Talk:Los Angeles Times
|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Los Angeles Times article.|
|WikiProject California / Los Angeles||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Journalism||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 Expansion attempt
- 2 Liberal/Conservative
- 3 Cleanup issues
- 4 "The Times"
- 5 Spring Street Project
- 6 "Gropegate"
- 7 Involvement in the 2008 Presidential race
- 8 Newspaper archives
- 9 Contributors
- 10 KTLA
- 11 Mideast Conflict
- 12 Editorial policy
- 13 Lead doesn't follow WP guidelines
- 14 Cite consistency
- 15 Los Angeles Times Spanish-language Version
- 16 Crossword
- 17 Political stance
- 18 Los Angeles Times in the 21st century
- 19 Times Mirror Company
- 20 Bias
- 21 Television and other Times-Mirror properties
- 22 2,731 for los angles times
This article still needs to cover some of the ill-fated expansion attempt (e.g. San Diego, East Coast editions). gK 12:17, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think that the liberal/conservative opinions on this article really reflect the paper's history and current position. Anyone more knowlegable about it that can clean this up? --Mr Anthem 03:16, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't understand. What needs cleaning up? -Willmcw 03:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- I have been following the LAT for many years. It was once an extreme-rightwing paper, but in the 60's swung over to the extreme left. Former columnist Robert Scheer is described as a "liberal," but is fact a marxist. The paper's poor relationship with the local Jewish community and its aggressive attacks against community leaders during the al-Marayati campaign have contributed to its decline. Few on the Westside of the San Fernando Valley trust the paper any more and see little reason to subscribe.Scott Adler 02:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I find this article to be horribly written and poorly organized. I tried my hand at cleanup by merging sections together, but it still need a lot of work. For instance, I'm not quite sure what info needs to be put in under History. Since I've grown up with the LA Times, I'm concerned about my new age" bias; you know, including things that may be trivial in the entire scope of its history. But among the things that I think should be expanded:
- Putilzers. I know that the LA Times won some for their King/Drew coverage, and that they've been generally good at raising outrage and leading to action (such as the recent UCI furor and Skid Row)
- Writers. Bill Plackate mentioned, should there be more (like Steve Lopez), or should they be deleted
- "Decline." I know there's a lot more important stuff that I am unaware of.
There's a lot more but I can't think about it now. Hbdragon88 03:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm all for expanding the article, and those sound like good topics. Try to avoid deleting information if you can. Otherwise, be bold! Cheers, -Willmcw 08:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Here are some topics I'd like to see expanded, along with some supporting sources I'd like to mine. I'll try to chip them down a bit in the coming weeks, but anyone is welcome to join in.
- The Times coverage of Gov. Schwarzenegger.
- The Kennedy School of Government has nice write-up.
- How the purchase of Times-Mirror by Tribune Company has affected The Times
- The American Journalism Review wrote this up in length
- The internal turmoil during the Carroll-Baquet controversies
- This was recorded in pretty good detail by Frontline's News War
- The paper's future business strategy, at least pending any shakeups from Sam Zell
- It's not authoritative, but David Hiller's recent panel discussion on CSPAN might be informative.
- What is up with the likely new owner, Sam Zell?
- The internal "Spring Street Project" that critiqued the paper's online efforts
- It looks like you can read a lot of it online at LAObserved.
I'd also like to suggest that the history section be reorganized so that it's divided by the different ownership teams (Chandlers->TribuneCo.->SamZell), with the lengthy Chandler era divided up by management teams (ex. publishers, generations of the Chandler family).
Then, if that's done chronologically, it might, or might not, make sense to work the controversies and other events into the timeline, rather than break them off into a different section.
Finally, it would be nice at some point in the future to flesh out the biography pages of many of the paper's big players, especially the current ones, like David Hiller and Jim O'Shea.Hollis I. Mulwray (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that anyone would argue those points. However in California, "The Times" is the L.A. Times, and in the context of this article it is entirely appropriate to refer to the paper as "The Times" as a shortened version of its formal name. -Will Beback 22:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Of course. Why would anybody think otherwise? Shorthand terms are often used after the first use of the long version. GeorgeLouis 10:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Spring Street Project
I've taken the liberty of adding the Spring Street Project paragraphs in the modern history section. I see that someone has disagreed with my decision to break off the authors into a separate page/list and dumped it at the bottom there. I'll defer to their judgement on whether or not the name list deserves its own page. Though now I wonder if perhaps the Spring Street Project itself should be broken off into another page, which would perhaps be a better home for that list. Is that a dumb idea? What I'm thinking is that maybe it would work to distill the three or four graphs I drafted into three or four sentences, and then refer the reader to a more detailed page on the Spring Street Project if they want more detailed information.Hollis I. Mulwray (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I went ahead and made those changes. I distilled what I'd written yesterday about the Spring Street Project into one brief paragraph, and moved all the detailed stuff into a new page. Everybody cool with that? Hollis I. Mulwray (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I created a new "Gropegate" sub-section, as I had a "scandal" to move in from United States journalism scandals - I have just pretty-much duplicated the text. Clearly the story needed to be mentioned here if it is mentioned there, and if it actually is a proper "scandal" (also I notice it has been requested above). I directly moved all the text, as, per an AfD, that longer-list "article" may be merged into the simpler list of linked scandal-titles here: List of United States journalism scandals. This new text will no-doubt need editing. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Involvement in the 2008 Presidential race
I have heard on October 17th of that year, the Los Angeles Times--along with its major rivals the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune--has endorsed the Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. Before possibly adding a new section in this article, please consider giving discussions about this story. --Nebula2357 (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Generally articles on newspapers in WP do not cover their endorsements. Articles on campaigns do cover such if they are noteworthy to the article. Collect (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
What is the website that offers archives of old LA Times articles? If I remember correctly, it's a local university that has taken photographs of many pages. Thanks, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- It is Proquest. Check with your local library, which may have a subscription. You will need a local library card. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, Proquest has an archive that goes back to the 19th century. Will Beback talk 06:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Proquest was a Times generated effort to capitalize income from their printed content and goes back to the start of the newspaper about 1870/80--it operated after the 1850s established Los Angeles Star/Estrella folded. You can read Proquest for free a very short sentence or two of the articles on line on their site or subscribe to it and of course copy the complete article. I use it as a cost cutting reference source for the older stuff to locate which articles may be of interest then go to the library and look them up on old style film. If you are someone else's dime then you just might want to cut out the second activity and go right to subscription. The time distance between the older stuff and the newer indexing does seem to give greater ability to find stuff that the older families could have seen disappeared when it was originally published in places other than the main story areas or just a few sentences that you could miss it amongst the line adverts of lost and found or for sale.GinAndChronically (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
An editor deleted the list of contributors , with the note:
- Blanking. Many of these were not contributors but were staff members or were syndicated. 
While I agree that syndicated columnists who aren't primarily associated with the paper don't belong, some of the entries were regular columnists or reporters who are best known for their work at the paper. For example, Jack Smith or Steve Lopez. Would it help if we renamed the section "Notable contributors and staff"? I'm not sure I understand why that's an important distinction. Would "Notable writers" be broad enough to include all the relevant people? Will Beback talk 06:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- A contributor doesn't have to be a part-time employee. Staff members are contributors to the success of the newspaper. If must, he should change the sub-heading. Ucla90024 (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is one of terminology - within the news publishing business, "contributor" is often used to mean someone who writes for the :publication, but isn't on its regular staff. To the general reader, it may have the same meaning, or more broadly indicate anyone who writes for the paper, whether on a staff or freelance basis.
- The danger of misunderstanding is small, I think, but Will Beback's suggestion of changing the title to "Notable writers" neatly avoids it.
- I have been looking at a number of other Wiki articles on newspapers and there's no consistency in how this section (if present) is entitled; Toronto Star (while absurdly over-detailed) interestingly separates out staff journalists from external contributors. Barnabypage (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
It would really help if the list were divided or organized by dates. This list is heavy on the more recent staffers, but really lacks in the earlier years, or even the years of the mid 20th century; where, for example, is the acclaimed Matt Weinstock (1960s) or the noted Lee Shippey (1923-1958)? Also, the list should include only people who were directly on the Times payroll; that is, it should not include mere "contributors", or people syndicated from elsewhere. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what this means, so I removed it from the article: (Now that station is owned by Fox through Newscorp, and another local station, KTLA, shares a corporate parent with the Times.) What is the corporate parent? Tribune Co.? Why do we have anything about modern KTLA in this article anyway? In puzzlement, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Are there any sources for their views? it would be original research for us to characterize them on our own. Will Beback talk 16:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Really minor, considering all the political stands the LAT has taken in its history of more than a hundred years. It would have to be a spectacular change of policy (like the presidential endorsement of Obama) to warrant a mention here. But what do I know? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
"For most of its first 80 years, the Times had been known as an unabashedly conservative paper, reflecting the stance of Harrison Gray Otis. Under the Chandlers, however, the paper gradually adopted a more centrist [or liberal, as one editor would have it] tone." Who says? This is why we need SOURCES. If anybody is interested, I am sure there are articles in newspapers and magazines that can be quoted. Unless somebody finds a source for statements like this within a reasonable time, I will challenge and delete. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Like many articles on print and broadcast media, this was probably added by editors who saw it as common knowledge. I'm sure we can find some sources for it. Will Beback talk 00:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Here's a source for the views of the old Times:
- It was intensely, virulently partisan. The Times was not an organ of the Republican Party of Southern California, it was the Republican Party. 
- In fact, that book, The Powers That Be by David Halberstam, covers the history of the paper in great detail, especially the struggle to move the paper from its reactionary beginnings. Will Beback talk 01:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Here's a source for its relatively "centrist" phase in the 1980s
- ...the Los Angeles Times, a moderate Republican paper...
- That's Who Deliberates? By Benjamin I. Page. Will Beback talk 01:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- And another:
- The Times is a highly regarded newspaper that has taken relatively moderate positions in recent California politics.
- That's Brown tide rising By Otto Santa Ana, ISBN 0292777671, published 2002. Will Beback talk 01:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- This one uses the word "centrist":
- The newspapers that have been studied for the United States include the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times. All three newspapers are centrist and do not represent a wide political spectrum. .. Politically, there is not much difference between them. Yet, I ranked the New York Times as the most conservative, followed by the Washington Post, and third, the Los Angeles Times. 
- From Transboundary Environmental Negotiation By Lawrence Susskind, et al. ISBN 0787960616, 2002. I don't think it would inappropriate synthesis to use these sources to support the assertion that the paper used to be very conservative but now is centrist. Will Beback talk 01:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- I cut my journalistic teeth on the L.A. Times 50 years ago, and my most recent ex-wife still works there. My last stint with them was about 10 years ago. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Lead doesn't follow WP guidelines
The leed as it stands today does not cover the entire article, focusing too much on the Pulitzer Prizes. Anybody want to make the effort to recast it, moving the Pulitzers below, where they belong? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- No consistency provided in removing excess link. For example: the John L. Gaunt, Jr. Pulitzer Prize in 1955 was different than the ones given to the others (Pulitzer Prize for Feature Photography). Ucla90024 (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Los Angeles Times Spanish-language Version
Los Angeles Times will announced plans to be launched a Spanish-language version daily newspaper El Times will be replaced Hoy Los Angeles. La Opinión will still Spanish-language daily newspaper published which continues to the present. Ronaldmolina20 (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- When it happens, will you kindly add the info to the article, with the necessary citations? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
There's no mention of the LA Times' crossword in this article. Isn't it the second biggest/most syndicated behind the New York Times'. Doesn't it warrant at least a section in this article, and possibly even its own article. Not that I feel I know enough about it to do the necessary.
Why is it that all the major British newspapers have a specific info box section for political affiliation (e.g. right, left, etc.) -- see Daily Telegraph, London Times, The Guardian -- while the LA Times (or New York Times for that matter) do not have such labels? Interestingly, the New York Post does have a specific label in its infobox as conservative...--达伟 (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- My understanding is that newspapers in the UK are much more explicit about supporting a particular party. US papers did that a long time ago, but in the past 50 to 70 years they have tended to avoid being connected to parties. I can't answer for the Post. Will Beback talk 07:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- In the US it was common during political elections to start up a newspaper if only to last the election. Obviously in some areas the newspapers continued after the election. Political association was inherent but not necessarily had to be publically stated because everyone at the time knew. When some newspapers would switch from issues championed by a particular party to another then they sought out to be non-partisan. The times was never non-partisan always championing conservative business and social issues until Otis Chandler sought to increase the base of the paper from conservative Republicans. Otis had to contend with his mother Buffy not wanting in the same section as the society news as the cinema ads of the newspaper because that section included showing schedules of the burgeoning porno theater industry. No one in the world can convince Nancy Reagan that the political cartoonist for the times was a universal supporter of her husband. But bringing on board that particular political cartoonist was a move to show that the times wanted to represent a greater base than the Republicans. The times would really not endorse any Demo political issues/candidates until Otis's time.GinAndChronically (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Los Angeles Times in the 21st century
Unless there is strong and consistent objection, I plan to begin an article titled Los Angeles Times in the 21st century, so we can move most of the detailed modern stuff over there and get the article into some kind of encyclopedic shape. Give me your thoughts here. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Times Mirror Company
Times Mirror Company redirects to this article's page, but it doesn't mention anything about it. What is its etymology? Other things such as this need to be included.Curb Chain (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
The following addition was removed: The LA Times was cited in a 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers of Dartmouth College, Press Bias and Politics, that investigated the issue of media bias. In addition to 116 other mainstream US papers, including The New York Times, the Washington Post, and the San Francisco Chronicle, Kuypers stated that the Times tends to favor liberal viewpoints.<:ref name=Kuypers>Professor's Study Shows Liberal Bias in News Media – 09/17/2002</ref> One problem is that the reference did not mention the L.A. Times at all. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC
- yes, good point. i was taking the IP's word that the study that the article cited is about does mention the times, and trying to suggest in my edit summary that if anything about it is going in the article it should come from the actual study. no matter what, though, it doesn't seem to me that it's on the level of an entire section. in my next edit, i'm going to munge the <:ref> tag and remove the reflist template, if you don't mind, because it always stays at the bottom of the talk page and makes the discussion unclear if new sections are added, but i'm doing it in a separate edit in case you don't like it, so you can just revert.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- it just means to mess it up in such a way as to keep the computer from processing it, so that the humans can look at it. in this case, a colon before the ref in the opening ref tag leaves the whole thing visible but doesn't require a reflist template, which gets cumbersome if anyone wants to put a ref in another section. anyway, good catch that the cited source didn't even mention the times.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Television and other Times-Mirror properties
There is now a Television section within this article, which shouldn't really be there. Information about other Times-Mirror properties should be placed within a separate Times-Mirror Company article, which does not really exist. If you click on the link above, well, as of today it brings you right back to Los Angeles Times. Not being terribly interested in the other properties (the paper mill, etc.), I am not going to try to start one right now, but maybe somebody else will. Thus it is in the land of Wikipedia. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
2,731 for los angles times
On a search for Los Angles Times there are about 2731 hits that include as publisher or newspaper "los angles times" or some association of angles with times. Is there a way to isolate just "Los Angles Times" the newspaper/publisher so that they can be in one move changed to the proper spelling of "Los Angeles Times" and any references of "ANGLES" in article heading be eliminated?GinAndChronically (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- I am not sure how this has anything to do with Wikipedia. Thanks in advance for explaining further. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- How can citations that list as the publication or newspaper "Los Angles Time" not have anything to do with WP? Who ever identified the source as "Los Angles Times" more than likely typed it wrong as it should be "Los Angeles Times". Why would it be the "Los Angeles Times"? Well, maybe they were Los Angeles based articles. Is that enough of an explanation or does it require more brick and mortar?GinAndChronically (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)