Didn't see it (whew!).
I get better "news" from the Red Plum advertisement pack I get in the mail for free!

You don't have enough options under Vote. Yes, you're selling out but YES it's also an appropriate cover since this paper has become a pathetic excuse for a paper no better in its political coverage than the blogs which are blatant editorializing in the guise of a political forum. Whereas this paper used to be accused of being too liberal under influence of old lefties schooled in the 60's radical era, lately it's been an organ for Fox News when it comes to local political elections and the lobbying for rightwing candidates.

The double standard in how candidates were treated was so sickening that the blood and gore on the cover of the News section was a pleasant relief from the garbage the paper has become -- far more tasteful, too, than the L A Times' nasty, biased opinions both in the California/ City coverage and Opinion.

(Yes I know the opinion had Rosa Brooks who was annoyingly leftist because she was knee-jerk and just shallow, but mercifully she's gone the opinion writers representing the paper who make endorsements are just plain ignorant and should just keep their opinions to themselves if they really want to do a public service. In conjunction with reporters like David Zahniser whose articles are so biased and attack the same people over and over while exonerating others they like, the L A Times is no better than rightwing blogs like that of former L A Daily News editor Ron Kaye, the L A Weekly under Jill Stewart's bias, and even Doug MicIntyre/ Kevin james.

As someone who has worked in the press for over 40 years, I still ascribe to the idea of keeping the "Editorial" completely separate from the "Advertising" end of things. I have yet to completely understand the compulsion of so many corporations to place their ads where they truly don't belong. It's such a self-serving, shameless, overtly greedy and community-be-d@med mind-set. Why does advertising not have a set of community standards that guides the placement of all ads?

The publication I work for once entertained a notion to place a financial adviser's logo and phone number in a strip across the bottom of the front page. The publishers, fresh out of the "health industry" and new to journalism, saw no real problem. I was astonished they'd even consider such a thing. In the end (and at my urgent plea) they did not accept the ad and the advertiser's response was, "Oh, okay. Then run it where it will fit inside."

"Just Say No" applies to more than drug use. Which is a far more apt analogy than might be imagined for this case...

Oh I love that picture of Vampire Bill! I live in NJ but if I had known that was on the cover I would have run out to the bookstore to see if they had a copy. Love the show.
I know all newspapers are suffering right now I say if it sells more papers what is the harm. I would hate to see printed papers disappear, so I say do whatever it takes. BTW we buy three newspapers everyday and my husband reads them all. I read only one or two at the most.

I understand the paper is hurting for revenue, but covering the front section with advertising AND putting the LA Times masthead on top was a pathetic new low.
I thought it was travesty enough when the Times started placing advertisements at the bottom of Page 1 (and I still object to this practice).
Keep at it, LA Times. Anger the people who are still buying your newspaper!

There are MANY ways to get that kind of attention and sell that kind of positioning WITHOUT putting your flag on it.
It didn't surprise me. You cannot call yourselves journalists when you do that, As a former journalist it also seems to me that means you no longer should be entitled to the rights, privleges and protections journalists enjoy.