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.” Kevin Roderick has more.
Visions of nuclear armaggedon aside, the “Los Angeles Project” would definitely be a more promising name.
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
Anonymous
Dan, former Bostonian living in LA, and I have to say the LAT does roughly a billion times better job covering their home territory than the Globe or the NYT does theirs.
Dan Kennedy
I’ll take your word for it — I don’t see the LA Times all that often. But I linked to a massive Ken Auletta piece in which a pretty powerful case was made that the LAT does not do a good job of local coverage.
matt
Hi there, Dan! I had (and have) nothing to do with this, but I do work somewhere on Spring Street, and so have created a blog post w/ more links & an opportunity to comment, over here. Hope all’s well with you!
bostonph
I fell in love with the LA Times during a business trip out there a year or so ago. It’s everything the Globe used to be. Good in-depth coverage, great A&E section, amazing food section, …I can’t speak for the quality of the local coverage, since I don’t live there, but it seemed more varied and in-depth than ours. By comparison, the Globe’s coverage of Cambridge is almost exclusively articles on Harvard. The Times has definitely gone down hill a bit in the last year (e.g. their Romney article), but nothing compared to horror of the new Globe (especially SideKick and what they’ve done to the Globe magazine).Bottom line: I look at boston.com a few times week. I look at the Times on-line daily.-Paulp.s. Maybe the “Manhattan Beach Project” would have been better?