Updated, 11 a.m. Friday: The number of e-mails received on the subject has exceeded 80.
More than 30 e-mails have been received in reaction to the front-page advertisement — written as if it were a news story — in today’s Los Angeles Times. The word “advertisement” appeared under the NBC logo, but readers wrote angry notes. In addition to e-mails, some two dozen readers have called with similar sentiments. Here are some excerpts:
Los-angeles-times-a1-april9-2009 Are you kidding me? When will those who run our paper stop insulting their readers’ intelligence and our commitment to its survival? Seeing that front page ad was not shocking. If you want to sell advertising on the front page — great, do it! But trying to spin it as a story? Where are the journalistic standards?
This paper has slowly withered in size and might and insight. Great columnists are gone and the ones remaining write their columns with such fear of their own futures that I feel such empathy.
Clearly “out of the box” thinking is important to the survival of the newspaper, but creative thinking that does not harm the paper’s reputation. Unfortunately, I think this ship sailed a while back.
One step closer to canceling the subscription … and there aren’t many steps left.
What a way to alienate those few remaining loyalists.
Joey Shanley
- – - – - -
The ongoing deterioration of a once-great newspaper reached a new low this morning. Unbelievable!
Peter F. McAndrews
Santa Monica
- – - – - -
I couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw the Times’ front page on Thursday, April 9. There must have been nearly 200f the front page dedicated to advertising! It is sad to see a fine newspaper stoop to such lows, and I hope this doesn’t continue.
David Holmes
Buena Park
- – - – - -
I am completely outraged that the L.A. Times, formerly one of the premier newspapers of the world, would finally be brought down so low as to accept advertising on a significant portion of its front page. I hope the Tribune Co. got a ton of money for this vile and image-destroying move — they will need it as the Times loses still more circulation. I am not going to continue my subscription, as there appears to be less and less room for information, and more and more for infomercials.
Suzanne Schechter
Oxnard
- – - – - -
Today’s issue shows just how low the L.A. Times has sunk! A very amateurish appearing ad on the front page! The Times has proven itself to no longer be a newspaper but a shill for whatever company pays the most. I might as well switch my subscription to the Daily News.
R. L. Giannangeli
North Hollywood
- – - – - -
Every time I think this paper can’t get any worse, I’m unpleasantly surprised. The massive ad taking up valuable column space on the front page of Thursday’s paper has finally convinced me to cancel my subscription. The L.A. Times has gotten so pathetic, I’m forced to get my news elsewhere.
Elizabeth Babor
La Crescenta
- – - – - -
I was born and raised in Los Angeles. I literally learned to read my first words from your paper. But the great glory days are gone. It was one thing to have ads on the bottom of the front page, which are now larger than the actual headlines. But to show a faux news item …
… on your lower left side marked a new low. The line between real news and commercials have blurred to a point that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to differentiate the two in future editions.
My suggestion is why just have commercials disguised as faux news articles on the front page? Why not incorporate actual product placement, as movies and TV shows are doing into your real stories? Money is money, right? At any cost, including any credibility that you may still have.
A few suggestions from today’s headlines. On the story of the Monk, you can rewrite it as: “His Frangellica™ Spirit Won’t Be Confined.” For your story of patients being thrown back into Skid Row, why not: “Facility Accused of Dropping 150 Homeless Patients Off in Brand New Chevy Tahoes™ in Skid Row,” and for the kidnapped captain, you can make some bucks from Disney by changing it to: “U.S. Captain Being Held by Pirates of the Caribbean ™ Types!”
You’ve lost all integrity at this point… so why not “go for the gold”?
Sincerely,
Tom Greene
- – - – - -
I don’t know what you guys think you’re gaining by running an ad for a TV show on your front page masquerading as a legitimate news story. Stop trying all these tricks! If you want to save costs and raise revenue go back to being a newspaper that hires more reporters to write better stories, take your online site down so readers have to buy a paper if they want to read your stories, and STOP PRINTING IN COLOR! You’re wasting a lot of money on printing costs when you add four-color process instead of sticking with black ink.
Get back to basics and start over.
Joseph Neri
West Covina
- – - – - -
I am a firm believer in print journalism. In my opinion the Los Angeles Times has always been an exemplary newspaper, and I have valued my subscription over the years. However, recently the paper has deteriorated — it is no longer an example of what a fine newspaper should be; it has been systematically gutted of section after section, feature after feature. Although I gave up in despair when the Sunday paper turned into little more than advertising (with sections of the paper strategically hidden within the pages of ads, so Sundays became a kind of “treasure hunt” to find the news!) and sections of the paper were eliminated, I have steadfastly held on to my weekday subscription — partially out of loyalty, partially out of habit, as I do love the ritual of picking up the paper from my front porch, spreading it out on my breakfast table, and leisurely moving through it.
Today, however, was the last straw: on the front page of the paper was an advertisement! Column left; half a page! I fear the daily paper, too, will go the way of Sunday’s edition! When I complained, your representative told me it was a “wonderful advertising opportunity” for The Times.
You are a NEWSPAPER, for God’s sake, not an advertising throwaway! You mean there was no news that was fit to print? Unfortunately, and with great regret, I have canceled my subscription.
Carolyn S. Estrada
Signal Hill
- – - – - -
What a horrendous concoction your weird, dog-leg front page advertisement is today — from NBC, no less! You really must pass these layout abominations by your Art Director next time! I know times are tough, but must we make front pages as UGLY as this? Do hard times require the total abandonment of good design?
George Delmerico
Santa Barbara
- – - – - -
You’re skating on thin ice, L.A. Times. Over the past several years, you’ve gutted the newsroom; you’ve nixed cherished, long-standing columnists in favor of bush-league replacements; you’ve merged all
local coverage from sections such as the Orange County section into a single California section, and then axed the California section altogether; and now you’ve placed an ad on the front page designed to
look like editorial content. How low will you go?
In fewer than 10 years, cynical ownership and revolving-door leadership have taken what was a great metro daily newspaper and turned it into a pathetic shadow of its former robust self. I honestly used to be proud to subscribe to the L.A. Times, but now I’m faced with a new disappointment nearly every edition. I’ve been telling myself that I won’t cancel my subscription because I want to bring my children up in a household with a daily paper, but exactly what kind of paper am I left with to show them why print journalism is so important?
David Kopf
- – - – - -
I opened my L.A. Times this morning and was shocked and embarrassed when I saw two advertisements on your front page. As a former university journalist, editor and Times’ subscriber for more than 40 years, I can tell you that your attempt to “corral” these ads with a thick black line did little to disguise the fact that you sold your journalistic soul to advertisers. If it’s a one-time thing, it was very poor judgment. If it continues, shame on you.
Christine Shade
North Hollywood
- – - – - -
By placing an advertisement on your front page in such a way to “mimic” news is a disgrace to everything the Los Angeles Times used to stand for.
Joseph Dickson
San Dimas
- – - – - -
Commercial advertising all over the front page of your newspaper! This could be the last straw. Expect our cancellation notice shortly.
Michael Miller
Los Angeles
- – - – - -
As a purist I’d finally come to gruff acceptance of the small, 2-inch tall banner ads along the foot of the front page, and the annoying pseudo-Post Its in the top left corner.
But today’s front page takes the cake. An ad for the series “Southland” that not only runs along the bottom, but makes an unprecedented foray into sacred editorial ground by extending into the full below-the-fold left hand column.
As the attorney Joseph Welch said to Sen. Joe McCarthy during the Army-McCarthy hearings: “Have you no shame, Mr. Zell, have you no shame?”
Lewis S. Snow
La Crescenta
- – - – - -
While I understand you guys are under tremendous financial pressure to stay afloat, today’s front-page faux news story (really an advertisement for NBC’s new show “Southland”) goes too far. For goodness sake, it’s the front page, and your mock news story directly intrudes directly upon Column One!
If I wanted to subscribe to TV Guide, I would have subscribed to TV Guide. By squandering this valuable journalistic real estate, you’ve now lost all (remaining) credibility as serious newspaper.
The end has come. Kindly, cancel my subscription effectively immediately.
Michael Bruce Abelson
Pasadena
- – - – - -
I’m writing to add to what I’m sure is a chorus of complaints regarding the “Southland” ad on today’s front page. I’ve always been tolerant of, if not thrilled by, ads on A1, but this is shameful. No matter how big the “NBC advertisement” disclaimer, no matter how different the font, no matter how thick the rule surrounding the ad, it acts as a de facto story on the front page. Not only is it ugly, but it takes the place of a real news story from readers.
I’m a three-year subscriber and supporter of the L.A. Times. The only reason I haven’t canceled my subscription over the massive, short-sighted layoffs is because I figure it will only punish the dedicated, talented members of the newsroom (and I can’t wait to hear their reaction to this ad.) But today I wonder what the LAT’s value proposition is anymore. No standalone California section, no standalone books section, a neutered opinion section, reduced coverage from all over, the fact that I have to read a paper owned by Sam Zell, and now one less story on A1 because NBC wants to run some schlocky ad: These are not things that a great, or even a very good, newspaper does.
Craig Gaines
Los Angeles
- – - – - – -
Today, the Los Angeles Times lost its dignity … and (after 43 years) a reader.
Jeff Prescott
La Jolla
- – - – - -
I know that the L.A. Times is hungry for every penny of revenue it can get, but today’s front-page NBC ad has gone over an ethical line. To run an ad that is designed to (at least initially) trick your readers
into thinking it is a genuine newspaper article cheapens your newspaper. To run one on the formerly sacrosanct front page is only making you look desperate and weak. Every move like this only reduces
your status in the eyes of your readers.
Eric Taub
Westlake Village
April 09, 2009 in Ethics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c630a53ef01156f18378d970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Reaction to the front-page ad [Updated]:
Comments
Seems like your friends over at the public TV station take a dim view as well. This was a nice comment:
”
I’m not against selling ads on the front page, but why do they have to look like fake articles? Does anyone actually believe that the fake-article look creates a greater connection between a reader and the product being advertised?
The only reason advertisers like this kind of thing is because it creates controversy. I wouldn’t have paid any attention to this show but now I know about it. Also, the sales people love it because it allows them to stick it to the edit side of the house.”
http://kcet.org/local/blogs/404_city/2009/04/waiter-theres-spam-in-my-newspaper.html
Posted by: caro | April 09, 2009 at 06:22 PM
I am almost as dismayed at word in the updated story that there were only 70 complaints as I am about this sad, deflating development.
Really, I could perhaps rise above this and so many other recent developments that have seen greedy business people demanding an outrageous return for an investment in the newspaper industry. (Their friends were earning 25% a year with the likes of Milliken and Madoff! Surely Times/Mirror could do the same! And if not, they’d SELL it and buy something that could!)
I could perhaps look beyond the absence of bureaus, the banishment of news from the cities and regions outside downtown (save for a rehash of spectacular crime stories), or even avert my eyes from the grossly deficient coverage of county government and LA City Hall, if only there were the slightest glimmer of hope for the future. If only there had been SOME sign that SOMEONE in a position of control and importance with the firm holds certain principles absolutely sacred, and that they have some wisp of a hope of rebuilding the Los Angeles Times.
Alas, this latest confirms my worst fears. There is no good reason – or even a thin, weak reason – to hold out such hope. It is now officially irrational to hope that somewhere down the line the Los Angeles Times has any chance of restoring itself to the urgently needed role of community watchdog and purveyor of important information and entertainment in print. All there seems to be left upstairs are rationalizations and excuses.
The money brought in by Wednesday’s abomination was spent before the invoice went out. It won’t change anything, except to make the few remaining steps down – in exchange for an hour’s worth of operating revenue – that much easier to take and rationalize.
Goodbye Los Angeles Times
Posted by: William Rogers | April 10, 2009 at 12:33 AM
Beyond the outrage that the LA Times, a paper I have subscribed to for over thirty years, thought this was okay,
please be aware that I decided not to watch or Tivo “Southland”, a show that I was interested in watching prior to this debacle because of the promos and the fact it came from John Wells.
Nor will I be watching in the weeks ahead.
As for the LA Times, my husband and I are re-evaluating whether or not we will continue our long-time subscription.
No offense to chimps, but who is in charge of this once great newspaper?
Posted by: Lynn Zook | April 10, 2009 at 12:51 AM
No sports tie-in to Southland? In addition to the front page ad in the main “news” section, there were lengthy articles in two of the remaining sections of the paper about Southland on Thursday. This is a television show, not a news event.
Posted by: Anabel Adams | April 10, 2009 at 09:35 AM
Has the Editor in Charge reconsidered his decision to “sell” the front page of a major newspaper. How will we know when the EDITORIAL page goes on sale?
Posted by: Tom H. | April 10, 2009 at 09:50 AM
When the California section was dumped, my husband and I finally made the decision to cancel our decades-long subscription. We were just talking about how much we miss holding the paper in our hands, and that maybe we should give the Times one more chance. Thanks to this front page advertorial debacle, I won’t be calling to reinstate home delivery. I’m saddened and appalled that my home town paper has sunk to this spectacular new low.
Posted by: Deana Hendrickson | April 10, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Canceling a subscription is the wrong way to go! There is still great journalism in the L.A. Times. In fact, people who do not subscribe to their local paper (no matter where they live, and no matter what paper it is) should be ashamed of themselves. So much information at such a minor cost!
Posted by: George Garrigues | April 10, 2009 at 11:11 AM
I came “this close” to canceling my subscription Thursday morning after seeing the front page NBC advertisement. I continue to take the LA Times, mainly out of loyalty to my former colleagues with whom I worked for 30 years as a staff writer covering the Legislature, then the environment and finally religion. Does management have any idea of the significance of the offense to our readers and to The Times’ once shining reputation when a long-time staff writer such as myself seriously thinks about canceling? I’m hedging my bets. I now subscribe to the New York Times seven days a week.
Posted by: Larry B. Stammer | April 10, 2009 at 03:25 PM
I would also urge LA Times readers to boycott NBC and ‘Southland’.
If no one watches the show, maybe NBC won’t try this stupid stunt again.
Posted by: William Yoon | April 10, 2009 at 04:35 PM
Not mad, just sad. You can do better than this. Please do.
- Pasadena Subscriber
Posted by: john | April 10, 2009 at 10:37 PM
If you think that good journalism is important to the health of our democracy you’ve got to know that the LA Times staff is full of people who agree with you. But they have to find a new business model to be able to continue to provide good journalism. Sure, let them know that you think ads on the front page aren’t the way to do it, but for goodness sake, you STILL got a newspaper on your front door step filled with information you couldn’t possibly have gotten otherwise (other than those few inches the ad occupied). Think of a day when that no longer happens and know that you are NOT supporting good journalism by canceling your subscription. Stick by them while they work it out, let them know when they’re onto something and when they miss the mark. We’ll all be the better for having done so.
Posted by: Liz | April 11, 2009 at 06:22 AM
I get the L.A. Times (hard copy and online) in New York as well as on frequent visits to L.A. I’ve seen the front page ad (NBC) that’s gained a lot of comment. I find that the ad caption on it and the different font style made it easy to distinguish from the news. It’s too bad that some readers are upset but certainly they know that times are changing and the need for newspaper ad revenue is ever-great. Good luck at continuing to be a first-rate newspaper.
Posted by: George B. / NYC | April 11, 2009 at 02:15 PM
Considering how difficult it is for newpapers to survive in this day and age, I don’t fault the LA Times for doing whatever is necessary. When some papers are folding the Times continue to adjust to the poor economic environment.
I’m not outraged or disappointed at the use of advertisements as faux-articles. I can see the difference and I’d rather have my Times with ads than no Times at all.
I’ll keep subscribing. There’s bigger tragedies in the world to worry about.
Posted by: Enrique Rea | April 11, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Oh please. The ad is over there on the left corner in silly looking font and mismatched columns. It is clearly labeled an ad. The New York Times is belittleing this ad when it has ads on the bottom of their front page all the time. There is no masquerading “ads as news” in this instance. Every newspaper with a web portal has ads on the first page. OK, I’ll go along with you about not really wanting ads on the front page, but if it saves a local paper from going out of business, I’m all for it.
Posted by: Kyleandrew | April 12, 2009 at 02:34 AM
As a long-time subscriber, I am very disappointed about the latest advertisements that masquerade as news stories. Obviously the purpose is to fool the unsuspecting reader.
Instead of slowly undercutting your own integrity by blurring the lines between ads and legitimate content, I suggest you cut costs by switching to a tabloid-sized format. I would much rather see a reduction in the physical format than in the editorial integrity of this newspaper.
I live in Santa Barbara, where the local News-Press has already succumbed to an editorial self-destruction in the hands of Wendy McCaw. I do not want to have to give up the Times as well.
Posted by: Magne Land | April 12, 2009 at 11:28 PM
For those who don’t know, or think about it, in the real world, Advertising makes it possible for Journalism to exist whether at LA Times or the Memphis Commercial Appeal. That these times have forced publications to go to greater lengths to induce advertisers only reflects the dire financial straights newspapers are in.
Instead of complaining, buy a paper. Or convince someone else to subscribe to one.
Posted by: Steve | April 13, 2009 at 07:46 AM
