Making the Los Angeles Times' Front Page

Columbia Journalism Review ^ | 07/23/2004 archives | Bryan Keefer

[wildbill]

In an election year, it is the front pages of the nation's major papers that set the tone for how political stories are covered. The Los Angeles Times is a major player in the election by any reckoning -- and the decisions it makes about how to place stories on its front pages help determine how the public thinks about politics

[wildbill]

Read down and learn how they made the decision on one day where to put articles favorable to Bush on Iraq (buried inside) and unfavorable (page one--DUH!). It's clear from the dialogue that they don't even recognize the decision making process is driven by their liberal bias and antipathy to Bush.

[kellynla]

And that's why the subscriptions have fallen dramatically at the Left Angeles Times.

For a more balanced coverage of So Cal politics go to
the Orange County Register
http://www.ocregister.com

or the San Diego Union Tribune
http://www.signonsandiego.com

Semper Fi,
Kelly

[martin_fierro]

[Deputy Managing Editor Leo] Wolinsky brings up three stories -- a piece on Lord Butler's findings about pre-Iraq war British intelligence, a story about the Butler report supporting the White House's pre-war claims about Iraq's attempts to acquire uranium from Africa, and a piece detailing information from a Senate report about Colin Powell's February 2003 speech to the U.N. The last two, he says "are interesting because one tends to knock down claims of the administration, and one tends to support them." He concludes, "I think we have room for one of those."

Wolinsky says that Powell and the uranium story are "an interesting package"; Baquet adds that "if you do uranium, you could say ... see page 9" for the larger story on the Butler report. Foreign editor Braswell says she likes the uranium story, essentially signing off on that.

Baquet then begins to question his own thinking. "Wouldn't it look odd to reach into the [Butler report] and grab the one thing that makes Bush look good?" and put it one page one, he asks. Kraft adds that putting the uranium story on the front page is "kind of a fairness issue" because the paper had treated former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's allegations about what the administration knew with such credence. Baquet replies, "I wasn't overly reading for fairness" and that the Butler report itself, rather than the specific evidence about the uranium claim, is the bigger news story. Kraft, thinking about it, agrees that on those grounds the uranium story could go inside.

Wolinksy asks the room how they feel about putting the Powell piece on the front page and the uranium story inside. Baquet agrees, arguing that Powell's speech was a milestone in the administration's case for war; Melissa McCoy, assistant managing editor for the paper's copy desks, adds that the uranium claim wasn't as important as the Powell speech, and Wolinsky says putting the uranium piece on page one would be giving it more emphasis than the administration itself had.

Wolinsky then begins poking holes in his own logic, asking whether the Powell story is similar to the uranium story, in that both are reaching into larger reports to highlight one particular piece of evidence. Kraft disagrees: "The Powell thing's better than you described."

John Arthur makes a small pitch for the uranium story: "I like it because it's counterintuitive." Baquet disagrees: "It would seem odd" to put the Powell story inside. Wolinsky agrees, saying that the Powell story is stronger. He also slots in the Butler report article for page one, bumping the uranium piece inside.

Laws, Editorial decisions, sausages: No one wants to see what goes into making them.

[Califelephant]

The Press-Enterprise is gradually getting better too: http://www.pe.com/

[kellynla]

Thanx.
Good to know that the folks in the Inland Empire have a paper to read...
All we have in LA is "birdcage liner" LOL
Ohhhh, for the days of the Herald Examiner...

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

The LA Times has turned into a piece of content-free DIRT over the past couple of years. Its' efforts to torpedo Arnold during CA's recall election were transparent, pathetic and entirely ineffective. I read this paper every day at the local coffee shop (where fortunately I don't have to pay for it) and the decline in quality is just jaw dropping. It's a challenge to find ONE article of interest. Some, maybe most days I glance through it and feel ripped off for the ten minutes it took to scan the articles. Monday editions in particular are an absolute joke. A complete waste of paper.

[tophat9000]

I always though the Orange County Register should change there name to the SoCal Register and aggressively market in LA County… I used to see there news rack as far north as Fry’s in Hawthorn… but then the seem to pull back

[kellynla]

Well thank goodness we have the internet so we can read the papers wherever we are...
BTW what we really need as another major newspaper in LA...
And now would be the ideal time to initiate one since the Left Angeles Times is grasping for air!!!

[elbucko]

I read this paper every day at the local coffee shop (where fortunately I don't have to pay for it) and the decline in quality is just jaw dropping.

Same here. And, in similar sentiment to Playboy, I only read the "Times" for the comics. The bias in the news and the Left tilt of the editorial pages, render the rest of the Times into fishwrap.

[weegee]

BUMP and thanks for the PING