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. - stronger labor coverage, more science coverage besides the embarrassing Science Files snippets on Saturday, more web content, sports coverage of the business and cultural aspects of sports (a columnist that does more than human interest stories.
With only.
One sentence paragraphs.
Like Bill Plaschke.).
2) Name three features you think the paper should kill. - Bill Plaschke, Joel Stein (maybe not kill Joel Stein, but please get him off of the OpEd page), West Magazine--as it stands now, it's a pointless read. Either improve it (why not put the long feature stories that no one I know reads in here, along with essays like in the NYT Mag), or save yourself the costs.
3) Name three features you like just the way they are. - Steve Lopez, Outside the Tent, Mike Penner.
Posted by: Evan | October 25, 2006 at 06:43 AM
And...
Your friends are probably Liberal. Just as Conservatives don't have to toe the line on every issue, so too can Liberals have widely divergent opinions on different subjects - and there are a lot to choose from. Do your friends support social welfare programs? Zero-tolerance immigration policies? Free-market, laizzez-faire economics or tightly regulated government policies? They're Catholic, but do they think Federal Law should be based on Biblical scripture? Add it all up and I bet you'll find a preponderace of evidence they're pretty liberal.
And of course, there's context. Most Oklahoma Baptists probably think they're pretty moderate. Drop them into a Westwood party and they'll be perceived as one step removed from the KKK. Conversly, if you insert an Encino Real Estate agent into a Texas barbecue, folks there will ask if he has links to al Qaeda.
And is the Times really doing badly? there are about 10 Million people in LA County. ( http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06037.html ) Divide that by about 4 per household to get about 2.5 million. "The Times’ total average paid Sunday circulation is 1,231,318 and Monday-Friday circulation is 851,832." ( http://www.latimes.com/services/newspaper/mediacenter/la-mediacenter-circulation,0,7813109.story ) Lets take the 80% of the M-F figures to more accurately reflect local circulation (The LA Times is pretty popular in Orange County) So 681,000 divided by 2.5 million is 27% of households get this paper. Given demographic factors like Language, economic status, usefulness, political resentment, and the fact that the whole paper is available free on-line, I think they're doing pretty well.
Posted by: Mike Havnaer | October 21, 2006 at 07:58 AM
5,
My initial assertion (implied, at least) was that the LA Times should maintain its liberal bias (if there is one) because most Californians are basically liberal. I cited an erroneous 66.67% voting record as an example.
You correctly pointed out that the actual statewide results were 54.4% to 44.4%.
You went on to claim "...and it certainly changes the complexion of Mike's argument."
What does that mean? Taken at face value, I read it as rebuttal of my point that California is a liberal state, because the incumbent conservative President was rejected by a mere 10-point margin instead of a 33.3-point margin.
In effect, what you were implying is that my argument was wrong because my numerical calculation was in error to a degree. If my argument is wrong, then my point that California is essentially a liberal state is in error, ergo, California must then be the opposite of Liberal.
That's the great thing about the power of the English language - what is implied but not stated directly has a powerful effect on how people percieve information (and I'm getting back to the thread of this blog). Whether a person or newspaper is liberal or conservative has a lot to do with which words are used to describe stories. If the paper finds "evidence of corruption in the LAPD", they don't mean to say that EVERY LAPD officer is corrupt, just one or three. But we READ that to mean every LAPD officer is corrupt.
When you say that my argument is changed because my fact is off to a degree, I (and everybody else)read that my whole point is wrong.
Posted by: Mike Havnaer | October 21, 2006 at 07:24 AM
Hey kids! Three more questions here!
Posted by: Matt Welch | October 20, 2006 at 09:32 PM
For being a newspaper in Los Angeles your focus seems to be more national. You're losing many readers because of the unbalanced, bias, spin reporting you do. The paper's consistent personal attacks and negative stories on LAPD are shameful. Other newspapers report the facts when LA Times reports bias, unresearched stories. Its reporters fail to report the other side of issues. Every media outlet reported Officer Ripatti who was shot and paralyzed in the line of duty chasing a felony suspect was getting a new home thanks to ABC's Extreme Makeover. The LA Times was the ONLY media outlet that didn't report it. It was covered on every local tv news channel and newspaper. This is a perfect example of what I'm stating.
Posted by: Monica | October 20, 2006 at 09:36 AM
Mike - nowhere did I imply that California is a conservative state. I merely pointed out that your claim about the liberal makeup of this state was grossly exaggerated.
You did stumble across an interesting nugget of information though. If the voting demographics for the LA area are as you state, then why wasn’t the Times more successful with its supposedly liberal bias? Why weren’t these people supporting the Times before it turned “conservative” and fired Robert Scheer?
Perhaps it’s a mistake to assume that someone who votes Dem is a liberal. I’m acquainted with a couple who are successful Hollywood types, hate president Bush and most of his policies, are observant Catholics and against abortion. What does that make them – liberal or conservative?
I think it would be a mistake for the Times to take on either a liberal or conservative tilt. I believe most people would be satisfied if their viewpoint got a fair hearing.
Posted by: TakeFive | October 20, 2006 at 09:21 AM
As a former intern with the Times' outstanding infographics team, I'd personally like to see them given more free rein on the web side, creating animated Flash infographics and packages that bring together existing content in new ways.
I also tend to agree with Jeff Jarvis about the creation of 'Content APIs' that allow others to reuse and recombine existing LAT content in new ways. Not only does this open up and flatten out content, but it also could become a new product line, as these APIs do not have to be free; even Google only gives you 1,000 free API calls per day.
But as for the content itself, I'd probably put more resources into two areas: improved local reporting (including 'hyperlocal' reporting) and 'reporters at large' doing investigations and major packages, but with a real local angle.
Posted by: Douglas Arellanes | October 20, 2006 at 04:53 AM
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
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
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
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
Has the Times considered raiding Hit & Run for talent?
Posted by: Ken Shultz | October 18, 2006 at 06:54 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
THREE THINGS THE PAPER SHOULD ADD
Posted by: Larry Kaplan | October 18, 2006 at 04:40 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
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
(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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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