Singer has already served 100 hours of community service.
L.A. Times Executive Editor John Arthur: 'Southland' Ad Was 'Horrible'
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.
John Arthur, executive editor of the Los Angeles Times, talked to TheWrap about his concern over two advertisements that have stirred conflict within the newspaper.
What was your reaction to the “Southland” ad?
It was unfortunate. The reaction from the staff and others demonstrated that it was a mistake.
You were on vacation for the drama last week?
I hadn’t seen the NBC ad before I left; I didn’t recognize how horrible it was until I saw an image of the front page later. The discussion I had was about an ad going across the right hand column and across the bottom. Before my trip I’d complained about it. I never dreamed it would be filled with news-looking content like it was. 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. It also was for another client, not NBC. So maybe NBC came in and bought the shape.
We thought we had an agreement that when front page ads were introduced, they would only be two shapes -- one across the bottom, and one a two-column by six across.
This was a deviation from the agreement we had with advertising. But of course since then we’ve had a new publisher, a new ad director.
What did you think of the "Soloist" supplement?
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.
Did you know it was coming?
No.
The newspaper spokeswoman said that the paper has done this before, with "The Black Dahlia."
"The Black Dahlia" ad which was published in connection with that movie used a story out of our archives and printed it with other promotional copy. I don’t recall it being confusing the way this was confusing.
Would you accept having more such advertorial?
I’m not going to comment about what I’m going to do about it.
Comments
Tbox Says
How about a picture of the ad that the story is about??games
sohbet Says
chat
chat
muhabbet
chat siteleri
chat siteleri sohbet siteleri
kameralı sohbet
iSo Says
I know my little chat brother has set up a photo booth at yonja birthday parties and gives away the photos dini sohbet as party favors.You can have people make a RFL banner to chat siteleri use as a backdrop.Have a digital camera, a few memory cards, and a photo printer on site. You can easily charge sohbet $5 a photo. That will be enough to cover your cost for the ink and still make a significant profit to give to ACS almanya sohbet
Rick Says
Based upon his comment: "I hadn’t seen the NBC ad before I left; I didn’t recognize how horrible it was until I saw an image of the front page later." He needs to be fired for incompetence. The paper was running something new and which would be controversial. He didn't bother to view it and approve it before it ran. It wasn't a normal procedure that went bad like someone writing an embarrassing headline, a poorly researched and written story or a picture that for some reason shouldn't have been run. This was a full bore management and leadership failure.
The other people who should go are the people he left in charge that greenlighted this self inflicted wound to what's left of the LA Times' credibility. Credibility is about all a newspaper or news outlet has and when you do something that damages the papers credibility it's serious and very difficult to recover from the damage that's been done.
About the only reason that John Arthur shouldn't be fired is if it turns out that this was an effort to sabotage both Arthur and management team lead by Sam Zell. If that was the driving force behind this ad and the way it was run then they've got some really serious problems to solve and this kind of action (if it was deliberate sabotage) will reoccur in different forms.
Dana Todd Says
It's always interesting to watch these types of firestorms, particularly over such sacred cows as print editorial. Outside of the vocal few who cancel their subscriptions and post blogs about their outrage, there are actually a majority of readers who don't give a fig as long as it's labeled appropriately. And yes, the LATimes "Southland" article was labeled appropriately, and unless you're a moron you probably figured it out pretty quickly upon a deep scan of the article.
We commissioned an eye tracking study for a similar situation, testing the placement of sponsored-placement commercial news stories in premium online news sites:
enquiroresearch.com/newsforce-index-page.aspx - guess what? No one was offended, and in fact a big chunk of our test subjects indicated interest in reading more.
What news consumers should be concerned about, and usually say they are, is the *unlabeled* bias and commercial influence in news. It's actually a bit more prevalent in TV news, where PR firms shovel piles of ready-made content (e.g. "Special Health Feature") into the queue for affiliate stations who are short-staffed and resource-deprived. Those who produce these reels will tell you how easy it is to get picked up and aired. In online news, there is an ongoing pressure to produce more content to "feed the search engines" and many smaller sites with limited staff will simply pick up a story verbatim.
It's a fact that we're in a state of transition right now with news, and we're not done sorting it out. High quality news organizations will no doubt find a way to survive in some capacity, but along the way I think they SHOULD be given some leeway to test things. After all, if they keep doing things the way they were, it's a guarantee that they'll die. Why on earth wouldn't you grant them the same opportunity you do other companies, to test new business models and processes?
Again, as long as they're sticking with their ethics (limiting commercial and political bias, plus clearly labeling advertorial and conflicts of interest), and they're providing great investigative news coverage, what are you bitchin' about? If everyone freaks out and cancels their support of quality news organizations, then you'll deservedly be left with nothing to read but news sites where you have to sort out the truth/bias yourself.
Just a morning coffee rant...
Dana Todd, CMO
Newsforce Network
ANONYMOUS Says
This issue surrounding the LA times is small and petty. The real issue with the times is the quality of the reporting in all aspects. What passes for their notion of responsible investigation on topics and journalistic reporting on same is disgusting. Whether it has to do with California politics, the mayor, illegal immigration or anything else, they've lost all respect as a major source of relevant information that readers can use with assurance to make informed decision as we all should in this day and age. Where were these people at the paper who express their distaste at a movie ad when all that really important stuff slipped away?
Alessandro Cima Says
As soon as I saw this advertisement disguised as a column of news I canceled my 12-year subscription to the Los Angeles Times. I also wrote a blog post on CandlelightStories.com titled, 'The Los Angeles Times Newspaper Died on Thursday.'
It's really over for that paper. This is the act of desperation and irresponsible newspaper editing that makes it perfectly clear.
By the way, the 'vacation' excuse is pathetic.
Anonymous Says
something about the LA Times and an advertisement, while the Exec. Editor was on vacation. Can we get a link to an article, or a picture of what this controversy is about?
So Annoyed Says
OMG, I might have to actually like look at the LA Times to see what they're all on about!
Anonymous Says
Hello!!! How about a picture of the ad that the story is about????? Sheesh
sharon Says
ok, folks, we hear you. we are updating and adding context. it is a q&a tied to our main story.
Agree Says
I agree with ANNOYED!
Annoyed Says
Speaking of awkward and confusing for readers .. I have no idea what this interview is about. Now I have to dig around to see what this ad is you're talking about? Not even a short intro paragraph with some background?
NEW COMMENT