Singer has already served 100 hours of community service.
Turmoil at L.A. Times Over H'wood Advertorials
Catfight on Spring St.: Editor John Arthur calls NBC ad "horrible." Advertising's Lynne Segall says editorial "approved."
Related
Slideshow
Pictures from inside and outside the late pop star's Holmby Hills home, including shots of the bedroom where paramedics tried to resuscitate him, a mannequin bartender and a bloody shirt hanging in his closet. See more at RadarOnline.
An internal battle continued to rage at the Los Angeles Times over high-priced Hollywood movie and TV ads designed to look like news articles and appearing where editorial used to be.
In an interview with TheWrap, executive editor John Arthur called a front-page ad for the new NBC show “Southland” “horrible” and “a mistake.”
Arthur, who was on vacation last week, said he was blindsided by the ad, which was labeled as an advertisement but designed to look like a news article. The editor said it was initially envisioned to go down the right side of the front page, usually the space reserved for the paper’s lead story.
“I’d been told an ad like that was coming, and before my trip I’d complained about it,” he said. “But I was told it was not imminent, that an ad of this shape was weeks or months away -- May or June was mentioned to me.”
Arthur was also critical of a four-page advertising supplement about the upcoming Paramount movie “The Soloist,” which was published on Sunday under the signature Los Angeles Times banner. The movie, starring Robert Downey Jr. and Jamie Foxx, is based on a book by the Times’ own columnist, Steve Lopez and featured an interview with him.
“I thought the type font that was used in the words ‘The Soloist’ at the top was uncomfortably close to the font we use in section fronts,” Arthur said, adding that he did not know that the supplement was coming either. Lopez could not be reached for comment.
But Lynne Segall, vice president for entertainment advertising at the paper, retorted in an email to TheWrap: "Russ Stanton, his boss, the editor of the paper, approved both advertorial units. The ad department in this company is not in a position nor would we ever be allowed to go out in the market to sell units like this without editorial vetting and giving us permission first."
The conflict over the appropriate placement and character of ads is dividing the business side from editorial and even the print from the digital side of the paper, capturing the untenable pressures facing newspapers in the waning days of print.
Editorial staffers feel the ads betray and devalue their work, while the business side says they are necessary to keep the struggling paper afloat. Meanwhile, digital staffers say that their counterparts in newsprint need to wake up and face inevitable change.
“I’m just trying to keep the lights on here, folks,” pleaded publisher Eddy Hartenstein as he faced an angry newsroom on Thursday, according to several people who were present.
Editor Russ Stanton had made his displeasure known to Hartenstein, but in his newsroom speech on Friday the publisher would not promise that a “Southland”-style ad would not happen again.
The conflict over the ads captures the internal divisions within newspapers as they struggle to survive. The Los Angeles Times is owned by Tribune Co., which is currently in bankruptcy, and the paper has been through several rounds of layoffs since Sam Zell bought it in 2007.
Hartenstein said the paper made “six figures” in revenue for the front-page "Southland" ad.
A movie executive said that a typical volume price for four such pages would run $280,000.
Comments
Tbox Says
Yep. Editorial needs to snap out of it. Money coming in pays bills and pays salaries. The internet has brought about a New World Order.games
A long-time LA Times Subscriber Says
The "get with reality" posts in this thread demonstrate how out of touch Hollywood is with people who actually care about professional ethics -- even in a down economy.
Presenting advertorials that mimic editorial content by their very nature intend to deceive the reader. This undermines the paper's credibility and breaks the trust readers place in the paper's reporters and editors.
Someone in this thread attempted to make a Titanic analogy using the old "deck chairs" argument. I'll do one better: selling the front page (April 9) or creating a fake section (April 12) are more akin to jumping ahead of women and children to try and get on a life raft. Sure, you might survive, but you had to sell your soul to do it.
No ad is worth that.
Anonymous Says
My view is that the Soloist ad section was worse than the front page ad. I also chuckled at the last paragraph in the parody of it (http://notthelatimes.com/frontpageads.html):
Although advertorials are typically frowned upon by journalists, not a single person in the L.A. Times newsroom objected, according to today's article. Hartenstein said he wasn't surprised: "Why would they raise a fuss? We've been running advertisement-stories for Obama for months and nobody complained about that."
So true.
Anonymous Says
all of you who are telling the editorial to get with reality (james lynch) are SO off base it's not even funny.
the reality is that i will be cancelling my (full-rate!) subscription if the paper insults me by dressing up advertising as editorial. i don't want to have to double check the line width and the tiny logo to distinguish between what's real journalism and what's a stealth ad. this is journalistic cannibalism. the editorial will lose so much credibility if this continues that soon the ads won't be worth so much money - even if they're displayed AS editorial.
the only chance newspapers have to survive is to print not so much news and facts (we can get that online now and much faster) but great journalism and news analysis.
editorial are right. i'm ready to cancel if they do this again.
Anonymous Says
Yep. Editorial needs to snap out of it. Money coming in pays bills and pays salaries. The internet has brought about a New World Order.
Anonymous Says
Lynne Segall is the same POS she's always been, ever since her days at THR. That, at least, hasn't changed. I sincerely doubt that Russ Stanton 'signed off' on the NBC front page ad. As a reader of the LA Times and a fan of the printed product, I accept front page advertising as a sad reality these days as newspapers struggle to stay in business. But that fake ride-along advertorial for Southland on the front page, attached to the strip just went too far.
Yes, it was ruled off, yes, it was in a different font, yes, it had the bird logo on it, yes, it was slugged. It still didn't belong on the front page, even below the fold.
I saw the special section for The Soloist yesterday and that didn't offend nearly as much, if at all. Steve Lopez is a twice weekly presence in the paper and his pieces on Nathaniel Ayers have been a highlight.
Anonymous Says
So the advertising executive who pitched ths is on the record as saying editorial, in the form of the editor, signed off on this? Seems like The LAT still has some explaining to do.
Abe Says
You write what the newsroom "feels." That's not journalism. That's not verifiable. You only know what the newsroom (or some in the newsroom) says, not what it feels, or believes, or any other mindreading. Stick to reporting. It's journalism 101. You can't say what someone believes, feels, thinks, etc. Not in a news article.
James Lynch Says
Hasn't there been enough hand-wring about this already. The LA Times is like a giant soap opera...if they're that desperate for cash why don't the editorial guys just accept it...or get out.
It's like the Poynter Insitute with their endless stories and debates about the ethics of this, that and the other thing. That's what they live for and keeps them employed.
In these times for the newspaper business, when are journalists going to lose the crosses they carry oin their backs and just accept reality.
Endless ethics debates remind me - to regurgiate an old saw - shifting the deck chairs on the Titanic.
If you really want an on-the ground analsis of the newspaper business, just walk through any neighborhood in America and look at the morning papers that are still cluttering up the driveways in ther late afternoon.
Anonymous Says
Correction : line 18-19 I meant : At least the LA Times is trying to show awareness for the Homeless in its' city and help its' employees keep from being unemployed. (I didnot mean employed in that sentence - they are trying to keep their employees from being unemployed.)
Sorry about the misunderstanding.
Anonymous Says
I do not personally feel that there was anything wrong with the ad and article for The Soloist. It does take place in LA - locally and in their city - Nathanial Ayres is LA City new. He is an important part of the city and what is happening within it. Steve Lopez is also a journalist on the newspapers' staff. It is not like he walked in off the street somewhere else in America came into the Times and just wrote this. He works there on a daily basis. The Homeless in LA is a major thing going on. There are more Homeless people there than any other place in the US. I believe the article serves a purpose. It lets the world know the importance of trying to help individuals in greater need. I support the musicians getting together around the US right now to help the Homeless. Everyone should be commended for their efforts. This article might also help save the newspaper. It is a bad time for the economy and for the newspaper business in general. If this helps people keep their jobs and a roof over their heads I still don't see a problem with it. What these other journalists are complaing about seems superficial in the eyes of everything else going on right now. The others are complaining about the LA TIMES' moral standards and the idea that "it is poor journalism". They need to just please give it a rest - compared to the worlds problems, unemployent, homeless, families in need of food and others - these people sound so self important and egotictical. There is more to worry about, at least the LA Times is trying to show awareness for the Homeless in its' city and help its' employees keep from being employed. What exactly are the other self-righteous "complainers doing to help out? Your complaints are insignificant compared to most of the people out in the world everyday. Grow up and find a real subject to complain about.
NEW COMMENT