Just Like the Manhattan Project, Except for That Whole Saving-the-Free-World Thing
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.
The LA Times has been so busy trying to appeal to the troglodytes on the right that they've forgot their base - namely the people who actually care about reality and would like our news sources to reflect that reality. What the Times fails to realize is that the person who is prodded to moan about liberal bias, despite all evidence to the contrary, is never going to be satisfied no matter how many nitwits like Jonah Goldberg the Times hires.
Where was the coverage from the many people who were skeptical of Bush/Cheney's WMD claims? Where was the coverage of the highly unethical, if not illegal, machinations of the Republican party and the Conservative members of the Supreme Court, in the last two Presidential election cycles? If I had a dollar for each time I've discovered stories on the internet of tremendous import to the nation yet are nowhere to be found anywhere in the pages of the Times (let alone on the front page where they belong) I'd be a wealthy man.
With the news today of plummeting circulation at the Times, I'm guessing the Times is going to make the incorrect decision and further degrade it's content to appeal to the "masses." That will a big mistake.
Posted by: Luke Grannis | October 30, 2006 at 11:08 PM
Updated tally...on what the LA Times should do to improve profitability
9...stop the liberal bias
8...improve the content
5...focus on regional news'
4...increase online vs. print
4...could not figure out what they wanted
7...all other assorted comments
1...they're gone, it's too late
1...lean more to the left
1...don't editorialize the new
1...it's not liberal bias, they are writing to their base.
The comments have slowed enough to draw a couple conclusions. These comments regarding the LA Times are just like the problem the Democrats have: too many different opinions and not enough leadership. Whether you agree with Pres. Bush or not is secondary to his providing our nation leadership, and that's just what is needed. Ever been in a business meeting without leadership? Nothing gets done, because no one leads. This is the basic problem of Democrats today, no one is truly leading their party, they try to play to all segments of the nation and end up accomplishing very little. Love or hate George Bush, the one thing he does is provide LEADERSHIP to the world. Funny, it's exactly the same thing the Times needs today.
Posted by: Gingerguy | October 22, 2006 at 06:14 AM
Three more questions for the peanut gallery here!
Posted by: Matt Welch | October 20, 2006 at 09:34 PM
I quote:
"I'm doing a little informal survey, no names. I just want to ask you one question: did you always know that Bush lied to get us into Iraq so we can steal their oil, or were you fooled for a while and only found out later?"
This "question" is used to discern "left-wing bias." I'm sorry, this question does nothing of the sort. The answer, from any reporter, should be in the range of, "I always knew," to "It took me a while." Denying that "Bush lied" to get us into Iraq is a proof of right-wing nuttery.
Posted by: Jim H | October 18, 2006 at 10:23 AM
If, as reported, Patrick Goldstein is one of the "investigative" reporters assigned to the Manhattan Project, will the committee end up recommending that the LAT's best-paid and most prominent reporters write no more than once a week? Or, that all interviews take place in the watering holes of the rich and famous over lunch and be single-sourced? Or, that 90 percent of all column ideas be repurposed from the blogosphere?
I would venture to guess that Patrick -- an otherwise capable writer -- is responsible for a third of the bylines recorded annually by the ubiquitous utility infielder Susan King, and at half her salary. There are many other examples of under-utilized reporters and superfluous editors, but none is so obvious.
Methinks, those responsible for staffing the Manhattan Project are trying to put one over on the incoming publisher, David Hiller. Otherwise, wouldn't they have recruited panelists whose work wouldn't be missed in the interim? LAT staffers may want to save and improve the paper, but none hopes to see it remain in the hands of Tribune Co. Why would they?
I think LAT subscribers would like to see a paper -- or, at least, receive features sections -- in which the best people aren't reluctant to work more than 35 hours a week, or whose coverage of the arts isn't dictated by publicists and studio ad buyers. There should be no -- no -- AP bylines in Calendar, or virtually anywhere else in the paper. -- PB
Posted by: paul bribbon | October 16, 2006 at 01:42 PM
I have always felt that the LA Times is the only source of news in this region where I feel that what is being presented is really what is going on in the world. Please, don't go the way of the local "news" on television: sensationalized crime stories based on personal vengeance (as opposed to real justice), stupid pet stories to "lighten the mood", and of course fear mongering ("See how it may affect you and your family"). Give us what we need to know, not what we want to know.
Posted by: Sander Schmidt | October 16, 2006 at 09:49 AM
When I lived in Washington, DC, I used to not only read the Washington Post, I used to spend a lot of time on their website. They had done a great job creating an online community. They hosted weekly chat sessions with their columnists on a range of topics - job issues, restaurant reviews, local events, politics, housing, etc. People would log in every week for their favorite chat to ask questions or to become more informed. If I needed to find out something - maybe a fact about a mortgage loan, or advice on which restaurant served the best steak - I would use the Washington Post chats or their archives. I suggest you spend some time looking at their site.
Posted by: R. Zobayan | October 16, 2006 at 09:16 AM
Admit you made a mistake and rehire Robert Scheer and I'll resubscribe. I'm Libertarian and usually vote Republican and conservative, but Scheer was dead right about Iraq from the beginning and since. Forget this "Is the Times too liberal or too conservative?" debate and present voices from both sides fairly. Scheer was the only interesting liberal voice I've ever read and his sacking was a travesty, completely undeserved. And how exactly do the stoned musings of Joel Stein belong in any opinion section?
Posted by: John Erb | October 15, 2006 at 10:31 PM
It would be more than helpful and probably profitable to re-think your mental image of Evangelical Christians.
Generally, they are portrayed in caricature form right out of "Elmer Gantry."
We are not knuckle dragging, primitive Neanderthals and seeing homosexuality as a sin like any other should not be the only standard we are judged by.
Most of the attacks on Evangelicals rely on ad hominems or "post hoc ergo propter hoc" arguments based on a handful of aging televangelist pontificators.
Posted by: James Janecek, M.D. | October 15, 2006 at 05:31 PM
To get a tiny perspective of the real news on TV, I watch FOX and their counterpart, MSNBC.
In print, I read New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post and Wall St. Journal.
I must say, LA Times has, in the last few years, chosen to avoid hard-hitting national and political truths,whether they were liberal or conservative in nature. You omit front page coverage of front page events about our world, our wars and our foibles. Obviously you think we want to spend day after day with the details of a squalid murder, incestual event, etc., and it's clear that you no longer care much about the disasters we are suffering in Iraq or Afghanistan.
You omit major stories revealing the crimes and lies of Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld, and it appears you really don't care much about Congress rolling over to cover the President's posterior in making torture, or wiretapping everybody, somehow okay.
Worse, you don't stand up for Bush either. I have no idea what moves you! But you certainly don't miss a chance to give us a few hundred front page words and several photos on some scandal involing actors. Pray tell, just what in Hell are you about? And why should I care?
You've become boring and irrelevant, during momentous times for our nation and the world.
You really want to connect? Do something to make me believe in you again. Stop judging the news and just report it to us, in full!!
Posted by: Phillip Hoffman | October 15, 2006 at 02:57 PM
Hey all -- Please consider filling out the quick, concrete, three-part questionnaire in this post regarding what the LAT should add, drop and keep. Gracias.
Posted by: Matt Welch | October 15, 2006 at 11:06 AM
I just cancelled my subscription. Here are the reasons why:
1. Coverage of local and state news is practically non-existent.
2. The op-ed pages are puerile, predictable, and boring. Boot and Goldberg are an embarrassment -- incredibly, Brooks and Kaplan are worse.
3. National and international news coverage has been so reduced over the years that there is now nothing left.
4. All the man-in-the-street interviews seem to be with people in Chicago.
5. The business section is a joke. It's as if there is no news in the world of business beyond movie grosses and TV ratings.
6. The calendar section is unreadable pap.
7. The lack of critical reporting is troubling. Your paper is like a big cheerleading section for Broad, Villaraigosa, etc.
8. There is way too much space given to "human interest" stories. Column One needs to go.
9. Throughout your paper there is a mocking, pseudo-hip tone that is annoying. Joel Stein's column best exemplifies what I mean, but the tone is there throughout. I assume you are trying to appeal to younger readers -- why you think that will do it is beyond me.
I disagree with the readers who complain about "left wing bias". They live in a liberal town -- they need to get over it.
For now I will get my news from the NYT, the Economist, and The Daily Breeze.
Posted by: David New | October 15, 2006 at 10:12 AM
Sorry, I just couldn’t stop laughing. How ironic that free-market discipline finally forced management to confront problems bubbling in the background for 20 years or more. Why did it take a drastic drop in market capitalization for management to wake up and smell the shareholders? The fact that management chose the New York Times, not the Wall Street Journal, to break the story is revealing in itself.
The fundamental question is: Does management possess the Lee Iacocca-like fortitude to make fundamental and systemic changes, or will subscribers end up with New! Improved! labeling, only to find the dog food tastes (or reads) the same? It remains to be seen. However, consumers aren’t stupid and management has few chances to get something like this right.
You can start the healing process by separating news and editorial. The tactic of loading news articles with editorial-consistent advocacy is transparent and insulting. The Los Angeles Times really does have a left-leaning bias that alienated a huge portion of the customer base and those alienated consumers do what alienated consumers do – they voted with their wallets. If you doubt this, the proof is in falling subscription rates and earnings. If you need some ideas on how to fix the problem, consider watching the Fair and Balanced, We Report You Decide Network as a homework assignment.
Analyze market segments and consider different versions of the paper based on product lines. Look, why should a subscriber pay for a printed version of news reported and analyzed to death in real time by TV and internet 12 hours ago? Where is the added value of yesterday’s stock market report, sitting on the driveway, soggy with morning dew, when the markets are already open and moving again? How wasteful is it to buy the whole ten-pound package and throw away the irrelevant eight pounds? Most subscribers are really only interested in a few things like store sales, coupons, local news or job listings. A news/sports/editorial version can be an option for those who prefer print news. An advertising version can be an option for subscribers interested in sales and coupons. How about a version focused on entertainment and travel activities. You get the idea. If you doubt the market segment approach, try walking down the toothpaste isle at your local Wal-Mart. Oh, sorry, forgot the Los Angeles Times has an anti-Wal-Mart bias.
Finally, publish a series of in-depth, unbiased, hard-hitting reports on one of the biggest stories to ever hit Los Angeles – how The Los Angeles Times management let a dominant market position slip away and the revealing behind-the-scenes battle to cope with the disaster. In fact, hire some reporters from the Wall Street Journal to cover it. Your subscribers will love reading about a good old-fashioned family fight, I promise.
Posted by: Martin Chazen | October 15, 2006 at 09:39 AM
S-c-h-e-e-r is how it's spelled, one and all. "Sheer" is the kind of energy one get from pantyhose; "Speer" was a Nazi of some sort.
Posted by: Matt Welch | October 15, 2006 at 08:59 AM
The L.A. Times remains one of the better dailes in the nation. Unfortunately, the Times has slipped over the last few years, bowing to corporate threats to remove advertisng etc. The paper has taken a decidedly softer stance from the exciting, cutting-edge jouralism it used to publish. Returning Robert Speer would be a good start towards reclaiming the freshness and integrity you once had.
Posted by: Paul Panza | October 15, 2006 at 08:53 AM
"I say take it a big step further by having all Times employees involved in increasing our circulation."
Ho ho that's rich. Current employees, reporters, executives and so on ARE the problem. Like calling on the Secret Police to see if there is censorship. Here's a recent personal first hand experience with an LA Times reporter interviewing two Blacks down by the Home Depot in East Hollywood. She was sixty something, dressed like a grunge radical from Seattle, and used a notebook and not a tape recorder. SHE: I know you're all upset with "the man" and the exploitation going on, but can you tell me what you think of the public housing shortage in the city."
So she has put herself on the side of the people fighting exploitation and what do you think the answer to her question was? Why it went like this, "there ain't nothin' happining anywhere because "the man" won't let it happen."
I've seen this "reporter" on Life and Times once or twice and she is Berkeley 1968, period. She supposedly writes news, not for a moment does she realize that she is engaged in (agit-prop, indoctrination, and propaganda). She, and those like her are what is wrong at the Times, and I think that 95% of the Times employees and suprvisors are like her.
Posted by: Howard Veit | October 15, 2006 at 08:43 AM
Well a quick tally of the comments so far...as to how to fix the problems of the Times.
# responses...comment content
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
Posted by: Gingerguy | October 15, 2006 at 06:14 AM
Why do you think growing numbers of people find comedy shows like The Daily Show or The Colbert Report better places for news than traditional news broadcasts?
I'd like to assert, for your consideration, that these comedy shows actually do better journalism than the broadcasts they parody. Traditional news organizations seem to have adopted the flawed idea that by simply parroting whatever statements are handed to them by "competing" advocates, they have achieved "objectivity." This is neither objective nor fair. A better standard includes comparison of those stated claims against the rest of the relevant public record instead of just the flat distribution of politically slanted screed.
It is this comparison and analysis that comedians are doing in their pointed jests, that news outlets are not.
If you want to re-connect with readers, I recommend that you do so with a renewed commitment to real journalism. The media of distribution (print, web, broadcast, etc) don't matter if the content doesn't have intellectual maturity and integrity.
Give 'em heck in all parts of the political spectrum if and when they deserve it!
Posted by: Richard D. Davis | October 15, 2006 at 05:42 AM
If you truly want to save this rag, then quit being a puppet of the wacko leftists that have infected the Democratic Party.
Once you prove that you are interested in prenting the truth about issues and are accurately conveying the news and events that affect us all, then you might get back those of us who got fed up with your one-sided views and slanting of your stories and looked elsewhere for an outlet who would provide both sides of every story.
Posted by: Richard | October 14, 2006 at 03:06 PM
I've been reading the LA times since about 1955, with all of it's changes.
Reporters such as Pat McGreevey and Robert Salladay shoud be give much more freedom and better placement in the stories they write.
George Skelton should be put on the second or third page "as commentary" as Sacto Report.
Lay off the Michael Moore editing of the front page and get back to the LA mindset.
Example: Did you know that the Audobon society has a complete public facility in ELA..which uses no electricity, and even the gray water from the bathrooms are recycled.
Get off the Vietnam vet atrocity stories..and report on the reality of Los Angeles.
Do you accept gangs for example..why arn't you doing follow-up on how to solve the problems?
Posted by: BOB KHOLOS | October 14, 2006 at 01:31 PM
1. Hire some columnists who abide by a genuine Christian worldview. The Times is a relentlessly anti-Christian and anti-Catholic newspaper (NewsBusters.org has documented several recent examples). This bigotry may be acceptable in the 15 square miles of west Los Angeles and Hollywood, but the Times has got to learn that its prejudice is offensive to millions of potential readers. Maybe the Times can look into recruiting young journalists from Christian colleges.
2. Get rid of Tim Rutten. His anti-conservative and anti-Christian bias is just awful. How many more columns on Mel Gibson am I going to have to endure? Los Angeles is the epicenter of the entertainment world, and the Times desperately needs a solid, balanced, and fair-minded media critic.
3. The liberal slant of the Times is well documented, and the paper has got to do something about it. (For example, the Times has recently given generous coverage to the undercover Arnold tape (Puerto Ricans/Cubans are "hot"), Rev. Jerry Falwell's remarks on Hillary Clinton, books by Bob Woodward and David Kuo, and the Rep. Mark Foley scandal. However, this past week, when House Minority leader Harry Reid HUNG UP THE PHONE on an AP reporter asking him about a questionable (and possibly unethical) land deal, the Times did not print ONE SYLLABLE about it!) The Times needs to totally revamp its news departments and eliminate the DNC groupthink.
4. Erase that silly and biased editorial policy that forbids columnists from using the words "pro-life" in the abortion debate. Pro-lifers are tagged with the negatively phrased "antiabortion," while pro-choicers are given the positive spin of "abortion rights advocates."
5. Hire Larry Elder. He's a conservative. He grew up in South Central Los Angeles! He already writes a weekly column! C'mon!
6. Get rid of Max Boot. Boot is the Times' idea of a conservative, but his columns are so dry and boring, I can honestly say I've never been able to finish a single one.
Posted by: Dave Pierre | October 14, 2006 at 11:50 AM
The letting go of Sheer and Rodriguez was the moment I ceased my subscriptions.
Do you mean Michael Ramirez?
Posted by: Patterico | October 14, 2006 at 11:10 AM
I'll be the first to agree this is the wrong approach. A group of part of the problem (Times writers and editors) is not going to actually come up with the solution.
Here are three suggestions that seem small, but would radically alter the LA Times:
-- Help people actually PLAN THIER LIVES and LIVE THEIR LIVES. Too many stories are of NO USE to peoople. Are they interesting? Sure.
But, people have too little time to sit around reading these stories, which may or may not have any point.
Tell me a MONTH out, what the coolest Halloween costumes are for this Halloween SO I CAN PLAN AHEAD and that would be good. Tell me a month out where to take Mom for Mother's Day brunch and I'll thank you. (Don't tell me the Sunday before because it's too late.) Give me a great gift guide for Christmas (not the most expensive things to buy people or the most "hip" things, but REAL SOLUTIONS TO things..)
Tell me things that will actually help me live my day-to-day life.
-- Rework your entire hiring process. Reporters and editors at every mid-level and large paper in the U.S. aspire to work at your paper. And, guess how they write and act to get there? They follow a template. Their clips reflect it. Their attitude reflects it. They spend their entire careers molding themselves into an LA Times hire. So, what happens when they get to the LA Times? Well, they keep writing and acting that way. And what do YOU and READERS get? Writers who have written their ENTIRE careers for editors and Journalists (capital J intended). It's really mainly about hiring people who are not going to write for other journalists and are going to write and approach everything differently.
-- Stop trying to be cool. You won't be. So, just give up.
Posted by: Jim Wilson | October 14, 2006 at 09:09 AM
Those who claim the Times salvation lies in emulating the FoxNews model -- tacking a course to the right, towards Pravdaland -- really don't care if the Times survives. They'd just as soon see a daily which reports hard news go out of business. If the Times becomes the NY Post, it will lose far more readers than it alienates by failing to conform its journalism to the Minitruth standards urged by people like Patterico, Daffyd, Roger Simon and the like. People can already buy USA Today.
Posted by: Alex | October 14, 2006 at 08:32 AM
The very best thing that the Los Angeles Times does is long-form investigative reporting. It is absolutely the best in the country, with the Toledo Blade nipping at your heels.
Your news gathering is fine. Your reporters are competent to excellent, and unbiased, contrary to the opinion of the Free Republic aficionados who have commented here. Not only that, but they generally give a courteous reply when contacted.
The Los Angeles Times does not cover local news well. It is reluctant to ruffle the feathers of the Hollywood elite and the Mahoneys and the Riordans. Probably your editors spend too much time socializing with the movers and shakers of Los Angeles to cover them competently. In addition, one might think your editorial offices are in Chicago for all the local flavor that you impart on your pages. Los Angeles is a patchwork quilt of diverse communities, a fact that apparently your editors have yet to discover.
You have the absolute worst, most boring editorial pages in the country! All right wing all the time. You have the odious Yoo and Boot, giving their crackpot theories prime newspaper real estate, and when you hired the shallow and uninformed Goldberg is when I cancelled my subscription forever. You have no comparable voices from the left (if indeed there are ANY left wing voices as radical as Yoo and Boot are radical to the right.) Your editorial writers are just plain uninformed about California issues and thus usually wrong.
You fall short in your performing arts criticism, but that's okay, because I never could find any in your Calendar section due to your extreme overcoverage of movies. And I do mean EXTREME. Some people in Los Angeles like live theater, opera, and ballet, ya know. It'd be nice to know when there is some.
So there it is, IMHO.
Posted by: Cathleen | October 14, 2006 at 07:43 AM