A story published on Thursday in the New York Times examined the Los Angeles Times‘ so-called “Manhattan Project,” an internal effort to reform the paper and energize its flagging readership. The article reported that with new Publisher David Hiller and embattled Editor Dean Baquet at the helm, the Los Angeles Times is enlisting some of its top journalists to investigate the paper’s ongoing issues and help develop creative solutions.
For bloggers continuing to cover the recent turmoil at the Times, this latest development provided plenty of fodder for discussion.
Dan Kennedy at Media Nation comments on the unintentional comedic value of the project’s name.
Writes Kennedy: “Given that the Los Angeles Times has a reputation for being out of touch with its home base, I find it somehow hilarious that a new project to reinvent the newspaper has become known internally as the ‘Manhattan Project.'”
But while some were laughing, others dropped no hint of irony in suggesting that the Times would be well advised to follow in the footsteps of its East Coast competitor.
“Tapping three investigative reporters and a team of editors, the paper will scour the globe for ways to reimagine itself,” observes Thomas Kelley at California Connected. “Preliminary ideas include re-instating the paper’s national circulation, recruiting citizen journalists, and creating new sections. But from this reporter’s vantage point, the L.A. Times would do well to also match the Web innovations of their Manhattan-based competitor, the New York Times. With an easy-to-use, uncluttered Web site, the New York Times delivers a seamless and engaging multimedia experience.”
At least a few commentators received the news with guarded optimism.
“It’s a great idea, and so we hope they get it right,” remarks Attytood over at the Philadelphia Daily News. “My biggest concern is that they will focus too much on the print edition, and not enough on the Web. [Robert] Niles is absolutely correct — if there’s not a focus on creating the killer Web site for Los Angeles, a billionaire will come along and start one from scratch, without having the pay the exorbitant costs of newspaper printing and distribution that the L.A. Times now deals with.”
Others found themselves asking what took so long.
“Good instinct, good goals, and good action,” notes Mark Reed at LAVoice.org. “Just not sure why it would take two months to figure out they can engage their readers by covering Los Angeles better and maybe doing some real investigative work in Hollywood where amazing stories bloom and fester each day behind a wall of threatening publicists and tinhorn powerbrokers to whom the paper’s entertainment staff seems doomed to continue genuflecting.”
For one onlooker, the solution is quite simple.
“One would think they would be moving at warp speed to get their product online,” points out one reader at Free Republic. “The cost of paper, printing and delivery is horrendous. I have tried to read my local paper online and it’s an exercise in frustration. I would happily pay for a subscription if I thought I could get online the same content I get in the printed product that is thrown by a carrier every morning. Having worked at this paper for several years I know first-hand just how resistant they are to change.”
One ex-Times reporter, however, saw little light at the end of the tunnel.
“I can’t remember a single big newsroom committee that ever truly delivered the goods, even those I sat on, and this one has a tall order,” comments Kevin Roderick at LA Observed. “Three reporters not noted for their media savvy or future vision — nothing personal, it’s just not in their job descriptions or their resumes — are being asked to come up with solutions that elude even the most thoughtful media thinkers — essentially, the secret to saving newspapers. Good luck with that, guys.”
Concludes Roderick: “Perhaps a more useful idea would have been to convene a panel of Los Angeles thinkers, creative types and ordinary people and ask them how they want their news. Really ask them, and listen to the painful answers.”
Andrew Bielak was a CJR intern.