaper.
Now, you are a disgrace to our city and area.
Robert
Posted by: Robert | October 18, 2006 at 01:20 AM
I can't believe one of your concerns is the "liberal bias of the times". Much of your commentary is very conservative by my standards ... and I'm in Nebraska! You also refer to it as "the paper" I look at it online, as do many others. You offer a national news service with a west coast perspective. You need to think of the internet as your primary delivery method.
Posted by: Doug Boyd | October 18, 2006 at 06:17 AM
Re: Mike H.
You wrote: "...2/3 of this state voted for John Kerry in the last election..."
Wrong - 54.4% did
Followed by "...I missed my 2/3 claim by a full three and a half percentage points.."
Wrong again: 66.6 - 54.4 = 12.2 points, not 3.5 points.
Then you attempt to redefine your claim by changing the playing field: "If I'd realized that only 63.2 percent of Angelenos voted to throw the King out of office..."
Followed up with a little ad hominem: Fetch me the moonshine, Ma, and let's go sit on the front porch.
So when I point out some basic math errors, I'm equated with an uneducated hillbilly?
I'm not trying to start a flame war with Mike. This just illustrates the uncritical thinking that I am coming to belive most people use when reading the news. Perhaps the Times has a problem that can't be fixed with format changes.
Posted by: TakeFive | October 18, 2006 at 06:52 AM
Now I know to cease hoping for some return to my old L.A. Times morning ritual. The fact that your summary of ways to improve the Times includes 'it's too liberal' makes me ill. ANY good investigative reporting and coverage will seem liberal to those in power.
Having been bought by the Chicago Tribune, and most obviously in the last few years the L.A. Times has swayed further and further to the right. The new publisher having a history of supporting domestic concentration camps doesn't help much either.
I'm not sure if the L.A. Times apologized for it's failure to properly cover the build up to this disaster of the Iraq war... but, even it they did apologize... it's a failure of integrity and duty to the electorate of our community.
So, while knowing that a significant number of old Times loyalists might return if the editorial political opinions would reflect their own views periodically... this article completely ignores our concerns. Bye, Bye.
Posted by: Marc Sadoff | October 18, 2006 at 07:02 AM
Drop Jonah Greenberg. The kid is a hack.
Posted by: Mateo | October 18, 2006 at 07:58 AM
Please post the voting records of the associate justices of the Court of Appeal in table form. I need guidance before I vote.
Get rid of the space-waster Joel Stein, bring back the excellent Robert Sheer. (And ask Michael Jackson--the former radio commentator--to do interviews.
Posted by: Phillip Good | October 18, 2006 at 08:37 AM
Marc -- I think you misunderstand. I was just listing a summary that one *reader* made of recent reader comments here, not the Times' internal list of What It Thinks Might Be Wrong. I'm not privy to that latter list in any case....
Posted by: Matt Welch | October 18, 2006 at 08:42 AM
I don't know how the writers of these other comments can possibly think the L.A. Times has a liberal bias, unless they're knee-jerk paranoid, or actually Republican operatives trying to sway the results of this public feedback (sadly, a very common strategy on the right). I've watched with despair over the last few years as the Times has bent over backwards trying to satisfy the right in a state which is decidedly blue. On the Opinion page, meaninglessly renamed "Current", you fired the one columnist who accurately predicted the result of invading Iraq, and hired more conservative columnists like Jonah Goldberg, who made a name for himself by being the son of a Republican operative and writing a hit piece on the Clintons. When it's not conservative, it's fluff, with "opinion" pieces about hairdos, reality TV, and movie stars.
I'm especially offended by the glee with which the paper ridicules and demeans every Latin American leader who dares to make decisions not dictated to him (or her) by American corporate interests. Does the Times not have the ability to research these nations' tragic affiliations with such entities as the World Bank and the IMF? Can you at least pretend not to wholly represent U.S. banking interests? Can you not act like the ignorant child of a neo-con who giggles and snickers at the mocking of her parent's enemies?
Anyway, three things, huh?
1. Bring back Robert Scheer. He was right, and you axed him for political reasons. Don't deny it, it's obvious.
2. Fire Jonah Goldberg. Besides being an out and out operative for the Republican party, his columns contain some of the most embarrassingly inane and logically challenged comments I've ever seen in print. He was clearly hired for political reasons. Definitely not for writing quality.
3. Don't listen to these accusations of "liberal bias". Besides operating in a city and a state where a "liberal bias" is good business, it's a patently hollow accusation, used cynically by conservatives to intimidate news outlets into killing stories which make their leaders look bad. It is undeniably factual that this administration is a collossal failure, and if you make it seem not so, then you are being biased toward the right.
Posted by: Andrew Matthews | October 18, 2006 at 09:14 AM
More Science Reporting: Southern California is the world hub of research in about 12 important and really interesting areas. Why does NYT cover it so much more?
More Wise Old Men (and Women): Forget age; more the notion that we've got on staff the leading minds covering, say, classical music, the U.S. Senate, Ultimate Fighting and digital rights management. There are a few experts in their field at the Times, but I want more.
More really funny stuff: Comics, bottom-of-the-page filler, clip art, columns. Material that will make me laugh to the point of tears. Not those horrible, horrible Only in L.A. style roundups with mis-printed road signs, etc. A baby angel dies -- again ! -- every time that dreck gets printed.
Posted by: Ben Sullivan | October 18, 2006 at 10:02 AM
ADD:
(1) More investigative reporting! Huge, compelling stories like the real reason for war in Iraq and the Republican plan for a Century of power should be selling newspapers, not books.
(2) Opinion: (a) More Letters! The column Editorial Board pinched from Letters yielded 200 words of editorial wisdom while Letters were cut almost in half. Readers hated that change and their demotion to relative unimportance but the Board was not impressed. Return the stolen column, subtract 67 words from each editorial and all will be forgiven. (b) More major OpEds! Important pieces like your 8 June 03 "Bush's Scorched Earth Campaign" have to be occasional but just now I can't remember the last one.
(3) Better website: (a) you need a drop-dead terrific website that doesn't take a trail of breadcrumbs to navigate Opinion. Hire two people--a designer to tame the clutter and jangle with aesthetics and order and a technical expert to install some dazzle. (b) A membership fee for access to columnists and archives like NY Times has would balance diminishing print subscriptions.
SUBTRACT:
(1) Robotic balance: Political reporting that gives equal weight to clear facts and preposterous fictions in the name of balanced reporting confers credibility on lies and leaves uncovered the truth being concealed.
(2) Venomous OpEd writers who demonstrate a primary purpose of discrediting opposition with toxic disinformation and ridicule have no place in a grown-up forum of meaningful debate. I also suggest a (low) monthly fluff limit.
(3) CURRENT's redesigned look is restless and over-contrasty. Consider using the black lines, a little thinner, as design accents. On page one visualize a slimmer black line across the top and an even slimmer one framing a high-quality color illustration (improvement needed there) surrounded by type: opposing OpEds of equal width on either side and above, and a different subject in the columns below. A more contemporary headline typeface with less height variation would improve design and readability.
Vicki Livingston
Posted by: Vicki Livingston | October 18, 2006 at 10:40 AM
It's frustrating to see a measly two or three letters that your gatekeepers allow in the Times print version. An online forum for readers to comment articles is a must. If other top newspapers can do it, so can our newspaper.
Posted by: sandra m | October 18, 2006 at 10:55 AM
1) Name three features you think the paper should add.
-Local control of the News paper
-More Latino & African American Staff writers.
-More in depth reports
2) Name three features you think the paper should kill.
-Tribune control of the newspaper
-Tribune control of the newspaper
-Tribune control of the newspaper
3) Name three features you like just the way they are.
-T.J. Simers
-Comic Strips
-Horoscopes.
Posted by: Oscar | October 18, 2006 at 12:12 PM
You should have a daily colum that fact-checks politicians. Every day numerous politicians national and local make astonishing statements that are totally divorced from reality. It would be nice to see the press report this. I'm not talking about arguable cases or differences of opinion, but hard facts. Maybe if the press, starting with the Times, would point out the lies of various politicians there would be fewer of them. (Fewer lies or fewer politicians. I'll go with either one.) Maybe you should keep score tracking the number of distinct lies or the number of times a given lie is repeated. I think that when the President or someone of equal authority lies it should be headline news, but it is so common now it would be all you write about.
Posted by: Doug | October 18, 2006 at 01:49 PM
Bring back the quickly-abandoned concept behind "Wikitorial." But this time allow people to organize themselves by beliefs and select gatekeepers to moderate the process. The goal should be to develop and refine "consensus" opinion pieces that have broad support among the reasonably like-minded participants, which you could then be published in the paper along side differing consensus views on the same issue. I like to compare arguments side by side when deciding about issues.
You could publish all electronically-received letters on line. This would allow readers to judge how well you choose what to publish.
Turn the Readers Representative into a discussion board where participants can hash out things in the paper people have a problem with and where volunteers could distill the essence of those discussions before you actually spend time on it. Good journalism requires giving consideration to constructive, thought-out criticism.
For me, it's not what paper gets a story first, it's what paper gives me a clear, concise and insightful analysis of the issue. I remember Bill Moyers giving a description of good journalism as something like "giving readers a picture of the world they can act upon."
To that end and since there is an issue of staff, use yours more efficiently by exploiting the willingness of people to do research on the web on issues. Create a place on your web site where people can contribute to stories before they are published. A discussion board could do this. In fact let people suggest stories, contribute content and sources that the paper could pick up on if you choose. There are many talented people that could contribute to helping your reporters do their job better, for free. You might even find people you would like to hire.
As for bias, I am attracted to the definition of how to avoid it given by Lee Ross of
Stanford University on the NewsHour earlier this year: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec06/bias_08-17.html
"But I think the minimal definition of unbiased or objective coverage should be coverage in which each side thinks that its own case has been fairly presented. They may think that the criticisms of that case are unfair, but they should feel that their basic position was articulated in a way that they recognize and are willing to own as, indeed, being their own views."
People will disagree but that doesn't mean that they can't sometimes find agreement on where they disagree. I think it makes the debate more civil and constructive.
Posted by: riposter | October 18, 2006 at 02:25 PM
(1 - add) Recruit more heavily from blogs and the alternative press. Matt Welch was a good start, as was Manohla Dargis before the NYT snatched her away. Off the top of my head: Andy Klein at CityBeat and Marc Cooper at the Weekly would be great hires; also Jonathan Gold at the Weekly is infinitely better than any Times food writer. I'm a friend of Andy's, but was a fan long before -- he has the film history knowledge to appeal to older readers, and a refreshing lack of condescension and love of action movies that younger readers dig.
-Bring back both Robert Scheer and Michael Ramirez, if they'll come back.
(2 - kill) Jonah Goldberg is utterly useless. There are conservative columnists out there who actually think before they type, like Dennis Prager. Goldberg is not one of them. While we're at it, keep Joel Stein away from politics -- I like his humor columns, but when he gets into serious issues, he's over his head.
-Steve Harvey's "Only in LA" has long since ceased to be entertaining.
-Since a lot of readers turn to the main news section last, all the "teases" on page 2 and 3 are redundant. Lose that.
-The Thursday weekend preview calendar section sucks. Just leave it like it is every other day of the week.
-Drop Mallard Fillmore from the comics page. Conservative cartoons can be funny (Prickly City), but that ain't one. Replace it with Zippy the Pinhead.
(3 - keep as is) You won't ever satisfy the criers of "liberal bias" unless the paper moves as far right as Fox News. Realize that there are many more conservative papers that still get accused of liberal bias. Righties can have the Daily News.
-DON'T abandon global news coverage.
Sorry, that isn't exactly three apiece. Pick and choose.
Posted by: LYT | October 18, 2006 at 03:17 PM
The Food Section is way too pretentious nowadays. So are a lot of the sections. What happened to all the hole and the wall spotlights and all those quirky articles. It's like your trying to be something you ain't(a wannabe New York Times) which doesn't make for interesting reading.
Posted by: KenL | October 18, 2006 at 03:18 PM
Something to add: have you filled the vacant labor beat yet?
Something to remove: most of the opinion pieces, or eliminate the WWF-tone of so many of them.
Keep the same: Steve Lopez, running unpopular stories (AKA "the all-knowing attitude" that Patterico has made a life-long hobby complaining about).
Posted by: Jackie Treehorn | October 18, 2006 at 04:01 PM
THREE THINGS THE PAPER SHOULD ADD
Posted by: Larry Kaplan | October 18, 2006 at 04:40 PM
In general, I am quite happy with the Times, but--
THREE THINGS THE PAPER SHOULD ADD
1. Take Kinsley's advice and beef up the entertainment coverage to make the LA Times to show biz what the NY Times is to international affairs and the Wall St Journal is to business---the authoritative paper of record that people all over the US go to. Make the Times a must read, along with Variety and the H'wd Reporter, for people in the industry. Somebody else suggested splitting out the business of show biz as a separate section or part of Calendar or Business, and that's worth considering. I am not really into the biz personally, but recognize how important it is to LA and the country.
2. Cover more local politics and civic affairs OUTSIDE of the City of LA and LA City Hall. There are 10 million people in LA County and, guess what, 6 million don't live in the city, and there are some interesting stories in those 87 other towns. It would be like the NY Times covering Manhattan and ignoring the less glamorous boroughs (which maybe it does, since I only see the National Edition).
3. Bring back more comprehensive TV and cable coverage. I know you just got rid of it because your research showed people don't use it, but I liked the more comprehensive listings.
THREE THINGS THE PAPER SHOULD KILL---I would revise that to say, things the paper should CHANGE:
1. Recognize that many people cannot afford the home decor, fashions, restaurants and wines you devote a lot of ink too. I know readers like to see the "lifestyles of the rich and famous" and you are appealing to an upscale demographic, but it would be nice to get some decorating advice that I could actually afford to take, or see some restaurant reviews of places I could afford, as well.
2. Make the website more robust. The Times deserves more vitality on its website.
3. Don't waste a whole page on the weather---I would bet that, like TV listings, people don't get their weather information from the paper anymore.
THREE THINGS GOOD THE WAY THEY ARE
1. The human interest Column One stories, which talk about everyday heroes and interesting regular people---today's story about the teenage dirt track racer was wonderful. Maybe you should do more of these.
2. Comics---the first thing I turn to after taking the paper out of the plastic wrapping (speaking of plastic wrapping, thank you for going to a thinner wrapper that saves energy.
3. Your efforts to be a serious paper of national importance with substantive coverage of world and national issues are critically important and laudable---LA is one of the most important urban centers in the world, and IMHO second only to NY and DC in America, and it needs and deserves a world-class newspaper.
Thanks for asking.
Posted by: Larry Kaplan | October 18, 2006 at 05:04 PM
Has the Times considered raiding Hit & Run for talent?
Posted by: Ken Shultz | October 18, 2006 at 06:54 PM
Anybody else out there watch Channel 9's coverage of local sports? I think they do half an hour on local sports every night--once I found it, I stopped watching Sports Center on ESPN altogether. How can ESPN compete with half an hour of local sports coverage every night? It can't.
The Times should be able to clobber every other online outlet for LA sports news. ...but the other day I heard that the Times was, for instance, no longer covering the LA Kings' away games. Is that true? ...Dropping coverage of the away games of a local, professional sports team seems like a move in the wrong direction. Again, the Times has a huge competitive advantage in local sports coverage--exploit it!
I go to the sites of a handful of newspapers every day--I never leave the Sports page on most. ...and it just strikes me that when I want coverage of LA sports teams online, I go to ESPN or CBS Sportsline. ...and the Times should be wiping the floor with those outlets.
Posted by: Ken Shultz | October 18, 2006 at 07:39 PM
First thing every morning make coffee then bring in the paper.
Next step -- throw away the Sports & Classified sections.
Next step -- read the comics (no early morning mental challenge). Carefully avoid all entertainment news.
Editorial & OpEd pages.
Front section, columnists, Business, and rest of Califoria.
Question: Who can prefer online version to sitting in morning sun with fresh coffee and if desired reading in depth material unique to print?
Posted by: David Crawley | October 19, 2006 at 04:41 PM
I'd like to elaborate a minute on one of my comments - changing the website from free to pay.
I made a comparison to the NYT policy, but I'm not sure their way is the best way. Over there, it seems like they fee the articles, particularly their Opinion section, that are most interesting to non-New Yorkers and leave the local coverage on-line for free. That's made me cut way back on my NYT reading. I'm just not willing to pay $50/yr to read two on-line articles a day, and I have absolutely NO interest in 90% of the Big Apple's local coverage. So occasionally I click over there to read some of their International coverage. Of course, the NYT has a much bigger reputation than its L.A. namesake. People read the NYT so they can brag about reading the NYT. They can afford to charge for their premium stuff because people will pay.
The L.A. Times doesn't have that kind of reputation. I don't see the L.A. Times on newsstands next to the NYT and WSJ when I travel abroad. The world knows the LAT is just a local paper that has a pretty good international reporting staff - maybe just a little better than, say, the Seattle Post or (ahem) the Chicago Tribune. The world won't pay to read this paper on-line if they can get the same information free on the NYT.
So I think you have to make your on-line presence a marketing ploy, rather than straight-up journalism. You've got to provide articles that appeal to the largest national and international audience, and do it for free, to build brand loyalty. What our friend in Nebraska DOESN'T want to hear are stories about local high school football teams (unless he's a scout from the U. of Neb). All that local news just gets in the way in the blizzard of menu selections you provide. Cut the local news way back from your on-line version - no shootings, no car chases, no city bond issues, no CSUN Baseball scores - and shine up those national and international stories you scoop from the NYT and Washington Post.
There seems to be a lot of call for more coverage of local events, and I have to admit that I miss the regional issues. Local news should go in the local newsprint. Make US pay for those stories. Locally, the Times is the only REAL game in town. There's just not the same thrill reading about your son or daughter's accomplishment in the Grunion Gazette as reading about it in the Times. Why should we be able to rip off the hard work of your local staff by reading the paper on-line for free? If we want more local coverage, make us pay for it, by subscribing to the paper either in print or on-line.
High profile, National and International coverage on-line to build your reputation. Local coverage to pay the bills.
Who knows? Someday bloggers may recognize the initials LAT the same as they now recognize NYT and WSJ.
Posted by: Mike Havnaer | October 19, 2006 at 10:48 PM
and to 5,
Hey I conceded already. You're right. I was wrong when I implied that California has a liberal bias based on our voting record in the last Presidential Election. When you pointed out that the actual results were 54.4% to 44.4%, I realized that, as you said, "...it certainly changes the complexion of Mike's argument."
Indeed it does. And I acknowleged as much. By virtue of the fact that the "liberal" candidate out-polled the "conservative" candidate state-wide by a mere 9.979741076%, it blew my assertion completely apart. I fully accept your implication that California is a conservative state, with a voting record on par with that of Montana, Kansas, or Mississippi.
And, if the L.A. Times wishes to publish a paper that appeals to the conservative majority in this state, they need to change from a liberal to a conservative bias.
You win.
Posted by: Mike Havnaer | October 19, 2006 at 11:18 PM