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