L.A. Times miscues under microscope

By: Lucia Moses Times Mirror Co. CEO says of staples center deal: 'I didn't realize it was wrong. shame on me'

The Los Angeles Times had done it countless times before, investigating in painstaking detail a business deal gone bad. Its article, written by one of its Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters, described shameful ethical lapses and missed opportunities when executives failed to recognize, or speak up about, the ill-conceived plan.
But this time there was one difference: The L.A. Times was exposing itself and putting its own editors and publisher under the microscope.
The long-awaited story that appeared in the L.A. Times' Dec. 20 issue was full of mea culpas, with Editor Michael Parks admitting he failed in his role as a "gatekeeper" of the news side, and Mark H. Willes, CEO of L.A. Times parent Times Mirror Co., conceding he "didn't realize it was wrong. Shame on me for that."
The subject, of course, was the L.A. Times' deal to split profits ? $600,000, according to David Shaw's report ? with the Staples Center sports arena from a Sunday magazine issue devoted to the arena itself. The deal confirmed fears that the growing closeness between the news and advertising sides at the L.A. Times, and in the industry in general, threaten editorial integrity.
The 14-page article was assigned to Shaw, the L.A. Times' media critic, at the request of editorial staffers after the deal sparked a newsroom revolt. To protect its independence, the piece was edited by retired L.A. Times Managing Editor George Cotliar.
Rather than finding a "smoking gun," the Shaw report described step-by-step how the idea to share profits on a themed magazine came about, how news of it trickled out to editors, and how they failed to react.
Much speculation has centered around when Parks learned of the deal. He said he didn't find out until Sept. 14, although Shaw floated the possibility that information on it was available at a meeting held a month earlier and Parks, like other top editors, failed to recognize it.
Shaw also revealed that only a small part of the magazine had been printed by the time Parks said he learned about the deal, yet neither he nor Publisher Kathryn M. Downing canceled the press run. (The issue was distributed Oct. 10.)
Both Parks and Downing admitted, in retrospect, they should have published a full disclosure about the deal when the special issue appeared, Shaw reported.
The Shaw article also reported that the L.A. Times had other business contracts that raised journalistic red flags. Those deals were discovered in an ongoing review by the paper's lawyer, prompted by the scandal, and are being corrected, Shaw reported.
The Shaw investigation "tells us there was system
failure on multiple levels," said Bob Steele, ethics instructor at the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, Fla. Problems included a lack of strict protocols, failure to communicate, and a culture that discourages contrarian views, Steele added.
Keith Woods, another ethics instructor at Poynter, said he was troubled by the newsroom's lack of initial indignation over the deal, as described by Shaw. Journalists need to be informed about business operations, even when a thick wall separates the two, he said.
Observers said the Shaw piece and fresh L.A. Times ethics guidelines written in the wake of the scandal are important steps toward helping restore the paper's credibility.
Leo Wolinsky, managing editor for news, who oversaw the creation of the new guidelines, said he sought to specifically prevent future Staples Center-type deals and other ethically questionable arrangements while giving editors final authority over content.
He said a lack of guidelines contributed to the Staples Center fiasco, adding that the rules must be observed to work. "It was clear to me there was a lot of slippage," he said of details in Shaw's piece. "I think everybody kind of lost their way."
The report is also a cautionary tale for the industry, ethicists said. "Other publishers and editors should look closely at their own principles and operating standards," Steele said. "The exact scenario may be impossible to envision, but similar problems and maybe even explosions could happen at any news organization."
Downing, who had admitted the deal was a mistake and chalked it up to her lack of prior newspaper experience, has shown signs she's learning.
When the ethics guidelines were written, a decision to give the news side final say when news and business interests clash came at her suggestion, Wolinsky said.
Then, when two advertorials were printed without disclaimers labeling them as advertisements, Downing ordered the copies destroyed and reprinted ? at an extra cost of $208,000 in paper and ink alone, Shaw reported.
Some however, caution against judging the L.A. Times' progress too quickly. "People want an immediate assessment, but you have to step back and wait a couple of years," said Alice Short, L.A. Times' Sunday magazine editor.

(Editor & Publisher Web Site: http://www.mediainfo.com) [Caption]
(copyright: Editor & Publisher December 25, 1999) [Caption]