A huge disaster in Los Angeles…
…In more ways than one. Heh.
Readers of the Los Angeles Times are surely being jolted awake this morning as they pick up their morning newspapers and peer through bloodshot eyes at this mother:
Universal Studios partially destroyed? Buildings and parked cars in ruins? Egads! Here’s the lead story:
Massive damage to theme park. Wow. Whatever happened was a complete disaster.
Odd, though, that there is no mention of injuries or fatalities. Especially since the photos suggest this happened early enough for photos to be taken in broad daylight.
Is it surprising the story’s not on page one? Perhaps. On the other hand, the LATExtra section is devoted to “late-breaking news.” (Read more about that here and here.)
Our only real clue that something is amiss is this tiny red label, just below the nameplate:
Yep. This is a four-page wrap in which advertising copy is masquerading as news — once again — in the once-respectable Los Angeles Times.
It’s not until you turn the page that you find the real LATExtra section tucked inside:
Meanwhile, the carnage continues on pages two and three of the wrap:
By the way, yes, you can click any of these pages for a closer view. However, these are photos, not PDFs, so they’ll only be so sharp.
Here’s a closeup of that story from the top left:
My anonymous tipster writes:
I should also note that even though LATExtra is slugged AA section — meaning it should be inside the front page — because of production constraints (mainly, printing the Wall Street Journal), it is often wrapped around the paper for home subscribers, as it was today.
Wrapped. Around. The paper. As in it’s the first damned thing you see when you pick up your morning delivery.
My tipster writes:
If you want, you can quote me as a longtime L.A. Times reader who canceled his subscription. Unbelievable, even for these smucks.
The Thai-sounding foreigner who canceled my subscription [over the phone] didn’t even put up a fight.
It’s only when you get to the back page, of course, that you reach the reason for the advertising wrap:
I just don’t know, folks. We’re relaxing our high ethical standards for a freakin’ amusement park ride?
The Times, of course, has a history of doing this kind of stuff. In April 2009, it ran an ad disguised as news on page one. Earlier this year, the Times ran a wrap containing a large movie ad, designed to look as if it were overlapping live news copy (It wasn’t live news copy. but it was designed to make you think it was some kind of internet-like pop-up ad.)
Last year, the Daily Bruin of UCLA wrapped its paper with an ad designed to look like its regular news front.
Earlier this year, two Gatehouse Media papers ran advertorials on A1. The one in Rockford, Ill., was more like a skybox, so it didn’t bother me as much. The one in the State Journal Register of Springfield did, however.
—
UPDATE, 1:47 P.M.
Copy-editing guru Andy Bechtel of the University of North Carolina writes:
This is a sad moment for the Los Angeles Times, a paper I’ve worked for and still respect. I understand the difficult decisions that newspapers must make to make money. Yet, if the LAT and other newspapers continue to do this sort of thing, they risk not only damaging their integrity, but destroying it.
Kevin Roderick of LA Observed observes:
It all brings to mind the editors’ expressed desire to “own Hollywood coverage”…or is it the other way around?
July 1st, 2010 at 10:39 am
This is sad. I know many people in the LAT newsroom. and they are most certainly disappointed with this decision.
July 1st, 2010 at 11:24 am
Express runs cover-wraps once or twice a week … recently we had one that announced John Wall’s pick in the NBA draft before we officially knew they were doing it.
The Examiner does it too, so we’re not alone.
But a commuter tab doing it and the L.A. Times doing it? Huge difference.
July 1st, 2010 at 11:36 am
This is just disgusting.
July 1st, 2010 at 11:37 am
Ernie — why is there a huge difference?
Is it because LAT matters or commuter tabs don’t?
July 1st, 2010 at 11:53 am
And while I’m in a bad mood this morning, do you mind defining “once-respectable” there for me Chuck?
July 1st, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Sadly this seems to be the way to pay the bills.
Which is worse, ads like this or losing more money and laying off more people and having the quality of the content suffer even more?
It’s a conundrum for sure.
July 1st, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Sure, Steve…
“Once-respectable.” Once, I respected and admired this paper. But because they repeatedly pull stunts like this, I question that.
When I left the Chicago Tribune to take over as graphics editor in Des Moines, a very wise man — by the name of Tony Majeri — put his arm around my shoulder and gave me a great piece of advice.
“Charles,” he said. “Never lower your standards.”
The LAT has lowered its standards. So have we all. And I think that’s a HUGE mistake. While it may have paid the bills this week, I think that by accepting this kind of work, the LAT is doing itself more harm in the long run.
This crosses a line. Just like that NBC ad crossed a line in April 2009.
I trust that’s clear enough for you, Steve. Thanks for reading.
July 1st, 2010 at 1:22 pm
I wonder what a typical reader response would be to something like this? Is the reader as upset with this kind of advertising as many working in the newspaper industry are?
Also, I wonder if that’s only way advertising like can be stopped. Maybe it creates enough reader outrage that a company wouldn’t want, or need to take that money.
July 1st, 2010 at 1:32 pm
So this is an advertorial product and if the newsroom got a vote as to whether it would run, I think it’s pretty obvious they would say no. But they don’t get a vote on it or were overruled.
The LAT has decided that its 1A and section flags are for sale. That dispeases me greatly.
But to put a finer point on it: I’m also really troubled by another trend on newspaper 1As that treads onto some of the same lines. Except that it’s a completely editorial decision. It’s when we hijack gigantic portions of 1As with teasers for movies that are opening that day. We do it in the name of being “cool” or “fun” (you highlight a lot of these on your blog, Charles) and feel OK because we feel it has some news content to it. But the images we use (and sometimes the type) are often the exact same as what they are using in their marketing and ad campaigns. What results is free 1A advertising (usually larger and more prominent than a space they could actually buy on the page) for the movie and the studio on the most important day of the release. Also the editorial portion of the content is not played up (in the case of a newspaper, a review of the movie) but it’s usually just positive, celebratory coverage of the movie’s release.
So in other words, we as newspapers play right into hands of the studios with the exact content they want played in exactly the way they want on the most prominent page in the newspaper.
So I ask: which is worse? A bad decision completely out of the newsroom’s hands? Or free 1A movie advertising masquerading as news coverage that we not only decide to do, but we (this blog included) celebrate?
We’ve crossed a lot of lines. This advertorial section is an easy one to whack because ultimately we have no control over it. I’m more concerned over the bad decisions we make that we do have control over.
July 1st, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Oh please, it’s obvious to anyone with an iota of media exposure that this is an ad. It says so right there, right on top, in RED LETTERS.
I say kudos to the people at the LAT who are fighting like mad to save the paper. The rest of you can sit on the deck of the Titanic and critique the orchestra for being out of tune.
July 1st, 2010 at 2:02 pm
How much more harm is it doing than, say, devoting the entire top third of a front page to a promo for a movie that the review only gives 2 stars to?
Those things (and, fair notice, we’re been guilty of it, too) provide fantastic promotion for a movie. For free.
This is something that the newsroom had absolutely no say over. And now the reporting of the LAT is somehow less respectable because of a decision made at the publisher level that had the words “ADVERTISEMENT” on it?
Which of these things is worse?
It’s a lot like the punchline to an old joke . . . “We’ve already established that you’re a whore. Now we’re just haggling about the price.”
There are a litany of problems that newspapers have had over the last few years and things like this prove that the balance of power between paper and advertiser has shifted (and, being in a newsroom, not for the better). We’ve been forced to give up real estate that we NEVER would have dreamed of giving up in the past for a diminished value, all in the hopes of keeping the doors open.
I’m not saying that I love what that advertorial represents. Nobody except the folks at Universal would.
But I think it’s impossible to look down your nose at the LAT for that and at the same time advocate giving it away for free — something you’ve done many times in this blog in the form of praise of movie promos.
July 1st, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Having a second thought. Obviously, WE (journalists) are horrified and disappointed and shaking our heads.
Has anyone gauged what LAT readers think of this, on average?
If they’re not horrified or confused past their comfort zone, it really may not matter what we think.
(On the flip side: I don’t think the LAT business-side folks give a flip as to what the public thinks — unless there is so much spontaneous hatred that they can’t ignore it)
July 1st, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Hypothetical question for the group:
Over the years, a number of brave little papers have done various “parody” editions or sections (often on April 1). Not the LA Times to my knowledge.
So this Kong thing is obviously full-on parody. Paid-for parody. But parody. Is it obvious-enough parody? That can be debated.
Does that make any kind of difference to journalists? (I’m guessing not)
Not that I’m necessarily in favor of this type of ad campaign. But it’s simply in my DNA to play devil’s advocate.
July 1st, 2010 at 2:35 pm
I think the real sin is that, as fake news, it doesn’t work. I can accept that the bosses have sold a wrap around the paper. I can even, with gritted teeth, accept they’ve sold the old fake-news-item approach.
But if you’re going to go that far to peddle your ass, do a good job of it. The LAT isn’t going to cover a story but not tell you what actually happened, any more than it’s going to run a crappy 5-column photo with just a dinky one column headline. The premise — we’ve got huge news, but we’re only going to tease you with it — just doesn’t fit the format. It’s like one of those puns that doesn’t really work, but is merely cute or makes you groan. Except they’ve expanded the bad pun to four full pages and wrapped it around the newspaper. Godalmighty.
I’ll say this, it’s not as atrocious-looking as http://www.visualeditors.com/apple/2009/04/page-one-ad-encroachment-takes-another-bold-leap-in-los-angeles/ But Universal Studios should hire better people.
July 1st, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Charles: It would be fascinating if you could wrangle an interview with the ad agency that developed this. Talk about a meeting of minds … WHEW!
July 1st, 2010 at 2:41 pm
On the Blue Line this morning, I was sitting behind a man and a woman, apparently married, who were trying to figure out this strange story on the front of the LatExtra section.
The woman read some of it to her husband, then said, “I can’t make heads or tails of this — you read it.” I then watched her husband read the whole thing top to bottom, a puzzled expression on his face. He then looked at the whole page, and finally spotted the “Advertisement” label and pointed it out to his wife.
They didn’t laugh or smile (”Ha ha! They got us!”). Rather, they were PISSED that they were intentionally deceived. They muttered some expletives, and then attempted to read the rest of the paper, presumably with less confidence in the veracity of what they were reading.
July 1st, 2010 at 2:54 pm
The more I check back at this site the more I’m amazed at the number of people who come across as bitter former journalists who seem to take great joy in trumpeting the death of newspapers.
Or enjoy taking shots at great newsrooms in the industry.
I get it. You lost your job, can’t keep one or are no longer relevant. The sooner that’s accepted the sooner you can provide something positive.
July 1st, 2010 at 3:13 pm
WOW.
That was a little much even for me. And I am the guy that makes the pages devoting the entire top third of a front page to a promo for a movie. Yes even the bad ones that get 2 stars. But no studio gives us money to do them, we generate our own content for it and the movies have a huge fan base that likes those sections.
The difference I see is that this was wrapped around the paper in some places and it used the papers masthead for an advertorial section.
It has been my experience that if you are going to do something like this you don’t use your section masthead on a 100% advertorial piece. You place the word ADVERTISMENT 3 times across the top of each page so the readers clearly see them and who ever builds the pages can not use the same fonts as the paper.
I really don’t have a problem with wraps or any other marketing ploy out there to inform the public of something new and different going on as long as it is clearly designed and does not confuse anyone.
July 1st, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Here’s what gets me: What reporting by this blog was done on this “story?”
Was someone at the LAT called and asked about the process, the fight, the resolution?
I don’t see that here. All I see are some comments by a former reader that end with nice racial stereotypes. Congrats on that.
By not doing any reporting, this blog didn’t heed Tony’s much-valued advice.
I’m afraid the standards have been lowered.
July 1st, 2010 at 3:39 pm
I’m happy to say that this shit didn’t happen when I worked there. I know my former colleagues who are still there cringe at this stuff.
@Greg, I’m not taking a shot at the newsroom. The publisher, you bet. And despite the fact that I’m not employed at a news outlet I don’t consider myself a former journalist. If I did then I wouldn’t care what the Times does to whore itself out to advertisers.
July 1st, 2010 at 3:46 pm
To clarify: The cover wraps we run don’t look like editorial products, like this.
Also, the major difference here: Express and the D.C. Examiner were designed to do things like this. And its readers are used to it when they grab it from the Metro. The L.A. Times? No way.
July 1st, 2010 at 3:55 pm
@Greg: I have a job. I still believe in newspapers. I think the LAT is a pretty good one. But this is just a terrible idea for readers. It’s deceptive. It looks like editorial content.
You’re being unfair to us with your comments. An actual ethical line was crossed here. And Charles is right. Ads like this do knock the LAT down a notch, even if the editorial side had no say. There’s no need to trash anyone here. That’s uncalled for.
I know the LAT has to pay the bills, but seriously. Is this the way?
July 1st, 2010 at 4:02 pm
I suppose the readers may be forgiven, but has anyone connected to the dying field of journalism piped up to note that “partially destroyed” is not likely to happen in a newspaper such as the LA Times. Then again …
July 1st, 2010 at 4:03 pm
A brief programming note, for any who might be wondering…
My policy here is that I don’t allow ad hominem attacks and I certainly don’t allow them anonymously. However, Greg — a former visual journalist who is now a promoter for mixed-martial arts — is certainly not anonymous.
And since the only person he’s attacking is me, I’m not deleting his comments.
July 1st, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Wonderful question, Wayne.
In fact, copy editing professor Andy Bechtel covered that in his blog this morning:
> Copy editors, of course, could easily spot this as
> a fradulent news. For one thing, the fake pages
> use upstyle headlines, capitalizing every word.
> The current LAT style for headlines is either
> downstyle or all-caps.
>
> More telling to copy editors is the choice of words
> in the fake headline. Any copy editor knows that
> something can’t be “partially destroyed.” As the
> AP Stylebook advises, to destroy something is
> “to do away with something completely.”
>
> Yet, these are subtle clues that could be
> overlooked everyday readers.
The link again:
http://editdesk.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/lat-fake-page-kong/
July 1st, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Oh, Charles, I’m not a fan of how this journalistic nightmare was covered in the space that bears your name. I guess I expected more from you.
My previous comment about the overall tone of this blog’s comments was more directed at some of its followers and not its leaders.
July 1st, 2010 at 4:26 pm
I don’t think anyone here likes the ad. I haven’t seen anyone step up and say anything other than it’s a bad thing. And I don’t think anyone would argue that it’s raising ethical concerns and crossing lines. And I don’t think anyone would argue that it undercuts the Times’ credibility.
The problem that some here are trying to put their heads in the sand and ignore is this: If you’re going to demean the LA Times, you’re going to demean the LA Times. If you’re going to say you don’t respect the LA Times, you have to mean that. It has to be true. Otherwise you’re making a statement you don’t believe.
And if you don’t respect the LA Times, you don’t respect Michael Whitley, Derek Simmons, Kelli Sullivan. You don’t respect their photo staff. You don’t respect the work they did after the Haiti earthquake to be in the country the same day while most reporters were stuck trying to circumvent flight rules.
If you call the LA Times a paper that was once-respectable, YOU’RE SAYING THAT ALL OF THE JOURNALISM IN THE LA TIMES, AND ALL OF THE PEOPLE IN THE LA TIMES are once-respectable.
Just like you’re saying readers don’t differentiate when an ad undercuts credibility. Your statements aren’t differentiating either. If the LA Times is a joke to you, then so is their director of photography. So is their foreign and national staff. And Bill Plaschke. And T.J. Simers.
You can’t say it was once respectable without meaning it was once respectable.
And no, this isn’t directed at Charles specifically. It’s directed at everyone here who’s trying to toe this line.
And if you’re going to sit here and degrade a paper — and make no mistake, you’re doing that — then you’re really going out on a limb when you act like anyone taken aback is attacking you personally.
I’m not saying it’s true. But I AM saying to a neutral observer, this is coming across as a golden shower on the LA Times.
And if it can come across that way, much as “if an ad can come across this way to readers it must be so” … then it must be so and people who don’t like it shouldn’t be dismissed as attacking anyone either.
I’m not talking about intent. I’m talking about how it’s coming across, and it’s not easily explained away.
July 1st, 2010 at 4:42 pm
My bottom line is this—the first thing i saw in the paper this morning was that a horrible fire has wrecked universal studios again……..i wondered why i hadn’t seen this on the internet yesterday….then i saw it was an ad.
then my heart sunk again….as i realized that sam zell is laughing his ass off at this innovation….and i’m crying because the times has sunk even lower in prestige.
July 1st, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Oh, come on, Josh. I disagree with your entire premise.
I dislike the federal government. But I like various senators and congressmen and other officials. And I plan to vote for the current president again (unless he keeps screwing up or unless the other party nominates a better candidate). Saying I don’t respect the government or its response to this or that crisis doesn’t force me into an absolute statement of any kind that would include all members, employees and so on.
I do respect Whitley. A lot. And you know that. To put words in my mouth, to round up my commentary to include all you say it includes — well, that’s just damned silly on your part, dude. Damned silly.
I also respect you. And C-Dish. And Kellams. And Berlin. And our good friend Mr. Knowles. But I don’t like everything the Tribune does either.
And I REALLY don’t respect the management of the Tribune company anymore. I tried to, I really did. But that big incident where the executives held that big poker party in Col. McCormick’s old office was the last straw.
You’re saying that because I no longer respect Zell, Abrams and company, that means I’m not allowed to respect you, Joe, Steve and the rest of your excellent team there?
That’s silly on the face of it. And you know that very well, I’m certain.
This commenting thread has taken an ugly, ugly turn. The topic is visual ethics and the ginormous ad on the front of today’s L.A. Times.
And I STILL think the wrap — and its presentation — crosses an ethical line. And that journalists everywhere should be unsettled by it.
July 1st, 2010 at 4:56 pm
that advert has to be the topper to all bad fake news adverts in the LATimes. It’s like dressing up your old retired semi-favorite professor in a clown suit and making him dance while shooting at his red shod feet and making him recite the best text messages of Tiger Woods.
July 1st, 2010 at 5:03 pm
At the risk of sounding too cozy (which isn’t the case), I think too much is being made of this. It’s clearly–I’d even suggest prominently–marked as advertising. When I looked at the top photo here, the word in red caught my eye very quickly.
I think the questions it raises are interesting. How much control over how an ad looks should a paper assume? At what point is the paper censoring the advertisers? Should there be an explicit policy about ads that look and feel like news content? (Is there?)
It seems like a not-terrible ad campaign. Hopefully it cost a ton of money and the Times can hire journalists and do journalism.
July 1st, 2010 at 5:20 pm
I’m no journalist, I’m just a customer, led to this site by LAObserved.
And, c’mon, we all know this was stupid. Most people are like the ones on the bus, described above, who get irritated by this crap.
I keep my subscription reluctantly, as the paper continues to decline, in part because my wife likes having “a” paper in the morning, and partly out of crusty habit (like the guy who needs his morning coffee).
And my first thought this morning when I saw this was that it’s just another Big kick into the LAT’s credibility as a solid news organization.
Really, with its journalistic reputation ever-receding, you’d think they’d be pulling gimmicks to shore up its credibility, not accepting chump change to undermine whatever brand loyalty they’ve got left. My 2 cents.
July 1st, 2010 at 5:33 pm
CHARLES APPLE MUST RESIGN!!!!!
July 1st, 2010 at 5:37 pm
It’s not like I don’t understand where you’re coming from.
People are worked up primarily because of the phrase “once-respectable LA Times” … can we agree?
When you say that, and you defend it, you are coming across as though you are urinating on the Los Angeles Times in its entirety. “I once respected this paper, now I don’t.”
I don’t really care what your intent is. You’re coming across that way. So is everyone else who has no problem calling it a joke but who views the work it turns out as the gold standard.
The journalism and the people once made the LA Times respectable to you. You know that. You didn’t elevate the LA Times to wherever it was because of their ad policies. It was respectable to you because it did Pulitzer-level work.
Now you’re saying, “It does Pulitzer-level work, but it’s not respectable anymore.” You said that. It’s right up there.
And let’s say I’m wrong about all of this. Let’s say you’re not saying that. Let’s say you are saying the LA Times is not a respectable paper anymore but that you still admire the work it turns out, and that I am out of line to find a problem in that.
Let me ask you two questions:
1. Does the fact you had to explain yourself to me in great detail matter? You’re fine to come across this way (again, whether you intended to or not) and if I take it that way, obviously the problem must lie with me? That’s it? End of discussion?
I don’t think the Tribune editors intended to come across as sexist with Chrissy Pronger. Let’s say you found it sexist. Would the fact they didn’t intend it that way matter to you? Would it change your mind if they told you your entire premise was wrong?
2. Does Greg Swanson have a kernel of a point? Not about the personal stuff, nor the references to employment. Take that out and deal with those on your own. I mean the part about folks here (not necessarily singling anyone out) coming across as though their top priority is to demean and insult other journalists or organizations. Or at least as if it’s a very high priority?
And if it’s coming across that way, are we OK with that, given the places this has gone as a site?
July 1st, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Beer Summit, anyone?
July 1st, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Advertisements that look like news are old as dirt.
July 1st, 2010 at 6:12 pm
No beer summit needed. We’ll all be fine and linking back and forth to each other by morning.
It’s become trendy to bag on a lot of papers, but near the top of the list is the LA Times, and all I really wanted to know is, broadly, do we really mean it when we do that?
July 1st, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Allow me to chime in here. I spent the summer of 2008 at the LAT as their “40-year-old intern” to fresh my editing skills and learn some new ones. It was a great experience, and I am grateful to the LAT for allowing me to do have the opportunity to do that.
The newsroom of the LAT is top-notch, from reporting to editing to design. I’m sure that they are as appalled by this as anyone. It wasn’t their decision to do this.
My post on my blog and what Charles says here is not a denigration of the Los Angeles Times. We are as sad as anyone that the LAT’s top leadership is making these decisions that imperil the newspaper’s integrity.
Speaking for myself, I think that the LAT is still one of America’s great newspapers, but it’s endangering its stature by doing things like this.
July 1st, 2010 at 7:57 pm
I don’t have a huge problem with A1 ads. When I actually had a say in such things I never ran one, but we were in a much better position than most papers, even small ones.
What I DO have a problem with is terrible front-page ads that might actually serve to deceive the public. Every time the LAT has run a full-page fake news ad, the articles they use are actually plausible, and I don’t like that one bit. Take, for example, the Alice in Wonderland ad. The front-page heds are about significant current events, meaning people could take those for actual news articles. That makes me very uncomfortable.
Also, I wonder how these sorts of stunts affect pickup rates? Sure, if you have it delivered you’re going to open the paper and read it, but how many people are actually going to put money into the box when all they know they’re getting is a full-page ad? What if there’s huge breaking news — can LAT decide to push the ad a day? It seems that the effect of the ad on newsstand sales could be devastating.
Also, @Greg, get over it. Jeesh.
July 1st, 2010 at 8:30 pm
@Greg - A lot of those displaced journalists still dearly love the business and are working hard to get back into it. They were laid off and/or forced out of it and have been working so hard to better their skills and find a new position. Please have some compassion.
As for the disgusting comment - I don’t find the LAT as a whole disgusting. I find the decision to run the wrap as disgusting.
I was always taught that my actions both in and outside the newsroom affect the credibility of the paper. If I had produced this sort of thing on my own time, claimed it was from my paper and distributed it, I would be fired and rightfully so. I made this look like this was an actual product of the paper and caused people to think this was the real news and thus reduced the creditability of the very hard-working and talented reporters, photographers, editors, etc. that worked for the paper. I also was taught that there were two sacred spaces in journalism - A1 and the editorial page. This goes too far.
Now, should the LA Times have wanted to run this, have it as an insert inside the paper. Keep the same format, but have it as an insert. Magazines do this all the time and it’s very clear that this is a parody news section. That way you keep the advertisers happy and not mislead readers.
July 1st, 2010 at 8:45 pm
I have bought (newsstand, box, and subscription) the LATimes since I landed out here back in ‘76, and have seen its ups and downs. This last one takes the cake. I have already unsubscribed (last week, because of the right-wing blogger on its reporting staff and his right-wing blogs on the paper’s site), and with this new information the rightness of my choice has been confirmed. This paper still has many great people working there, but its management under Hartenstein has been a disaster. Goodbye, LA Times, but I’ll be keeping an eye on you and should I see you become a first-rate paper once again, I”ll re-up.
July 1st, 2010 at 9:13 pm
My aunt has been an LA Times subscriber for years. Every time I bring up the Times she tells me how she wants to cancel it. She’s this close. She only gets weekends now.
Crap like this–and it is crap, especially because Universal DID have a huge fire awhile back and this story IS somewhat realistic (Universal being destroyed)–makes people who take the news seriously cringe.
People who still buy newspapers aren’t edgy and cool and Jon Stewart followers. They’re like my Aunt–62 years old, a just-retired teacher and confused as hell at Facebook and Twitter. They don’t need their legs pulled, they want to read the obits and get a recipe for chicken and read the editorials. They have really bad eyesight and the color red isn’t going to make a difference. I’m guessing the word Advertisement is in less than 24 point.
While guerilla tactics are all the rage, they aren’t always appropriate. And they’re definitely not appropriate on the LA Times, which like it or not is still a “serious” newspaper. It’s not TMZ. It’s not the NY Post. No matter how much it wants to be Entertainment Tonight, it’s not. It’s the NY Times of the west coast.
Now I don’t want to rip on hardworking journalists, like my one dear friend, who works in the features department. But if I worked for the Times I’d be hanging my head in shame. This ad is gross, it’s over the top. And it just futher erodes the trust the public has in journalism. But I bet it brought in a boatload of cash. And, unfortunately, I bet that cash will just further pad the bonuses of those on top.
Charles wasn’t taking pot shots at people. Charles was taking pot shots at the idea. Journalism is in trouble and crap like this doesn’t make it better. It erodes the craft.
July 1st, 2010 at 10:02 pm
To address the original topic of this thread — that “cover” horrified me. It intentionally aims to shock readers into paying attention (with some overtones of 9.11 and Oklahoma City, to me anyway), misleads them by designing it as a news page, then pisses them off by burying the AD label in tiny type. The LAT, like any other newspaper, should be trying to hang onto their readers for dear life; to me, this does the opposite. It shows how out of touch Tribune’s upper management is with readers — or maybe how little they respect them.
It very obviously wasn’t the product of the newsroom, so my comments don’t reflect on the integrity or talent of those journalists at all. Period.
The tone of this thread makes me so sad — and I can’t believe anyone would think Charles doesn’t respect the journalists there. To me, he’s expressing what I feel when I see these things: it’s really, really painful to watch what’s being done to some of these newspapers, the decisions being made by folks outside the newsroom — people who often have no journalism experience at all. I hate knowing what’s being forced on the folks in these newsrooms, and watching what’s happening to some of the most beautiful, intelligent papers out there in the name of media-mogul greed.
I’ve seen my old paper in CT being systematically gutted by the Tribune folks, and yet my dear friends who are left (and not many of them are) continue to do amazing work despite some unbelievably tight constraints. I’ve loved and continue to love the work, the people and the creativity that remain at my most recent paper. Unfortunately, the paper didn’t love me back; that’s life. I still respect what they do, and then some.
But the fact that this thread has fired people up means that there’s still so much passion for good journalism, especially visual journalism. And that, in the end, is a great thing, isn’t it? Sounds like just about every person in this thread is working hard to keep that alive… keep it going.
July 1st, 2010 at 10:39 pm
1. It’s a horrible idea, obviously.
2. Saying the LAT is once-respected is overstating it.
3. Anything that brings in a ton of money from an advertiser for a newspaper can’t be THAT bad. Unless you can feed your family on the public’s opinion rating of your newspaper.
In conclusion, with apologies to the ladies, this has turned into a dick-swinging contest and everyone looks really $%*(&ing stupid.
July 1st, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Harrison, I’m doubtful that much of the ad money is going anywhere near the newsroom.
And I’m sorry we all seem so $%#(ing stupid to you for discussing it. I think it’s worth the rants and the put-downs, actually. even yours.
July 1st, 2010 at 11:08 pm
I’m with Ingrid, I doubt any of that ad money made it beyond the executive suite. Gotta love corporate media!
July 2nd, 2010 at 12:42 am
I count about four people in this comments thread that are still relevant from day to day in this business. I’d weigh in deeper with my thoughts, but I proved to be so irrelevant that I had to go and join Swanson in the world of MMA, where at least we know where things stand and you can settle it the old fashioned way.
The way I see it, a lot of newsrooms make decisions to completely sell out all the time. The once in a blue moon that something like this happens at a paper like the LA Times, I’m going to put my trust in it that the newsroom wasn’t likely given a choice.
Also, don’t forget — big heavyweight title fight on Saturday: Shane Carwin vs. Brock Lesnar. UFC 116. Only on pay-per-view.
July 2nd, 2010 at 2:09 am
I’m not sure about the definition of “relevance” in the biz — my desire to make self-deprecating jokes aside — but, yeah, I’ll just say I’m glad it was poorly done by the folks in advertising, on that side of the firewall; it makes the actually awesome Pulitzer/SND-winning stuff from the newsroom that much better. (Unless that damn-dirty-ape ad with the tiny headline type wins an SND AOE in February…but I keed, I keed.)
July 2nd, 2010 at 3:31 am
This seems a lot like the War of the Worlds radio broadcast.
It was disguised as real news and people were confused. They thought the news was true because it was presented as such. They likely missed the disclaimers.
People picking up the Times expect real news on the front page. So when they see this fake news, they are confused. A little red banner is not going to minimize it from looking like the real thing. The ad even used the news banner.
Readers aren’t going to know the difference in headline styles or design.
This ad would have been less of a problem if it were presented as a section inside the paper.
The publisher’s approval again of running these ads ruins the reputation of the newspaper. No matter how great the paper does covering the news, it’s minimized by this stunt. I don’t think it’s worth the extra bucks to ruin your paper’s reputation.
It’s not just what journalists feel, it’s how the readers look at it.
July 2nd, 2010 at 8:18 am
When something like the damages the credibility of a newspaper, the damage is permanent.
OK, so they make a few extra bucks to help put food on the table (or pay the bankruptcy creditors) this week. OK, so we have sparked a debate about what constitutes ethics in journalism.
But the bottom line is that the management of The Los Angeles Times has permanently chipped away another piece of the newspaper’s reputation, which was built over decades by Otis Chandler and others. That chip is gone forever.
Consider the printing plant debacle a few weeks ago, and the inability of The L.A. Times to print a sports section on one of the biggest sports nights of the 21st century in Los Angeles. Instead of saving money, The Times had to give rebates to advertisers. Readers were disappointed.
The term “once-respected” really does apply, if only to the business side. The company has been mismanaged into a black pit from which even the hardest-working journalists will be had-pressed to extract the company’s reputation.
The journalists, who cannot generate revenue, are entirely at the mercy of the business side of the company. The business side has let them down. The long-term consequences are too sad to contemplate further.
July 2nd, 2010 at 10:49 am
The Times still puts out a great deal of respectable work. But the editorial staff has to live with the publisher’s decisions good or bad.
While the paper has had similar ad gimmickry cloaking the front page, a four-page faux news section takes it too far. The publisher defended it as being withing advertising guidelines, but that’s feeble argument.
July 3rd, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Get over it people. What the LAT is doing by running these ads is preserving jobs and it’s existence in very tough economic times. The bottom line is that daily newspapers themselves continue to become irrelevant. The news that comes out of them is to late the time they arrive at people’s homes. I already read about it online. What LAT and other daily pubs has going for it, is it’s strong editorial, a very powerful website and a brick and mortar/home delivery system that separates it from any other website news/entertainment entity out there. The LAT should maximize this distribution advantage to the best of its ability in order to help ensure it’s survival and make payroll. If that means running these advertorials and ad cover pages so be it.
July 6th, 2010 at 10:14 am
How do you “partially” destroy something?
Roll Tide!
July 7th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
“Fool me twice, shame on me.” The fake news of the LA Times has now fooled me more than twice and I am ashamed. All the opinion expressed on this matter, however contradictory, make sense to me and they’re so darned well written and a joy to read. I have little to add except to express my admiration for the humor of the Universal Studios ad. If I had come across it in the National Lampoon or the Onion I would have laughed my head off right away, instead of feeling confused, annoyed and regretful of the financial challenges that drive good publications to take risks with revenue-generating approaches. Still, once I got the joke, and my resentment faded, I enjoyed the parody a great deal. Where to go next? An entire newspaper of faux-ads, consistently well-written and funny? I’d subscribe.