Front-page blues: Disney rents L.A. Times' front page and integrity for $700,000

According to “The Wrap,” an insider at the Times confirmed that Disney paid around $700,000 to the Los Angeles Times for allowing its front page to become a one-sheet for Disney’s latest release, “Alice in Wonderland.”

On Friday, in the space usually reserved for the paper’s most important news, readers found a huge splash of Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter instead.  Between two authentic-looking news stories, the Mad Hatter—complete with frizzy red hair and wild-eyed stare—defied readers to find where the actual news went.

Dissent in the Ranks

According to the New York Times , the L.A. Times’ editorial board, led by top editor Russ Stanton, opposed the sale, but was vetoed by L.A. Times business execs.

It’s the newspaper version of Paddy Chayefsky’s “Network,” when the mercenary CEO berates the downtrodden network president for being such a stickler on ethics.

President: All I know is that this violates every canon of respectable broadcasting.
CEO: We're not a respectable network. We're a whorehouse network, and we have to take whatever we can get.
President: Well, I don't want any part of it. I don't fancy myself the president of a whorehouse.
CEO: That's very commendable of you, Nelson. Now sit down. Your indignation is duly noted; you can always resign tomorrow.

Going Out With Boots on...or a funny hat?

According to MediaBuyerPlanner.com, newspaper ad revenue plummeted over 27% last year, and The Times’ parent, Tribune, is in bankruptcy proceedings. For quite some time all has not been well in newspaper-land, and the smart money says it’s not ever going to get better.

As a hardcopy newspaper, The Times must decide whether it wants to go out with its reputation in tact or in tatters.

The Times has offered up the front of its paper to advertisers before.  In April, it ran an ad for NBC’s “Southland” as if it was a front-page column.  In June, HBO promoted its “True Blood” series with a wrap that covered the Times’ front page without pretending to be the front page.

Even then, the paper caught a lot of flak for both stunts, including the resignation of its executive editor and wide condemnation from the journalism community.  According to “The Wrap,” Robert Niles, a former journalism instructor at the University of Southern California, said then that the full front-page ad was "a sign of just utter surrender by the Times that they wouldn't think people would be freaked out by this."

"It's a pretty dangerous road to go down for any news organization to actually sell advertising that covers up your news reporting," he said. "It really shows a lack of respect for the audience and a lack of confidence in your editorial product."

Journalism 101: Credibility is Everything

Fortunately, the Times panned “Alice in Wonderland.”

But, what if it hadn’t?  Would we have believed a glowing review, or would we have wondered if, once again, the business office had vetoed an editorial decision?

Now that we know who calls the shots—all the shots—at the Times, are we now supposed to crosscheck the list of Times advertisers with stories about those advertisers?  What about Tribune investments or business partners?  Might uncomfortable stories be omitted for fear of biting the advertiser or investment that feeds the Times or its parent company?

As the corporations controlling the mainstream media continue to merge, acquire and whittle their numbers down to just a handful of companies, Americans are left with fewer large and independent information sources every year.

If one of Los Angeles’ most important sources of that information continues to pull switcheroos with its front page, how long can it count on our trust?

Click "subscribe" above to read Russ Buchanan's latest articles