LA Times running front page ads disguised as news stories, kind of like they did during Obama’s presidential campaign
An ad on the front page of yesterday’s LA Times caused a stir (lower left of the page):
Ads “disguised as news stories” always generate plenty of reader complaints to newspapers (I only wish the people who get upset about ads that look like news stories would also raise a fuss about news stories that look like ads).
This time, however, it’s the LA Times newsroom that is doing the complaining to the paper.
Here’s part of the text of a petition that was circulated in the Times’ newsroom:
We the journalists of the newsroom strenuously object to the decision to sell an ad, in the form of a phony news story, on the front page of the Los Angeles Times.
The NBC ad may have provided some quick cash, but it has caused incalculable damage to this institution. This action violates a 128-year pact with our readers that the front page is reserved for the most meaningful stories of the day. Placing a fake news article on A-1 makes a mockery of our integrity and our journalistic standards.
If it helps ease the pain, guys, readers can’t really tell the difference anymore.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
MSNBC Leans Forward to Apologize to Mitt Romney
December 15, 2011 04:33 PM by Doug Powers
41 Comments
Michele Bachmann: By Now, Michelle Obama Would Have Gotten an Apology From NBC; Update: Apology Received
November 23, 2011 02:18 PM by Doug Powers
91 Comments
Did Newt Gingrich Say the Worst Thing Any Presidential Candidate Has Ever Said?
November 21, 2011 01:02 PM by Doug Powers
159 Comments
Nina Totenberg: No Evidence of Anything Political About Solyndra
November 19, 2011 04:21 PM by Doug Powers
45 Comments
Media Seminar: How to Silence an MSNBC Panel 101
November 16, 2011 11:45 AM by Doug Powers
205 Comments
‘Smug Shot’ from the GOP Debate
November 14, 2011 02:01 PM by Doug Powers
143 CommentsDavid Gregory: No ‘Grand Wizard’ in the GOP Right Now Who Can Force Herman Cain Out; Update: Gregory Apologizes
November 9, 2011 10:00 AM by Doug Powers
193 Comments
CNN’s John King Defends Joe Biden’s Honor; Demands Satisfaction
October 27, 2011 03:46 PM by Doug Powers
68 Comments
Diane Sawyer: Occupy Wall Street Protests Have ‘Spread to More Than a Thousand Countries’
October 11, 2011 10:54 AM by Doug Powers
50 Comments
Categories: Media Bias
Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"JustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False Choices
The newspaper equivalent of a death rattle.
maybe the “journalists” are mad b/c the “fake” news is more credible than the “real” news in the LA Times.
The NY Times has been doing this for years, as have most other MSM newspapers.
Fake news is news, in their eyes. Only thing is, there are fewer eyes reading it, thus their inevitable demise. It’s called “shooting yourself in the foot”.
True dat!
integrity and standards, never knew the la times could spell these words, too non liberal.
contest idea: find the “real” news piece in the newspaper…of course the winner would the person who submits the scores from the sports section…
If it was a fake news story about an illegal alien hero they would have been fine with it
You know what I hate?
Those little tags at wine stores declaring “Wine Spectator Rated 91″ or “Robert Parker 92 Best Buy!”
Then when you look a little closer, it is invariably from a vintage 1 or 2 years ago. I am so happy that the 2006 vintage was great. Too bad you only carry the 2007. And this is not rare. I would say well over 50% of all the tags out there are worng.
Wine buyer beware.
Los Diablos Times
hee hee hee
Well they’ve been giving free advertisement to the democratic party there for so long they might as well start getting paid.
I am shocked! The L.A Times has journalistic standards? Since when?
Lib newspaper employees objecting to what is basically an “unethical” action by their employer ???? …
So where have these “ethically and morally challenged” individuals been for all these years ???
Could it be that the visions they are having of the “Angel of Death” hovering over their biased employers has resulted in an “epiphany” of conscience ???
Has watching the increasing demise of their circulation carrying their pompous Lemming behinds over the cliff awakened them from their stupors ???
More likely it is just that they are finally realizing that “what goes around comes around”, their “chickens are coming home to roost”, and the end result is going to be “no more paychecks” …
couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of kool-aid drinkers …
Is it just me but the first link CAUSED A STIR takes me to an adult website????
It starts out LATIMES outsource report then asking me if am 18???
The Lost Angels Times - like most unabashedly liberal newspapers, they are slowing sinking into the quicksand of one-sided ideas. I just wish I had a large stick or rock I could push or place on them to help get them under a bit more quickly.
You’d think they’d figure it out. People want the news, Fair and Balanced (not a plug for Foxnews). Not vitriolic, left-wing slanted stories that constantly berate anything that may even look conservative.
I say good riddance to them and the MSNBCs of the country. The sooner they’re gone, the faster Obama’s and the liberal’s propaganda machine is silenced.
the funniest part of the letter: ” This action violates a 128-year pact with our readers that the front page is reserved for the most meaningful stories of the day. Placing a fake news article on A-1 makes a mockery of our integrity and our journalistic standards.”
what “integrity and journalistic standards”? the only (relatively) honest reporting in that rag is on the sports page: the rest of it is guavno, plain and simple.
They “strenuosly”?
Who are they? Jo from A Few Good Men?
So did either of their paying readers object?
So how are the conservative-leaning papers doing?
Hmmm. 6.47% Not so good I guess.
My thoughts exactly. And the sooner the end comes, the better.
When did “journalism” die?
Funny, I thought their reporting did that already.
Chap, let’s look at the totals.
NYT down about 42,000
Washington Post down about 25,000
Washtington Times down about 7000
If I have 10 of something and lose 1, that’s 10%. Guess you can make stats sound as innocent or as bad as you want.
Don’t worry, the liberals are falling from loftier heights, but I believe they will hit bottom much quicker.
I’m not hearing as much about the conservative papers outside of the main population centers facing bankruptcy like we are the liberal leaning ones.
Since the MSM is liberal in nature, I’m sure they would be gleefully pointing out that the conservative papers are going out of business if it were happening at as fast a rate.
Besides, most conservatives have moved to the AM Radio which the liberals are trying to silence because they can’t compete. Their brand of hate is not a commodity people want to listen to.
Seriously, does anybody read and believe the “stories” printed in the LA Times, NY Times or WaPo?
Who cares what they print on ANY page of these propaganda rags…
The topic of sham journalism came up while drinking a few beers after work yesterday. I was broadsided by one of the women in our group who gets her drool bucket filled by watching The Daily Show as her news source. She called me a delusional conspiracy theorist. All I tried to explain the difference between hard news facts and conjecture that is added to news stories.
Liberals cannot debate, they can only obfuscate, smear, and disinform.
That is an absurd way of looking at it. Papers, whatever their slant, are going out of business because of increased competition from a new medium that forces them to commoditize in much less effective ways. They have a product that 1) you can choose to pay for or 2) get for free. Hmmmm…..
Much as you want to make this about some popular uprising from the masses who are sick of the liberal media, it is mostly about pure economics.
What happened to the Los Angeles Herald Examiner will happen to the LA Times. Should have died sooner.
Chap:
Another tidbit since you like stats – from 2002 to 2006 two of the most conservative newspapers bucked the trend of liberal leaning rags.
Wall Street Journal
1,801,087
2,043,235
+13.4%
NY Post
589,897
704,011
+19.3%
I believe they are still thriving.
Here’s stats from the same period for the Liberal newspapers to show I’m fair and balanced.
Liberal Newspapers:
Publication
2002
2006
% Loss
NY Times
1,113,000
1,086,798
-2.35%
LA Times
965,835
775,766
-19.7%
Washington Post
747,066
656,297
-12.1%
Chicago Tribune
596,667
576,132
-3.4%
NY Daily News
714,127
693,382
-2.9%
Houston Chronicle
551,914
508,097
-7.9%
Newsday
578,911
413,579
-28.6%
Don’t worry–nobody here in LA reads that rag any more.
iamsaved,
I almost hesitate to call either the Post or the Daily News a real paper, but…In 2007 the NY Post dropped 5.2% and was overtaken by the NY Daily News as the most popular tabloid paper. Also, an audit of the Post showed it was vastly overstating its circulation numbers in 2005. Not sure about other years.
The WSJ, though, does seem solid.
The LA Times has readers
?
Sad to say in many ways but the time of the daily newspapers seems to have passed be that paper terribly political or not.
Even other publications are going electronic-two of my trade publications have stopped sending newsletters and e-mail me when there is a new web page. As stated the Wall Street Journal is thriving, but so is their E version. For updates I log on several times a day.
Technology moves on. The printing press dislocated whole rooms full of little monk-scribes, the word processor killed the typewriter and the mimeograph machine is but a distant memory.
Anyone want to buy stock in Studebaker wagons? Technology moves on.
That’s why ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC are beating the pants off Fox News. Fox has more viewers than MSNBC and CNN, second and third, respectively, combined.
Yes, I have a source.
Who performed the audit? The NYT?
So that’s the real reason Leftist papers aren’t doing so well. Leftists don’t understand economics, especially pure economics.
Integrity and standards and the MSM is a oxymoron.
That’s super. But if, as you think, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC are all viable wsources to get the liberal viewpoint, why not include all of them and compare against Fox News?
As if the NYT cares about the Post of the Daily News. No, it was some outside watchdog group.
There is a difference between not understanding and not being able to do anything about it. The WSJ is unique, I suspect, because they are really the only daily that focuses on business and finance.
I’ll at least if you credit Chap. As a liberal, you do seek other sources of information to see if there are other sides with factual presentation. Even you can’t stand the constant drip of anti-conservative rhetoric without facts to back it up. If you did, you wouldn’t be peeking at Michele Malkin’s blog.
Those who only get a dose of the Daily Kos, Huffington Post and other liberal blogs only want to hear the one-sided vitriol and hate, based not on facts, but on innuendo, and subjective, expletives.
For instance, when they spouted their “Bush lied and people died”, they were hard pressed to provide solid, verifiable sources proving the lies.
As opposed to calling Obama a liar. His lies can be repeated from various sources and then the proof played back to prove the fact that he lied and continues to lie on many occasions.
No lobbyists in my administration is one of his most obvious lies. Or, this will be the most transparent administration in history. Shoot, he won’t even produce substantiating records of his past,as others running for office do. His will be the most bi-partisan administration ever. Or, I had no past associations with William Ayers are just a few more.
I’m sure there are sources that are cataloguing all of his promises and proof that he lied.
One they decided that divisive editorial content was far more important than simply reporting news was the beginning of the end for me.
Realizing that they were simply reading press releases instead of actually investigating stories was what made me cancel my subscription.
I can’t remember the last time I bought a copy of «ПРВАДА на Потомак». It must be YEARS! They raised the price at newspaper boxes from 0.25 to 0.35 a couple of years ago and it just made me laugh!
If you want some news go to the Washington Times or the DC Examiner. If you want the Soviet party line the WaPo is your choice.
After reading all the crap the LA Times has printed over the last few years I can hardly believe they can GIVE AWAY their paper. I suspect the LA Times would make Stalin blush if he could read it…
The death of journalism just hit home. One of my friends was falsely accused and is now going to have to stand trial (oh, yeah, he lost his job too).
I read every online account of the story I could find, and all of them gave the accuser’s side, but not my friend’s side. They misquoted him, paraphrased, and took statements out of context to make him look guilty. I wonder if he will be able to get a fair trial.
Pray for him and his family, please.
Sorry boys, you popped that balloon decades ago.
So it is okay to knowingly print false and slanted opinion on the front page but putting an ad there violates some “unwritten rule.” Funny how some people can be so selectively outraged over things.
After the media’s treasonous conduct at the beginning of the war, I quit buying newspapers and wasting my time watching network news. I can’t even stomach Fox News anymore with all the screaming and yelling they call “debate.” I just refuse to drink the koolaid the MSM is offering everyday.
The personal economic costs of my withdrawl from the MSM could be calculated as such….
*Loss of Newspaper subscription money since 2002, nearly $1,300.00
*Since I predominately watch the news on cable and canceled my cable TV, nearly $5,040.00 since 2002.
*Cancellation of my Time and Newsweek magazine subscriptions since 2002, around $2,080.00.
That is a personal total of around $8,420.00 that I did not spend on the MSM since 2002. I wonder how many others have done the same as I have done and how much it has cost the MSM?
I have found blogs such as Michelle’s and many others more apt to give me fair and balanced views. Most of all, they give me the “facts” and let me make my own judgements and decisions.
I am waiting for the day when there comes a newspaper or network news show that will just give me the “facts”, nothing more. No spin, no agenda, no lies, just the facts. I want to know, “Who, what, where, and when.” I am intelligent enough to figure out the “Why” on my own. When that day comes, then I know real journalism is back and they will get my business.
Be safe and well.
Sorry chap, but I can only find the cable news, but here’s the numbers for April 8th.
P2+ Total Day
FNC – 1,401,000 viewers
CNN – 679,000 viewers
MSNBC –433,000 viewers
CNBC – 225,000 viewers
HLN – 404,000 viewers
P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 2,879,000 viewers
CNN—1,043,000 viewers
MSNBC –1,059,000 viewers
CNBC – 150,000 viewers
HLN – 791,000 viewers
Now imagine if there were more than one option for a non-liberal viewpoint.
Face it, people prefer neutrality in the news, rather than indoctrination.
your source
Fox News is the number one cable news network,
So who do you think is beating who?
ABC, CBS, NBC are still the biggest, not being dependent on cable or satellite but they are losing share–jam a camera up Katie’s butt again but they are losing share-their credibility died years ago.
If all these liberal rags in trouble would just bill the DNC or the Obama Campaign for the free ads they might be solvent.
Its possible the Unions could help them make a case for charging the DNC for using reporters and editors as staff.
Then all they have to do is find readers.
The Minneapolis Star and Sickle is on the verge of banruptcy too. That paper is so liberal, they are practically paying people to subscribe. Seriously, I cancelled the paper and they kept calling me to resubscribe by saying they would give me 6 weeks FREE. I told them, when they were ready to pay me in cash to take their fishwrap, they could call me back. Not exactly those words, but they got the message.
Well, Chap…practically every Conservative I know has stopped subscribing to our very liberal newspaper here in Minneapolis. It has to hurt a little bit, and be part of the reason for their demise!
No doubt. I just think the internet is far and away the majority cause.
Chap,
I have been saying the losses in news print have more to do with the media- electronic vs. print- than the actual content. Also the immediate nature of electronic media that print cannot duplicate. All that being said, I have not trusted print media for some time due to the liberal bias I perceive. A personal choice but perception in this case is reality.
But my point is, was the audit from a reliable, non-biased firm?
Audit Bureau of Circulations.
Technology is a big factor in the paradigm shift to the web and so is the economy but not enough to account for the steady decline in the liberal media venues. Not just newspapers.
As to ABC, CBS, and NBC, they are free on the public air waves unlike cable or satellite. There is a large population that does not subscribe to pay tv when they live in a market where reception is decent.
So, in a sense, economics does come into play when you include those three – if they weren’t free, I doubt their market share would be that great.
Believe it? Of course people will believe it. Their job as the main stream media is only to report the news not to create it. That is the government’s job.
I really am thinking about changing my name to John Galt V. (Think V for Vendetta)
I have to agree with chap and speakeasy.
The decline in print media circulation can mainly be attributed to electronics; both the net and cable. Sure, a lot of us don’t care for slanted news stories and some may have stopped buying papers but, without a viable alternative, the vast majority of people would still get print media. The internet and cable has given us another place to go for news. The internet and cable also have replaced reading. How many people under the age of 40 really like reading a newspaper? People love getting those sound bites on TV or reading a quick headline on the net.
My gripe with newspapers is the lack of in-depth reporting sometimes and the lack of balance but I still read a lot of the paper (yes, I’m old) along with watching cable and reading blogs and etc.
I stopped subscribing to the Washington Post in 1994 or 1996. It had little to do with the rise of “alternate media” and the internet. I guess I am just way ahead of my time.
Well, as one of those two, I don’t object. Well, I only subscribe to the Sunday edition and I only read the sports, comics, business and travel sections.
My wife likes the coupons and sales ads which is the only reason we’ve continued to subscribe. As far as I’m concerned the whole paper is an ad for the Democrat Party. I only read the sports, comics, business and travel sections.
If, or when, the Times folds, I’m sure my wife would miss the ads and coupons, but the merchants will probably make other arangements to get them to us anyway. Can’t say I’d miss anything else about that fishwrap.
The LA Times is not alone in allowing advertisements to pose as news articles on its pages. At the New York Times, Roger Cohen has been writing advertisements for the Islamic Republic of Iran for several months now.
Fortunately, nobody bothers to read Roger Cohen’s poorly written drivel.
I don’t remember the newsroom saying anything when the Times did its hit piece on Arnold, or when it failed to acknowledge all the mistakes pointed out by Patterico.
But ads are some new form of shame?
pffft…..please.
It’s getting so I don’t even feel comfortable lining my birdcage with this stuff anymore.
The NSPCA might get “curious.”
Don’t worry WarEagle,
I just signed up for delivery of the WaPo. I will dedicate it to you.
There is probably a continuum of what thoughtful people would value and pay for in a news delivery vehicle.
Here is my view of the slippery slope:
1/ Timely, comprehensive news and information, sans added viewpoints of the reporter/editor/headline writer, which puts the reader at the times and places of events the reader could not possibly be in person. Plus neutral context information.
2/ Selective reporting which filters out as not-news things which do not conform to the parent organization’s slant and at the same time emphasizes those which do conform.
3/ Opinions presented as news/facts. This includes first doing the story then finding people to selectively quote in support of it.
4/ Paid advertising presented as news/facts.
5/ Unpaid third-party communications presented as news/facts. Includes official politburo news releases.
Have fun with your own version of the slope and placing on it some famous organizations — such as Pravda or the New York Times.