So how are the critics receiving our A-section redesign?

The Editors Weblog, NewsDesigner.com and the Free Republic offer summaries of the changes, with Free Republic calling it "deck chair rearrangement".

Kevin Roderick of LAObserved -- a former Timesman himself -- has the most comprehensive commentary, noting that "redesigns take time to grow on you. This one, though, has the feel of aiming to please the design pros rather than Los Angeles newspaper readers." The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum agrees, blaming the "J-Consultant mafia" for homogenizing and dumbing down newspaper design across the country and making the Times look a lot like the Chicago Tribune.

JAmussen of L.A. Voice, calling the redesign "retro" and "focus grouped into banality," wonders why the money and effort spent on the changes didn't go to reporters. Fishbowl L.A.'s Kate Coe has some words for coming changes to the Sunday Calendar section. The Delicious Pundit thinks the paper is getting dumber in its quest to land on "every driveway in the Southland." Will Sullivan at Journerdism, for one, thinks the changes were overdue, saying about the old design, "I didn't know papers still layed out front pages like that."

Martini Republic, however, has better things to do:

While other entities were busy fawning over slight cosmetic changes to the front page of the Los Angeles Times [...] a couple of other papers and blogs this past weekend were busy documenting what’s going on in Los Angeles.

Today is an important milestone in the evolution of the Opinion section -- we're moving up to the newly redesigned A section of the newspaper. To mark the occasion we have used the opportunity to step back and reintroduce ourselves to you, shed a bit of light on what we do, how we do it, and why. Ever wonder about the editorial board's philosophy? Wonder no more (or at least less) by reading our Mission Statement. Here's an excerpt:

We reject overreaching moves by public authorities to control the culture or private mores. Citizens' right to privacy, to decide for themselves how best to lead their lives, is fundamental. It is in keeping with our Western roots to champion individual autonomy and the freedom of conscience.

Much more where that came from. There's also an explanation of how we arrive at our (usually) three unsigned editorials per day. Excerpt:

The writing of editorials is a team effort; they aren't columns reflecting any one person's viewpoint. A member of the board (editors included) can't write an editorial endorsing a position in the absence of consensus among the group. That is not to say we are a full democracy. Editor Andres Martinez and Deputy Editor Michael Newman have a bigger say, especially in wielding a veto, and both report directly to the publisher, who has an even bigger say.

And you can, for the first time, meet the members of the editorial board, find out what they cover and where they've been.

And what of the Op-Ed side of the page? Read an explanation from Op-Ed Editor Nicholas Goldberg. Excerpt:

Sometimes we get e-mails complaining that the pieces we've run are biased. To which we reply: Of course they are! Unlike the articles in our news pages (where reporters endeavor to be objective), our articles are opinion pieces; bias and a point of view are expected. In that sense, they're like the editorials that appear on the opposite side of the page (Op-Ed, get it?). [...]

People often want to know whether we seek balance on the page. The answer, as best I can give it, is this: We want a page that is politically balanced over time — not leaning too heavily to the left or the right — but we don't monitor it day to day, or count Democrats versus Republicans. Similarly, we seek diversity of thought and diversity of contributors — we want provocative ideas from people of all races, genders, religions, etc. — but again, we don't try to balance the number of women to men on every single page.

And our 10 regular Op-Ed columnists each re-introduce themselves to you. Here, for example, is a taste of Joel Stein:

Basically, what I do is the opposite of "Seinfeld": I turn something into nothing. To get that perspective, I try to find the small angle on the story no one has looked at. My column is not a place for readers to pick up facts and figures to bolster your already ingrained arguments. And that's only partly because finding facts and figures takes a lot of work.

And finally, Letters Editor Julie Ryan Green announces that the newly designed page will add more space for letters (at the expense of editorials), and explains how she goes about her work. Excerpt:

On any particular topic, we try to represent the volume and variety of opinions expressed by our mail, not necessarily an even number of pro and con positions. Every day, an average of 800 readers share their thoughts with us.

We can print only a dozen or so letters daily, but about a year ago we began to share more of our readers' comments by posting additional letters online at latimes.com/letters.

How can you improve your chances of getting published? Be succinct; we seldom publish letters of more than 150 words. Your letter also should be exclusive to The Times and must include where you live and provide a daytime phone number for verification purposes.

To pre-emptively answer one question, no, the motivation for this episode of public confession has nothing to do with the appointment of a new publisher, nor is it part of the Manhappenin' Beach Spring Street Project. We just wanted to lay our cards on the table, answer questions we're asked daily, and stick it online for future reference. Let us know what you think!

Above-the-masthead sky boxes, a thousand headline-fonts blooming, a mix of 21st century sass and old-timey newspaper ALL-CAPS ... plus an intriguing note from new Publisher David Hiller. Thumbs up? Thumbs down?

And stay tuned tomorrow for the Opinion Section's inaugural appearance in the back of the A section, which will be accompanied by various editor's-note explainers and manifestos letting you know the who, where, when, why and how of what we do.

We continue to break crucial news for you here at Opinion L.A. about the L.A. Times' ongoing super-duper research project to figure out how to keep readers from burning their subscription cards, and how to transform a 940-employee newsroom into the New New Journalism-Company Thing. (For background, and very lively reader commentary, please consult Parts One, Two and Three.)

Today's shocker? "The Manhattan Project" has been vaporized as a name. The two-month quest will heretofore be known as "The Spring Street Project," in honor of the street bordering the Times that's closest to skid row, and which has become a shorthand of sorts for outsiders to refer to the House That Chandlers Built. Details of the nomenclature process were obscure as of press time, but we have it on excellent authority that "The Manhattan Beach Project" was popular among some participants, and that no one besides your humble narrator was agitating too loudly for "The Manhappenin' Beach Project." The latter is, of course, a tragedy.

At any rate, I can also confirm that the powers that be are looking closely at all your suggestions and critiques, so to keep those juices flowing, here are three more questions for the peanut gallery:

1) Is the paper too local, not local enough, or just right?
2) What tangible aspect of localness would you like to see? (A sector or community or government agency that isn't currently covered, a noted local writer that isn't currently hired, a news-you-can-use feature that would be helpful, etc.)
3) What local establishment should the writers and editors patronize more? Which one should they stop going to, at least for a decent interval?

Keep those answers coming! In the meantime, here's some more commentary about the inner workings of Spring Street:

FisbowlLA's Kate Coe continues her flurry of helpful suggestions:

If the Manhattan Project really wants to reconnect with Southern California, they might take a look at the work Rob Curley is doing, instead of sending out lame emails. Fast Company has a piece by Chuck Salter about the self-described "internet punk" whose hyper-local, multimedia websites have revitalized local papers. [...]

The LA Times must think that all this new media with its bells and whistles is fine for those little papers, but unseemly for an organ of such stature and dignity.

FBLA thinks that's what's at the core of the Times' troubles: it's just too good for its readers.

"FBLA" means "FishBowl L.A.," and not some kind of unseemly "Love Association," btw. Meanwhile, over at L.A. CityBeat, Mick Farren strokes the figurative goatee:

Why can't a city with a population in excess of four million support a quality broadsheet?

The blame falls most heavily on the Chicago-based Tribune Company, which, since its purchase of the Times in 2000, has relentlessly cut costs and conducted serial purges of editorial staff. Rumor claims Tribune will not be happy until it sees the paper yield something approaching an 18 percent return on its investment, which – in this era of dizzy communications flux – is nothing short of absurd. Equally absurd is Tribune's notion of a miracle formula that will entice under-30s to read hard-copy newspapers, and raise the Times' circulation back above the million mark.

The two words that spring to mind are "get real." The young demographic won't suddenly start reading newspapers, especially in a city with minimal mass transit

Longtime LAT needler (and occasional contributor to the Op-Ed page) Catherine "Cathy" Seipp gives some advice:

I suspect journalists are far more impressed by Pulitzers than readers, who tend to remember (and subscribe to a paper because of) an old-fashioned "Hey, Martha!" human interest story than the kind of worthy prize-grabbing thing that wins accolades from peers.

A basic problem at the Times, for instance, is the continuing weakness of the features section - home of the funnies and advice columns and so traditionally looked down on by the rest of the paper. But this is the section where kids first develop a daily paper reading habit, and I don't think you need a team of investigative reporters to learn that tolerating weak feature writing and editing in features is the surest way to alienate young readers for life.

Nor do you need to arrange a series of Deep Throat-style meetings in underground parking garages to realize that many Times staff writers turn in very little copy - Spring Street considers once a week reasonably productive - which means they're paid around $2,000 per mediocre, grudging piece. Wouldn't it be better to spend that money instead on freelancers, who, if they can't work themselves up into something worth reading, don't get paid?

Let the heads roll, I say.

On Oct. 14, we ran an editorial criticizing the Motion Picture Association of America's movie-ratings system, arguing "the MPAA should work harder to make its system more precise and less arbitrary."

Legendary former MPAA head Jack Valenti was not pleased. His full rebuttal is here; below are two snippets:

I have been an avid reader and admirer of The LA Times for 40 years. I write you now to give you a brief résumé of the movie industry's voluntary film rating system. The facts of its birth, design and collide with your Oct. 14 editorial [...]

The rating system will be 38 years old on Nov. 1. Is it fair to say that nothing lasts that long in this brutal marketplace unless it is providing some kind of benefit to the people it aims to serve -- in this case, parents.

Meghan Daum's Saturday column, giving Columbia University activists a "B+" for an effort that included jumping onstage and attacking Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist, generated quite a bit of criticism over the weekend.

Local prosecutor Patrick "Patterico" Frey: "L.A. Times Columnist: Hooray for Violence! At Least They're Doing Something!"

Former L.A. Daily News columnist Michelle Malkin: "Puke-worthy."

Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds: "Reap what you sow, etc."

Marc Nicodemo: "Meghan Daum: The New Walter Duranty."

Jake Jacobsen: "L.A. Times Columnist: They Should Have Killed Gilchrist!"

Carol Platt Liebau: "More 'free speech for me, but not for thee', I guess."

"NMS" at No More Spin: "Apparently, it takes a communist revolution to earn an A+."

Common Sense Journal: "What an idiot."

Read all about it here.

For the full complement of Editorial Board endorsements, visit latimes.com/endorsements. The tally thus far: Democrat Jerry Brown for attorney general, Republican Steve Poizner for insurance commissioner, and Democrat Bill Lockyer for treasurer. For the propositions, the Board urges "no" on 1A, 83, 85, 87, 88, 89, and 90; "yes" on 86.

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.

More fallout (get it?!) from the announcement yesterday that the newspaper you are reading has formed a curiously named blue-ribbon panel of executives and reporters to figure out what big ideas will bring readers back, instead of sending them screaming for the exits. Ex-Timesman (there sure are a lot of those!) Kevin Roderick offers some unusually (for him) lengthy criticism:

Why the editor at a struggling major property like the Los Angeles Times isn't already fluent on all of these issues — and why the business side hasn't already examined every possible revenue angle — are just two of the big questions raised by such an abrupt and public declaration of an emergency. [...]

I can't remember a single big newsroom committee that ever truly delivered the goods, even those I sat on, and this one has a tall order. Three reporters not noted for their media savvy or future vision — nothing personal, it's just not in their job descriptions or their resumes — are being asked to come up with solutions that elude even the most thoughtful media thinkers — essentially, the secret to saving newspapers. Good luck with that, guys. Perhaps a more useful idea would have been to convene a panel of Los Angeles thinkers, creative types and ordinary people and ask them how they want their news. Really ask them, and listen to the painful answers.

Which brings me to the effort's opening gaffe — using World War II imagery and calling it the Manhattan Project in the pages of the New York Times. Besides looking silly claiming an extreme level of urgency and commitment of high talent, it opens up the L.A. Times to mockery on so many levels.

Mack Reed (who used to work for ... the L.A. Times!) provides a five-point plan:

1. Walk away from Pulitzers for a year. Recall all the staffers you've given 6-8 months to cover long, thumb-sucking, big-splash award-bait and reassign them to investigating the biggest, hairiest story in L.A.'s five or six most complex neighborhoods. Give them three-week deadlines. Do this right, and you'll turn up Pulitzer fodder right in your own back yard and win new and dedicated readers.

2. Cover Hollywood for a change. Act like private investigators, not junket-riding critics. Dig for stories on the way money, influence and Machiavellian venom ruin people's lives. Write about the grinding machinery, about the PAs and grips and casting-couch pimps. Ignore the howls of the publicists you've coddled and kissed up to for so long. Screw "access." Cover the industry like it's the most important socio-economic engine in Los Angeles, not some faaabulous passing carnival that you're privileged to watch from the curb.

3. Shift at least two or three "national" correspondents back to Los Angeles Get them to work on covering social and personal issues in your own city as intensely as they've been covering minor personal tragedies in the Midwest or deep South. Everywhere you turn right now, you should be hearing how everyone is screaming, "COVER LOS ANGELES!" Listen to them.

Longtime newspaper online strategist Steve Yelvington:

I've only been to the Los Angeles Times once. It felt like a big, dark, cavernous chunk of the past, stranded in a strange new world. My experience was very odd. I was there to speak at an IFRA Newsplex "convergence road show" sponsored in part by the Times. I had just done a similar gig at Florida Today to a fairly packed room. But in Los Angeles, no one showed up. No one. Had they already figured out the future, and decided not to talk about it any more? Martha Stone and I sat around and chatted awhile, ate some Los Angeles Times pastries, drank some Los Angeles Times coffee, then left. I looked over some museum pieces in the lobby on my way out.

Most of my impressions of the Times were formed in my decades as an editor, and especially from the LAT-WP wire. It's long been a reporter's newspaper, a place where there was plenty of space and freedom and resources to go out and do serious, long-term, long-form journalism.

Such institutions are good for society. But it seems the Los Angeles Times today is "caught between two worlds" in many dimensions. It's not a failure (it is, in fact, making tons of money) but is being flogged by the investment marketplace. It is too big to be a local newspaper, but rather seems to be a regionally distributed national newspaper, which makes no sense at all. It is an artifact of the 20th century protruding uncomfortably into the 21st. [...]

In a general sense, I applaud any effort by a newsroom to critically examine the current media landscape and the relationship between reporting and audience; it certainly beats living by assumptions derived from a bygone era. But it seems likely that the effort will be all about preservation and not about creation.

So, having stated the obvious, where do I really land on this issue? What would I do with the Los Angeles Times? I sight, shake my head, and say I'm not sure. But I don't think it can sit forever between local and national. And I am reminded that the real Manhattan Project ended in blowing things up, and Oppenheimer quoting Hindu scripture: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

Local prosecutor Patrick "Patterico" Frey:

If I could give the paper only one piece of advice, it would be this: expand the web site. Open up every single story to comments and trackbacks, just like a blog post. For a paper that claims to be looking for ways to “re-engag[e]the reader,” this is a no-brainer.

The Web and interactivity are the future. Stop fighting it and embrace it.

Fishbowl LA's Kate Coe was initially sarcastic....

What a fantastic idea! Instead of having these guys go out and report the news that would drive readers to pick up the paper every morning, squirrel these guys away in a conference room and have them spend months wondering what they should be doing instead. Eventually, we hope, they'll get it.

... but then she suggested the paper start "a real gossip column," and declared herself "ready to serve."

The New York Times reports today that the braintrust of the L.A. Times

is dedicating three investigative reporters and half a dozen editors to find ideas, at home and abroad, for re-engaging the reader, both in print and online. The newspaper's editor, Dean Baquet, and its new publisher, David Hiller, plan to convene a meeting today to start the effort, which is being called the Manhattan Project. A report is expected in about two months.

Nitpickers might notice some subtle differences from the actual Manhattan Project -- instead of four years, this'll take two months; instead of legendary airtight secrecy this was announced in the New York Times before the first meeting -- but the important thing is that there'll be some kind of fiery explosion at the end.

We kid! How about some local reaction, then?

Mack Reed of LaVoice.org says "Good instinct, good goals, and good action."

Just not sure why it would take two months to figure out they can engage their readers by covering Los Angeles better and maybe doing some real investigative work in Hollywood

Italics his. Former Timesman Ed Padgett seems to like it, and adds:

I say take it a big step further by having all Times employees involved in increasing our circulation.

Another former Timesman, Ken Reich, reckons that:

this cannot be done, in my view, without some willingness on the part of Tribune Co., the present unimaginative owners, to spend some money on the improvements. And to pay for a marketing campaign to publicize them.

Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News says:

It's a great idea, and so we hope they get it right. My biggest concern is that they will focus too much on the print edition, and not enough on the Web.

Meanwhile, the helpful tipsters over at The Free Republic have a bounty of advice, including this from "abb":

1. Assign competitive teams to cover each area of the city. Cover those areas as if each were small towns (which, in a way, they are.) Find positive stories and human interest stories and print them, not just crime reports. Include pictures. People will start to buy a paper if they recognize their neighbors in it, or if their kids get a mention for their participation in Community Service or sports or something.

2. Make a true, concerted effort to make your reporting impartial. Political viewpoints should go to the editorial and op ed pages.

3. Find a non-partisan cause to support...cleaing up litter, Boys and Girls Clubs, tree-planting, etc. and get the community involved. Devote your efforts to this cause instead of constant snarky comments about Republicans.

4. Require all reporters to spend 2 weeks each year riding with a cop, working construction, following a small businessman around, etc. They need a dose of the real world. Better yet...require all reporters to take their vacations in small Midwestern towns. In the winter.

What should the 21st century Manhattan Project produce? Please leave suggestions in the comments. To see what a bunch of grumpy journalists think, click here.

UPDATE: Reaction to the 21st century Oppenheimers keeps coming in. New Media guy Jeff Jarvis:

I wish them luck, but I fear they are off on the wrong if predictable foot: namely, preserving print and the past. [...]

I find it surprising that I find nothing under "Manhattan Project" or its boss' name at the LA Times. I'd think the first, best thing to do is to get the ideas from your public.

Venice-based syndicated advice columnist Amy Alkon:

Perhaps I should send Marc Duvoisin my column samples. I mean, if they aren't pulling 'em in in droves with Al Martinez and Howard Leff.

Make sure to read the comments! Thomas Kelley over at California Connected:

from this reporter's vantage point, the LA Times would do well to also match the Web innovations of their Manhattan-based competitor, The New York Times. With an easy-to-use, uncluttered Web site, The New York Times delivers a seamless and engaging multimedia experience.

In contrast, despite producing a worldclass video series on ocean pollution, the LA Times failed to promote it properly on its own Web site. I have spoken to no one, including journalists and journalism professors, who have seen it. If the same series had appeared on the NY Times' interface, it would have created a much bigger buzz.

Boston media critic extraordinnaire Dan Kennedy:

Visions of nuclear armaggedon aside, the "Los Angeles Project" would definitely be a more promising name.