'L.A. Times' really takes a shine to ethically suspect advertising

It's time to check back in on the case of the Los Angeles Times vs. what's left of its ethics. Today's hubbub is over a four-page ad section promoting the upcoming Jamie Foxx/Robert Downey Jr. drama The Soloist that was tucked into the Sunday newspaper. Angelenos who still bother to read the print edition saw a section that looked much like the rest of the paper, except the film's name was stamped at the top of the front page, right under the well-known Times logo. The pages, from "Special Advertising Section" writers, detail the backstory of the best-selling book from L.A. Times columnist Steve Lopez, his friendship with a mentally ill, homeless musical prodigy, and the making of the Paramount film, which follows the man's return to the concert stage.
  Those who care about the distinction between advertising and editorial are none too pleased, and executive editor John Arthur said he was basically blindsided by the special section. (There seems to be some confusion internally, and now publicly, about who approves what, with ad folks saying they have the full blessing of editorial to sell such concepts. Guess no one told Arthur.) A Times sales executive also justified the Soloist ad by saying the paper produced a similar "editorial" piece for Universal's The Black Dahlia in 2006. But no one has yet pointed out this key fact: The ad for that bomb consisted of reprints of original news reports from the case—circa 1946. It looked like vintage newsprint, and that was the point. It stood out, for the right reasons. (It didn't help the box-office numbers much, though.) As I pointed out on Friday, the Times is exercising some dismal judgment here, recently running a front-page ad that looked like a news story for the derivative cop drama Southland. Now it's going to bat for a weepy Mr. Holland's Opus-looking flick that's generating little buzz in the industry. Worse than its bad decisions? Its bad taste. 

—Posted by T.L. Stanley