http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-wilshire7nov07,1,5611227.story
My first response when reading this editorial was that someone, somewhere... had a very bad morning.
...THE ILLOGIC OF CITY COUNCILMAN Bill Rosendahl's motion before the council's Transportation Committee is breathtaking.
While saying bus-only lanes on Wilshire Boulevard are highly desirable and have "the potential to make transit a viable option - by reducing the time spent commuting," it goes on to propose that the existing bus-only lanes on the route be removed.... where one lane in each direction is now open only to buses during peak hours, complain that the resulting loss of street parking is hurting (local businesses) badly.
Rosendahl's motion says it is unfair for them to suffer while other jurisdictions have refused to extend the bus lanes.... Memo to Rosendahl: You can't persuade other officials to make a political sacrifice by failing to make it yourself....... At its next session Wednesday, the Transportation Committee should flatten Rosendahl's motion like a Prius in the bus lane.
My second thought was that whoever wrote this editorial was also writing their blog at the same time and got confused as to which one they were writing at that moment. Either that or they were cut off by Rosendahl on their way to work...
Now ignoring the specifics of this issue, I would like to make a point about Rosenthdal. He is not your typical politician. He also does not say - or do - typical politician things. And that is a good thing. The one problem is that he can be misunderstood at times with his willingness to throw out ideas in his attempt to start debates - which, as usual - he certainly did on this issue with the crowd that flooded the council committee yesterday.
And, much earlier, when he expressed his concerned about certain aspects of Neighborhood Councils as a candidate, and when he was then appointed as chair of the Education and Neighborhoods Committee, a lot of NC leaders felt that the fox had been let into the hen house. But that feeling soon passed.
Yesterday, for example, the council file motion was brought up (this would allow NC's to place actions before a council committee) and as each speaker asked him to put it on the agenda, he gave a very specific response to what each speaker said. And then his response to the second to last speaker was that he felt this issue should be considered by the commission that was going to be studying Neighborhood Councils. And even NC supporter Janice Hahn had to admit that idea had some merit, even though this would mean a more than two year delay.
But when I countered with the concept of implementing this ordinance now and then using it as one of the yard sticks to judge how well NC's are functioning (and agreeing to sunset the ordinance at the time the commission's recommendations were going to be implemented) - he thought about that and decided that idea was now worth considering now - and he ordered the item to be placed on the agenda.
The point is, he looks at each issue from a very pragmatic viewpoint and does not get stuck into the quagmire of either political correctness or the what's going to be the most politic thing to do or say, either. And when he communicates with other council colleagues or the public, he engages in a true dialogue without fear of saying the 'wrong thing'.
So... Andres - chill out, Dude!
Breakout the old surf board!
And consider one less Coffee Bean stop on your way to work.
Bill's a good guy... so cut him some slack.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
LA Times Dueling Circulation Figures - Explained?
For those of you who have a life and have not followed the moving target of how many fewer newspapers the LA Times is selling this year than last year - and what percentage that drop has been... dropping... a recap!
1. Article appeared in Editor and Publisher saying that the LA Times had average circulation over a six month period of 843,432 and that was a decline of 6.5% from the previous year's six month average circulation. Another article in the same paper gave the same circulation figure, but said there was a decline of 3.79% and that 33,184 fewer papers had been sold on average than in the last year
2. Then other articles came out also saying the figure was 843,432, and also saying that the rate of decline was now 3.8%.
3. E & P correction after I talked to reporter:
* An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported the Los Angeles Times' daily circulation decline to be 6.5%. The higher number arose from an erroneous comparison of earlier Monday-Saturday numbers to the paper's current Monday-Friday figure. The correct weekday circulation decline is 3.7%.
6. So now Editor & Publisher agrees in both articles that the WEEKDAY figures are - Los Angeles Times 843,432 -33,184 -3.79% or -3.7%.
7. Next LA Times Press release by Publisher:
LOS ANGELES, Nov. 7, 2005 For the six months ended Sept. 30, 2005, the Los Angeles Times reported a six-day Monday-Saturday average circulation of 869,819, a decline of 3.6 percent from the prior year.
8. LA Times News article published same day as press release:
The most recent circulation declines at the Mercury News, the Herald and the Inquirer came to a cumulative 3.7%. Among bigger papers, the Los Angeles Times' average weekday circulation fell 3.8% to 843,432 .
Ok - Now we're getting somewhere. It may be a deep, bottomless pit, filled with disgusting and slimmy creatures, but at least now there is beginning to be a there... there.
E & P and the LA Times News Department agrees that the WEEKDAY six month average is...843,432, i.e. Monday - Friday. The Publisher of the LA Times states that the Monday - Saturday average is....869, 919.
So now we know why this figure differs.
And in last September the LA Times gave a figure of 902,164 for its average Monday - Saturday six month circulation figure.
But that still leaves one question. Actually two. Since we are dealing with a duck (week day, i.e., Mon-Fri) and a mongoose (daily i.e., Mon-Sat) how come both the duck... and the mongoose have almost the rate of decline of... 3.7%? Well, actually... we have the figures of 3.6% for the six day week given by the LAT's press release but for the five day week we have... 3.8%, 3.79% and 3.7%. Close, but not exactly the same.
Secondly, if you subtract the LAT Mon- Sat numbers from last year to this year you get - a little over 32,000.
But... in the E & P site, a little over 33,000 is given as the numbers of readers lost when they are using the Mon-Fri number of 843,432 as the current circulation number.
Again, very close, but not exactly the same. So is it possible that the number of subscriptions lost in the past year and the percentage declines of each time period are almost... identical? That would, of course, mean that the LA Times is like the famous 'On-Horse Shay' - each part decaying at an equal rate so that one day - it will all just fall apart.
Coincidence? Check in tomorrow.
1. Article appeared in Editor and Publisher saying that the LA Times had average circulation over a six month period of 843,432 and that was a decline of 6.5% from the previous year's six month average circulation. Another article in the same paper gave the same circulation figure, but said there was a decline of 3.79% and that 33,184 fewer papers had been sold on average than in the last year
2. Then other articles came out also saying the figure was 843,432, and also saying that the rate of decline was now 3.8%.
3. E & P correction after I talked to reporter:
* An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported the Los Angeles Times' daily circulation decline to be 6.5%. The higher number arose from an erroneous comparison of earlier Monday-Saturday numbers to the paper's current Monday-Friday figure. The correct weekday circulation decline is 3.7%.
6. So now Editor & Publisher agrees in both articles that the WEEKDAY figures are - Los Angeles Times 843,432 -33,184 -3.79% or -3.7%.
7. Next LA Times Press release by Publisher:
LOS ANGELES, Nov. 7, 2005 For the six months ended Sept. 30, 2005, the Los Angeles Times reported a six-day Monday-Saturday average circulation of 869,819, a decline of 3.6 percent from the prior year.
8. LA Times News article published same day as press release:
The most recent circulation declines at the Mercury News, the Herald and the Inquirer came to a cumulative 3.7%. Among bigger papers, the Los Angeles Times' average weekday circulation fell 3.8% to 843,432 .
Ok - Now we're getting somewhere. It may be a deep, bottomless pit, filled with disgusting and slimmy creatures, but at least now there is beginning to be a there... there.
E & P and the LA Times News Department agrees that the WEEKDAY six month average is...843,432, i.e. Monday - Friday. The Publisher of the LA Times states that the Monday - Saturday average is....869, 919.
So now we know why this figure differs.
And in last September the LA Times gave a figure of 902,164 for its average Monday - Saturday six month circulation figure.
But that still leaves one question. Actually two. Since we are dealing with a duck (week day, i.e., Mon-Fri) and a mongoose (daily i.e., Mon-Sat) how come both the duck... and the mongoose have almost the rate of decline of... 3.7%? Well, actually... we have the figures of 3.6% for the six day week given by the LAT's press release but for the five day week we have... 3.8%, 3.79% and 3.7%. Close, but not exactly the same.
Secondly, if you subtract the LAT Mon- Sat numbers from last year to this year you get - a little over 32,000.
But... in the E & P site, a little over 33,000 is given as the numbers of readers lost when they are using the Mon-Fri number of 843,432 as the current circulation number.
Again, very close, but not exactly the same. So is it possible that the number of subscriptions lost in the past year and the percentage declines of each time period are almost... identical? That would, of course, mean that the LA Times is like the famous 'On-Horse Shay' - each part decaying at an equal rate so that one day - it will all just fall apart.
Coincidence? Check in tomorrow.
I Give Up! It's Down The Rabbit Hole Time!! The World Has Gone Mad!!!
UPDATE!!
After a phone call with Jennifer Saba - the following correction is now on Editor and Publisher:
* An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported the Los Angeles Times' daily circulation decline to be 6.5%. The higher number arose from an erroneous comparison of earlier Monday-Saturday numbers to the paper's current Monday-Friday figure. The correct weekday circulation decline is 3.7%.
Now this still leave some questions. We now have the new circulation figure number- but what was the old circulation figure for Monday through Saturday? And how can we find a new Monday to Friday figure to see what size that decline in? Has there been any change in the calcuations from past reporting periods?
And why does the LAT's publisher and news desk have two different circulation figures?
Curious bloggers want to know. Below is my original post:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I know there has to be SOME explanation for why none of the figures for the LA Times circulation make sense or why everyone seems to have different versions of the same numbers. To give you just one idea how screwed up this all is, here are two links to Editor and Publisher:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001434913
New FAS-FAX Report Brings More Circ Declines
By Jennifer Saba Published: November 07, 2005 8:14 AM ET
NEW YORK The March FAS-FAX set off landmines with reports of steep declines at many papers, most prominently some top Tribune Co. properties. The September numbers are not much more encouraging.Here are some specifics from the new FAS-FAX report -- released at 8 a.m. Monday -- compared to September 2004:
The San Francisco Chronicle's daily circ is down 16.5% to 400,906 copies, a huge drop. Sunday circulation fell 13.5% to 467,216. The Los Angeles Times is down about 6.5% to 843,432 daily copies. On Sunday the paper reported a decrease of roughly 3.4% to 1,247,588 copies.
Now the first page says the LA Times has a 6.5% yearly decline. But click on the 20 largest papers link on that same page and....
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001434939
And it appears, these numbers may be... again, may be... for prior six months - and not the prior year.
Top 20 Papers By Circulation, According to New FAS-FAX By E&P Staff Published: November 07, 2005 11:11 AM ET
NEW YORK The numbers are in, and they're not good. Eighteen out of the top 20 papers reported weekday circulation losses in the most recent FAS-FAX report, including sharp drops at the San Francisco Chronicle (-16.58%) and the Boston Globe (-8.25%). Below are average weekday circulation (Table 1) and Sunday circulation (Table 2) figures of America's 20 biggest newspapers for the six-month period ended Sept. 30, as reported Monday by the Audit Bureau of Circulations.Average Weekday Circulation
septa. 2005 circa
Los Angeles Times 843,432 -33,184 -3.79%
Here the LA Times - suddenly - has gone from a 6.5% drop to 3.79% drop and a loss of only 33,000 subscribers. Neither of which is true. First, every other newspaper on both lists - has the same percentage drop on each page - except for the LA Times. Ergo - these must be the same numbers and time period on each page. But why, then, does the LAT's decline, dramatically decline here and yet no other paper's rate does so?
Clearly, this number - or some number - must be wrong. The other oddity is the 33,000 drop in readers. Odd because - it ain't so if you read the raw numbers that are given! Below are the previous six month numbers of the last two years from that same survey as found on the LA Times website with the exception of one correction they have never made. These are the average six month figures for the following weekday time periods:
March 2005 - September 2005 843,432
September 2004 - March 2005 907,997
March 2004 - September 2004 902,164
September 2003 - March 2004 970,802
(now the Times once claimed 983,727 for that period, but it was later reduced by auditors to the lower figure)
First, clearly, in either the last six months - or in the last one year - the Times lost a hell of a lot more readers than 33,000 readers. In fact, 65,000 in the last six months.
Second, as for as the Time's claim that they were losing readers at half the rate they were in March....
http://www.latimes.com/services/newspaper/mediacenter/releases/la-mediacenter-2005-1107,0,5329071.story?coll=la-mediacenter-releases
I'd sure like to see how they calculated that. It seems as if they are taking daily averages in the month of September and measuring them against the month of March - or the six months ending at the March period. Zero real data is supplied, though.
But back in the real world, the percentage decline during the past six month was the highest of the four periods! A very slightly larger number of reader were lost in the first half year shown, but with lower number of current subscribers, the loss is greater now than ever before.
And that is even counting the fact that fewer and fewer of those the Times claims are subscribers - aren't really paying for the paper as I showed in my previous post.
And there is one last little detail. In both the prior two reporting periods, the Times said those declines came partially/largely from their having to remove from their subscription count, bulk sales and third party paid 'subscriptions'.
They no longer make that claim. So the Times is now saying that those, smaller drops, were due to the removal of non-paying customers. They no longer say make that claim, which means these new, larger losses are REAL subscribers walking away from the paper.
Then when you add in the Prudential reports that show that a larger and larger number of the LA Time's 'customers' are non-paying customers - the question thus needs to be asked is - is there anyone out there who is still paying for the LA Times?
After a phone call with Jennifer Saba - the following correction is now on Editor and Publisher:
* An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported the Los Angeles Times' daily circulation decline to be 6.5%. The higher number arose from an erroneous comparison of earlier Monday-Saturday numbers to the paper's current Monday-Friday figure. The correct weekday circulation decline is 3.7%.
Now this still leave some questions. We now have the new circulation figure number- but what was the old circulation figure for Monday through Saturday? And how can we find a new Monday to Friday figure to see what size that decline in? Has there been any change in the calcuations from past reporting periods?
And why does the LAT's publisher and news desk have two different circulation figures?
Curious bloggers want to know. Below is my original post:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I know there has to be SOME explanation for why none of the figures for the LA Times circulation make sense or why everyone seems to have different versions of the same numbers. To give you just one idea how screwed up this all is, here are two links to Editor and Publisher:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001434913
New FAS-FAX Report Brings More Circ Declines
By Jennifer Saba Published: November 07, 2005 8:14 AM ET
NEW YORK The March FAS-FAX set off landmines with reports of steep declines at many papers, most prominently some top Tribune Co. properties. The September numbers are not much more encouraging.Here are some specifics from the new FAS-FAX report -- released at 8 a.m. Monday -- compared to September 2004:
The San Francisco Chronicle's daily circ is down 16.5% to 400,906 copies, a huge drop. Sunday circulation fell 13.5% to 467,216. The Los Angeles Times is down about 6.5% to 843,432 daily copies. On Sunday the paper reported a decrease of roughly 3.4% to 1,247,588 copies.
Now the first page says the LA Times has a 6.5% yearly decline. But click on the 20 largest papers link on that same page and....
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001434939
And it appears, these numbers may be... again, may be... for prior six months - and not the prior year.
Top 20 Papers By Circulation, According to New FAS-FAX By E&P Staff Published: November 07, 2005 11:11 AM ET
NEW YORK The numbers are in, and they're not good. Eighteen out of the top 20 papers reported weekday circulation losses in the most recent FAS-FAX report, including sharp drops at the San Francisco Chronicle (-16.58%) and the Boston Globe (-8.25%). Below are average weekday circulation (Table 1) and Sunday circulation (Table 2) figures of America's 20 biggest newspapers for the six-month period ended Sept. 30, as reported Monday by the Audit Bureau of Circulations.Average Weekday Circulation
septa. 2005 circa
Los Angeles Times 843,432 -33,184 -3.79%
Here the LA Times - suddenly - has gone from a 6.5% drop to 3.79% drop and a loss of only 33,000 subscribers. Neither of which is true. First, every other newspaper on both lists - has the same percentage drop on each page - except for the LA Times. Ergo - these must be the same numbers and time period on each page. But why, then, does the LAT's decline, dramatically decline here and yet no other paper's rate does so?
Clearly, this number - or some number - must be wrong. The other oddity is the 33,000 drop in readers. Odd because - it ain't so if you read the raw numbers that are given! Below are the previous six month numbers of the last two years from that same survey as found on the LA Times website with the exception of one correction they have never made. These are the average six month figures for the following weekday time periods:
March 2005 - September 2005 843,432
September 2004 - March 2005 907,997
March 2004 - September 2004 902,164
September 2003 - March 2004 970,802
(now the Times once claimed 983,727 for that period, but it was later reduced by auditors to the lower figure)
First, clearly, in either the last six months - or in the last one year - the Times lost a hell of a lot more readers than 33,000 readers. In fact, 65,000 in the last six months.
Second, as for as the Time's claim that they were losing readers at half the rate they were in March....
http://www.latimes.com/services/newspaper/mediacenter/releases/la-mediacenter-2005-1107,0,5329071.story?coll=la-mediacenter-releases
I'd sure like to see how they calculated that. It seems as if they are taking daily averages in the month of September and measuring them against the month of March - or the six months ending at the March period. Zero real data is supplied, though.
But back in the real world, the percentage decline during the past six month was the highest of the four periods! A very slightly larger number of reader were lost in the first half year shown, but with lower number of current subscribers, the loss is greater now than ever before.
And that is even counting the fact that fewer and fewer of those the Times claims are subscribers - aren't really paying for the paper as I showed in my previous post.
And there is one last little detail. In both the prior two reporting periods, the Times said those declines came partially/largely from their having to remove from their subscription count, bulk sales and third party paid 'subscriptions'.
They no longer make that claim. So the Times is now saying that those, smaller drops, were due to the removal of non-paying customers. They no longer say make that claim, which means these new, larger losses are REAL subscribers walking away from the paper.
Then when you add in the Prudential reports that show that a larger and larger number of the LA Time's 'customers' are non-paying customers - the question thus needs to be asked is - is there anyone out there who is still paying for the LA Times?
Why The LA Times Is Sinking Even Faster Than The Numbers Say!
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001436113
Not only are fewer and fewer people 'subscribing' to the LA Times, but fewer and fewer of them are actually paying for it:
Prudential Report Finds Big Drop in 'Other Paid' in New FAS-FAX, Lists Big Gainers and Losers
By Jennifer Saba Published: November 08, 2005 4:31 PM ET
NEW YORK While newspapers including the San Francisco Chronicle, The Orlando Sentinel, and The Sun of Baltimore reported some of the biggest declines in overall circulation this week, a new report issued Monday by Prudential Equity Research shows these papers are making progress in reducing other-paid circulation.
The research firm analyzed the top 50 newspapers' latest circulation figures released Monday by the Audit Bureau of Circulations. Across those papers, daily circulation dropped 3.5% and Sunday fell 3.6% for the six months ending September 2005 compared to the same period last year.
On the other hand, other-paid circulation is down 2.8% for the same group of papers. In the March 2005 FAS-FAX, Prudential notes, other-paid circ had increased 10%. "The continued decline in this category suggests newspaper companies are becoming less dependent on other-paid circulation to boost their overall circulation numbers," the report stated.The other-paid circulation category includes hotel, Newspaper-in-Education, employee, and third-party sponsored copies. This type of circulation, the report notes, is widely considered by Prudential and others in the industry to be of lesser quality.
Prudential created a list of the top 50 papers and calculated the percent change in other-paid circulation using September 2005 data compared to September 2004. The top five papers that shed the most circulation in the other-paid category according to Prudential are The Sun in Baltimore, down 68.8%; the Orlando Sentinel, down 57.2%; The Philadelphia Daily News, down 52.2%; the New York Post, down %, and The Boston Globe, down %.
The top five gainers in the other-paid category according to Prudential are: the Los Angeles Times, up 43.9%; the Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch, up 40.4%, The Star-Ledger in Newark, N.J., up 30.5%; New York's Daily News, up 29.2%; and the Riverside (Calif.) Press-Enterprise, up 28.7%....
So when it comes to sub-standard (meaning partially or non-paid subscriptions), while most newspapers are cleaning up their act with fewer and fewer of these phantom subscriptions - the LA Times is not only increasing their junk circulation, but they are adding more bogus subscribers than any newspaper in the country. Of course, a spokesperson for the LA Times did try to spin those figures later in the article (see link), but if there was any logic in the arguments, I failed to find it.
But as bad as all that sounds - it's actually even worse. While the above article says that things have gotten far worse since the March report, the below article of last August shows that the March report was far worse than the report before... it!
http://www.labusinessjournal.com/article.asp?aID=2420217.6104237.1184742.9979945.1482094.196&aID2=91125
Posted date: 8/18/2005Times Loses Home Subscribers While Discounted Papers Climb
By JAMES NASHLos Angeles Business Journal Staff
With circulation of the Los Angeles Times tumbling in the past two years, executives of the newspaper have argued that what counts is not quantity but quality - meaning home delivery, which advertisers covet the most.
But an analysis of newspaper circulation by Prudential Equity Group LLC found that the Times lost more than 100,000 paid home-delivery subscribers between March 2004 and March 2005. The drop in home delivery was 18.1 percent - the sharpest decline among the 10 largest U.S. newspapers...
.....The Times, which now has a daily circulation of just over 900,000, saw circulation increases in categories less sought after by advertisers discounted subscriptions, which jumped 9.8 percent, and hotel copies, which increased 1.1 percent, according to Prudential's analysis of Audit Bureau of Circulations data...
Times officials declined to comment on the Prudential report.
So not only was the Times worst perfoming newpaper in the country last March - it is now performing... even worse than that!
Not only are fewer and fewer people 'subscribing' to the LA Times, but fewer and fewer of them are actually paying for it:
Prudential Report Finds Big Drop in 'Other Paid' in New FAS-FAX, Lists Big Gainers and Losers
By Jennifer Saba Published: November 08, 2005 4:31 PM ET
NEW YORK While newspapers including the San Francisco Chronicle, The Orlando Sentinel, and The Sun of Baltimore reported some of the biggest declines in overall circulation this week, a new report issued Monday by Prudential Equity Research shows these papers are making progress in reducing other-paid circulation.
The research firm analyzed the top 50 newspapers' latest circulation figures released Monday by the Audit Bureau of Circulations. Across those papers, daily circulation dropped 3.5% and Sunday fell 3.6% for the six months ending September 2005 compared to the same period last year.
On the other hand, other-paid circulation is down 2.8% for the same group of papers. In the March 2005 FAS-FAX, Prudential notes, other-paid circ had increased 10%. "The continued decline in this category suggests newspaper companies are becoming less dependent on other-paid circulation to boost their overall circulation numbers," the report stated.The other-paid circulation category includes hotel, Newspaper-in-Education, employee, and third-party sponsored copies. This type of circulation, the report notes, is widely considered by Prudential and others in the industry to be of lesser quality.
Prudential created a list of the top 50 papers and calculated the percent change in other-paid circulation using September 2005 data compared to September 2004. The top five papers that shed the most circulation in the other-paid category according to Prudential are The Sun in Baltimore, down 68.8%; the Orlando Sentinel, down 57.2%; The Philadelphia Daily News, down 52.2%; the New York Post, down %, and The Boston Globe, down %.
The top five gainers in the other-paid category according to Prudential are: the Los Angeles Times, up 43.9%; the Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch, up 40.4%, The Star-Ledger in Newark, N.J., up 30.5%; New York's Daily News, up 29.2%; and the Riverside (Calif.) Press-Enterprise, up 28.7%....
So when it comes to sub-standard (meaning partially or non-paid subscriptions), while most newspapers are cleaning up their act with fewer and fewer of these phantom subscriptions - the LA Times is not only increasing their junk circulation, but they are adding more bogus subscribers than any newspaper in the country. Of course, a spokesperson for the LA Times did try to spin those figures later in the article (see link), but if there was any logic in the arguments, I failed to find it.
But as bad as all that sounds - it's actually even worse. While the above article says that things have gotten far worse since the March report, the below article of last August shows that the March report was far worse than the report before... it!
http://www.labusinessjournal.com/article.asp?aID=2420217.6104237.1184742.9979945.1482094.196&aID2=91125
Posted date: 8/18/2005Times Loses Home Subscribers While Discounted Papers Climb
By JAMES NASHLos Angeles Business Journal Staff
With circulation of the Los Angeles Times tumbling in the past two years, executives of the newspaper have argued that what counts is not quantity but quality - meaning home delivery, which advertisers covet the most.
But an analysis of newspaper circulation by Prudential Equity Group LLC found that the Times lost more than 100,000 paid home-delivery subscribers between March 2004 and March 2005. The drop in home delivery was 18.1 percent - the sharpest decline among the 10 largest U.S. newspapers...
.....The Times, which now has a daily circulation of just over 900,000, saw circulation increases in categories less sought after by advertisers discounted subscriptions, which jumped 9.8 percent, and hotel copies, which increased 1.1 percent, according to Prudential's analysis of Audit Bureau of Circulations data...
Times officials declined to comment on the Prudential report.
So not only was the Times worst perfoming newpaper in the country last March - it is now performing... even worse than that!
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Forget Hurting! My Head's Going To Explode Now!
It's bad enough that all the national and local news organizations combined can't figure how many newspapers each major daily paper sells or then agree upon what the rate of percentage in sales decline has taken place the past year at each of these newspapers. It is even more infuriatingly irking that - they are all reporting on... the exact same set of data. I mean, the exact same numerical figures.
http://lacowboy.blogspot.com/2005/11/los-angeles-times-subscribers-continue.html
But then.... just when you think it can't get any worse - it does! Now... even people who work at the same newspaper... can't get their stories or their facts straight. And that paper just happens to be - of course - the Los Angeles Times!
http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2005/11/lat_says_its_869819.html
First, Kevin at LAOBSERVED:
Hours after the ABC (via Editor & Publisher) said that average daily circulation at the Times fell to 843,432, the Times issued a release saying the figure is actually 869,819. The anomaly is not explained.
But that's just the set-up - below is the... punchline:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-knight8nov08,0,350692.story?coll=la-home-business
Joseph Menn and James Rainey, Times Staff Writers
... Among bigger papers, the Los Angeles Times' average weekday circulation fell 3.8% to 843,432 and the Washington Post's declined 4.1% to 678,779. With its national circulation strategy, the New York Times had the only significant gain in the top 20, adding 0.5% for just over 1.1 million subscribers.
Now since the above figures are in next day's paper - they considerably postdate Publisher Johnson's statement that the 843,432 figure is... wrong. So - what's up? Did someone inhale too strongly at the new MOCA exhibit?
http://lacowboy.blogspot.com/2005/11/los-angeles-times-subscribers-continue.html
But then.... just when you think it can't get any worse - it does! Now... even people who work at the same newspaper... can't get their stories or their facts straight. And that paper just happens to be - of course - the Los Angeles Times!
http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2005/11/lat_says_its_869819.html
First, Kevin at LAOBSERVED:
Hours after the ABC (via Editor & Publisher) said that average daily circulation at the Times fell to 843,432, the Times issued a release saying the figure is actually 869,819. The anomaly is not explained.
But that's just the set-up - below is the... punchline:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-knight8nov08,0,350692.story?coll=la-home-business
Joseph Menn and James Rainey, Times Staff Writers
... Among bigger papers, the Los Angeles Times' average weekday circulation fell 3.8% to 843,432 and the Washington Post's declined 4.1% to 678,779. With its national circulation strategy, the New York Times had the only significant gain in the top 20, adding 0.5% for just over 1.1 million subscribers.
Now since the above figures are in next day's paper - they considerably postdate Publisher Johnson's statement that the 843,432 figure is... wrong. So - what's up? Did someone inhale too strongly at the new MOCA exhibit?
Monday, November 07, 2005
Los Angeles Times Subscribers Continue To Flee Paper In Record Numbers!
UPDATE! After I had a talk with the E & P reporter today - November 9th - the following correction was promptly printed:
* An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported the Los Angeles Times' daily circulation decline to be 6.5%. The higher number arose from an erroneous comparison of earlier Monday-Saturday numbers to the paper's current Monday-Friday figure. The correct weekday circulation decline is 3.7%.
Now this correction answers some - but not all - of my questions in the below post:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001434913
The circulation news was even worse than expected today for the Tribune Company - and even more so for the LA Times.
Monday's New FAS-FAX Report Brings More Circ Declines
By Jennifer Saba Published: November 07, 2005 8:14 AM ET
NEW YORK The March FAS-FAX set off landmines with reports of steep declines at many papers, most prominently some top Tribune Co. properties. The September numbers are not much more encouraging.Here are some specifics from the new FAS-FAX report -- released at 8 a.m. Monday -- compared to September 2004:
... The Los Angeles Times is down about 6.5% to 843,432 daily copies. On Sunday the paper reported a decrease of roughly 3.4% to 1,247,588 copies.
* An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported the Los Angeles Times' daily circulation decline to be 6.5%. The higher number arose from an erroneous comparison of earlier Monday-Saturday numbers to the paper's current Monday-Friday figure. The correct weekday circulation decline is 3.7%.
Now this correction answers some - but not all - of my questions in the below post:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001434913
The circulation news was even worse than expected today for the Tribune Company - and even more so for the LA Times.
Monday's New FAS-FAX Report Brings More Circ Declines
By Jennifer Saba Published: November 07, 2005 8:14 AM ET
NEW YORK The March FAS-FAX set off landmines with reports of steep declines at many papers, most prominently some top Tribune Co. properties. The September numbers are not much more encouraging.Here are some specifics from the new FAS-FAX report -- released at 8 a.m. Monday -- compared to September 2004:
... The Los Angeles Times is down about 6.5% to 843,432 daily copies. On Sunday the paper reported a decrease of roughly 3.4% to 1,247,588 copies.
(The below link has a click through - and then you have to search for the story - sorry - will have better link to AP story later)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113137113699789996.html?mod=home_whats_news_us
The Tribune chain lost more readers than any newpaper chain in the country, and the LA Times lost more readers than any newspaper at the Tribune - or almost anywhere in the country with a few exceptions like the San Francisco Chronicle. And San Francisco's decline was partially due to a one time occurrence:
The San Francisco Chronicle, published by Hearst Corp., posted a 16.4% tumble in circulation as the newspaper slashed back on less profitable, heavily discounted and giveaway circulation subsidized by advertisers.
Nationwide, the decline in newspaper readers is... increasing:
Newspaper Circulation Falls 2.6%,As More Readers Turn to Internet
Associated PressNovember 7, 2005 11:37 a.m.
NEW YORK -- Average weekday circulation at U.S. newspapers fell 2.6% in the six-month period ending in September, the latest sign of trouble in the newspaper business, an industry group reported Monday.
Sunday circulation also fell 3.1% at newspapers reporting to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, according to an analysis of the data by the Newspaper Association of America... In the previous six-month reporting period ending in March, weekday circulation fell 1.9% at U.S. daily newspapers and Sunday circulation fell 2.5%.
And the last report's drop had broken the previous record decline of nine years ago, and this drop now breaks that decline. So what about the other three of the four largest papers in the country?
Circulation at the country's three largest newspapers was relatively stable, but many others showed significant declines.
Gannett Co.'s USA Today, the largest-selling daily, slipped 0.6% from the same period a year ago to 2,296,335; The Wall Street Journal, published by Dow Jones; Co., fell 1.1% to 2,083,660; and the New York Times Co.'s flagship paper rose 0.5% to 1,126,190.
So as rapidly as the rest of the industry is losing readers, of all the major newspapers in the country, the LA Times continues to lose readers faster than any of them.
UPDATE --
OK - it's back to who's got the right numbers again. The two linked articles above both show the LAT with a year-to-year 6.5% daily circulation decline and Drudge has, well -- look:
Average weekday circulation of America's 20 biggest newspapers for the six-month period ended Sept. 30, as reported Monday by the Audit Bureau of Circulations. [The percentage changes are from the comparable year-ago period.]
1. USA Today, 2,296,335, down 0.59 percent
2. The Wall Street Journal, 2,083,660, down 1.10 percent
3. The New York Times, 1,126,190, up 0.46 percent
4. Los Angeles Times, 843,432, down 3.79 percent
May be a replay of the whole 'what base numbers are you using' debate? The stated circulation of a year ago - or the adjusted circulation after the 'phony' subscriptions had been removed. Next, someone has to figure out the real numbers of the heavily, heavily discounted subscription subscribers versus the people who actually pay for the paper, subscribers.
UPDATE!
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-media-newspaper.html
The debate (or... debates) is/are on; now Reuters also has the 3.8% decline figure for the LA Times and they have a person who states that this overall circulation decline is NOT the greatest overall decline:
Among the biggest newspapers, Monday through Friday circulation fell 1.1 percent at Dow Jones & Co. Inc'sWall Street Journal and 3.8 percent at the Tribune Co.'s (TRB.N) Los Angeles Times. Circulation at the New York Times Co.'s (NYT.N) namesake paper rose 0.4 percent.
And...
But at the moment the declines appear to be accelerating -- a sign that suggests more consumers are getting their news from the Internet. Circulation fell 1.9 percent in the six months ending March 31 from the prior year.
John Murray, the NAA executive who studies circulation, could not give a final figure for circulation declines over the last 12 months. "But it would be safe to say this is not the worst in 20 years,'' he said on a conference call, pointing out that in 1991 annual circulation fell 2.6 percent.
But wait a second - aren't the other articles saying there HAS just been a 2.6% year circulation drop this year? My head is starting to hurt just thinking about his.
All these MSM sources are reporting on a story about themselves and they are all reporting from the same list of statistics - and yet... even then - they can not get their stories straight.
Meanwhile, they keep asking themselves - why is no one is reading them any more?
UPDATE!
http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2005/11/lat_circ_down_to_843432.html
Kevin at LAOBSERVED tries to explain it all...
LAT circ down to 843,432
That was the average weekday circulation for the six months that ended September 30, according to Editor and Publisher. The report from the Audit Bureau of Circulation says it reflects a 3.79% drop from the same period last year.... Comparing circ numbers is notoriously difficult, but we do have this: Last September the LAT year-long figure was 902,164. The May 30 six-month level was 907,997.
So this September's average weekday LAT circulation for six months is 843,000 and that is 6.5% less than LAST September's average six month weekday LAT circulation. However, E & P says that by the way they calculate these things (and I assume thay have a valid methodology) - it is actually only a... 3.79% drop.
OK. My question is... since this is a story about newspapers that runs every six months... in newspapers... why can't newspapers figure out how to accurately cover a newspaper story about... newspapers... in newspapers?
Why Did The New York Times Have To Cover The Story The LA Times Missed??
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=7182022&postID=113122958285906764&quickEdit=true
The LA Times - ultimately - has failed to properly cover the disaster at the Getty Museum under Barry Munitz and his accomplice/bag man, John H. Biggs - for the the same reason that the Getty's board and leadership has failed as a Los Angeles arts institution.
The Getty is run by by a manager and a board with little knowledge or concern about the art the Getty collects and many of them do not even have a connection with the city of Los Angeles. Until recently, the chair, one of the vice chairs and two other board members lived in New York along with a fifth member who also lived on the East Coast.
It is not surprising, then, that Getty no longer even pretends it is using its resources to build a major art collection in Los Angeles; instead, they now they want other people to give them their collections. But even though much earlier both Christopher Knight and Suzanne Muchnic expertly, if briefly, weighed on the Getty Trust's failings in building a collection, that part of the story has been largely ignored since the first of the year. To quote from Saturday's New York Times article:
Overlooked in these controversies, some of Mr. Munitz's critics say, is the harm suffered by the museum itself, including acquisitions, curatorial choices and departures by talented staff members who bridled at Mr. Munitz's decisions and style.
So the real story of how Barry Munitz, with John H. Biggs' consent, looted the Getty's coffers to improve his social standing - and then how their collective actions have ensured that the Getty Museum will never reach the potential it once had, remains largely ignored in the LA Times. The future of Los Angeles' cultural life is simply not a story that the Times ownership and management seems to be interested in.
So, usual, if you want to know what is going on in Los Angeles - you have to read... the New York Times.
But getting back to the Munitz buttering up people (see prior, linked post at top and link to New York Times story) who do not even own art to donate to the museum (but who yet have impeccable social credentials and often a yacht, of course), even if one day Barry should accidentally run into someone with a major collection appropriate for the Getty - why should they donate it the Getty?
To phrase it more clearly - why should anyone who has spent decades building a major collection worth hundreds of millions of dollars turn around and donate it to a five billion institution that is so uninterested in its own collection that they only spend 20 million a year buying art - less than 4/10 of one per cent of their endowment?
The answer, of course, is almost no one.
The LA Times - ultimately - has failed to properly cover the disaster at the Getty Museum under Barry Munitz and his accomplice/bag man, John H. Biggs - for the the same reason that the Getty's board and leadership has failed as a Los Angeles arts institution.
The Getty is run by by a manager and a board with little knowledge or concern about the art the Getty collects and many of them do not even have a connection with the city of Los Angeles. Until recently, the chair, one of the vice chairs and two other board members lived in New York along with a fifth member who also lived on the East Coast.
It is not surprising, then, that Getty no longer even pretends it is using its resources to build a major art collection in Los Angeles; instead, they now they want other people to give them their collections. But even though much earlier both Christopher Knight and Suzanne Muchnic expertly, if briefly, weighed on the Getty Trust's failings in building a collection, that part of the story has been largely ignored since the first of the year. To quote from Saturday's New York Times article:
Overlooked in these controversies, some of Mr. Munitz's critics say, is the harm suffered by the museum itself, including acquisitions, curatorial choices and departures by talented staff members who bridled at Mr. Munitz's decisions and style.
So the real story of how Barry Munitz, with John H. Biggs' consent, looted the Getty's coffers to improve his social standing - and then how their collective actions have ensured that the Getty Museum will never reach the potential it once had, remains largely ignored in the LA Times. The future of Los Angeles' cultural life is simply not a story that the Times ownership and management seems to be interested in.
So, usual, if you want to know what is going on in Los Angeles - you have to read... the New York Times.
But getting back to the Munitz buttering up people (see prior, linked post at top and link to New York Times story) who do not even own art to donate to the museum (but who yet have impeccable social credentials and often a yacht, of course), even if one day Barry should accidentally run into someone with a major collection appropriate for the Getty - why should they donate it the Getty?
To phrase it more clearly - why should anyone who has spent decades building a major collection worth hundreds of millions of dollars turn around and donate it to a five billion institution that is so uninterested in its own collection that they only spend 20 million a year buying art - less than 4/10 of one per cent of their endowment?
The answer, of course, is almost no one.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Remember The 'Independent' Review Of The Getty's Practices? Well...
You know, that investigation in which the Getty Trust's 'independent' trustees will investigate the conduct of... themselves? Well, at least, the local papers opined, they hired an independent lawyer to work with them.
Well, both the Times and I missed Tyler Green's take on that:
http://www.artsjournal.com/man/archives20051001.shtml#103476
Everyone knows everyone, how nice!
Yet another bit of interconnectedness from the Getty board's super-board of evaluators: Getty vice-chair Louise Bryson's husband is John Bryson. John is the CEO/Chairman of Edison International, a large energy company.
What attorney represented Edison during the California energy crisis? Ronald L. Olson, the attorney hired to help guide the Getty board's "independent" review. John Bryson has also served as a member of the California Commission for Jobs and Economic Growth. The co-chairman of that commission is... Ronald L. Olson.
Can't imagine that Olson will help find the Getty board partially to blame in the mess over there, can you?
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Thank You New York Times For Filling In The Holes In The LA Times Coverage Of The REAL Getty Scandal!
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/arts/design/06getty.html?pagewanted=all
Finally - the REAL scandal at the Getty!
After Barry Munitz's softball interview with the Daily News produced a puff piece, Barry Munitz decided to take his show on the road; a two hour appearance - complete with PR handler, of course - before a New York Times reporter.
After reading today's article, he will not make that mistake again.
Rift Grows, Challenging Getty Museum's Leadership
By RANDY ROBERT
.... Barry Munitz, president of the J. Paul Getty Trust, had invited his good friends Sherry Lansing, then the chairwoman of Paramount Pictures, and her husband, the director William Friedkin, to dinner last year in a house used for parties at the hilltop Getty complex in Los Angeles.
Because the couple collect Dutch art, Mr. Munitz wanted to impress them by having two 17th-century drawings by the Dutch artist Herman van Swanevelt from the Getty Museum taken to be displayed at the house.
Museum officials, who said they felt that the event was more about socializing than about wooing important collectors, protested. They argued that moving the drawings posed too many risks, and that the climate control in the house was inadequate for fragile works on paper.
The drawings were moved anyway.
Later in the article:
"One of the most alarming things for me was that it was such a clear-cut demonstration of Barry's lack of concern for the works of art," said Ms. Whitney, who was about to depart from the museum around the time of the incident.
Mr. Munitz insists that the drawings were adequately protected, and he defended having used them to entertain Ms. Lansing and Mr. Friedkin. "The goal was to try to get them more interested in the institution," he said.
Asked whether the couple had a significant art collection, he said, "They are interesting collectors who are beginning to build a collection." He added that in campaigning on behalf of the museum, "you don't start with people that you don't know - you start with people you know."
And back to earlier in the article...
Today the Getty is under siege. Its former antiquities curator faces an indictment in Italy, and allegations of lavish travel by Mr. Munitz have led to a wide-ranging investigation by the California attorney general into the trust's finances.
Overlooked in these controversies, some of Mr. Munitz's critics say, is the harm suffered by the museum itself, including acquisitions, curatorial choices and departures by talented staff members who bridled at Mr. Munitz's decisions and style.
In 1982, when the museum received the estate of the oilman J. Paul Getty, it instantly became one of the world's wealthiest. Given that it had six times more money than its next-richest American sibling, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, competing institutions anxiously waited to see how that fortune would reshape the museum world.
Over the next two decades, the Getty grew significantly, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to enlarge its collection. But many critics say it has failed to live up to its early promise, a problem even before Mr. Munitz's arrival.
And far from tilting the playing field with its money, the Getty - which has lost several high-profile bidding battles for artwork in the last few years - has recently begun to see that it cannot buy its way to greatness. It has decided to devote itself to what its poorer colleagues have always done: seeking donations of world-class private collections.
Yet the museum is facing serious questions about its worthiness as a home for such collections. Most of these questions revolve around the structure of the trust, its board and Mr. Munitz, who has overseen the museum and the trust's other art programs for eight years.
And...
... several former and current museum employees complain that Mr. Munitz - who has no background in art - has significantly interfered with the museum's curatorial operations and demoralized much of its staff by imposing his own vision in several crucial areas, disregarding or overruling many museum decisions.
They describe a frustrating work environment in which Mr. Munitz has formed strong alliances with art institutions in England and Germany, and insisted on collaborating with them. While this has sometimes yielded loans of impressive works, they say, it has consumed time and resources that could have been directed elsewhere, organizing exhibitions that better illuminated its core collection of European paintings and Greek and Roman antiquities.
As a result, they say, the museum's direction often appears erratic, and its reputation has suffered nationally and globally.
And...
Critics say that Mr. Munitz - with the support of a board that includes many of his friends and allies, few with backgrounds as dedicated collectors - has placed far less emphasis on the museum than his predecessor, Harold M. Williams, did.
The amount of money annually available to the museum for buying art, for example, has dropped to among the lowest levels ever. And Mr. Munitz has recently built what critics see as ill-advised alliances - some accompanied by multimillion-dollar grants - with the State Art Collections in Dresden, Germany; with the Courtauld Institute of Art in London; and with Chatsworth, one of England's grandest estates, which houses the Duke of Devonshire's art collection.
These partnerships have been a source of frustration within the museum, where some curators question their value. Some of the Courtauld's most important masterpieces, for example, cannot leave London because of restrictions in the will of their donor.
"The Courtauld, Chatsworth and Dresden initiatives are Barry's," said a former museum employee. "They are not necessarily projects that the museum would have otherwise undertaken."
And...
Grants awarded by the Getty have risen to around $30 million a year, compared with $10 million a year in the mid- to late 1990's, even as money for buying art for the museum has declined to about $20 million budgeted for this fiscal year.
(In the past, the average was about $46 million a year, though in 2003, when the Getty paid a reported $70 million for a Titian masterpiece, the museum spent around $100 million.)
Speaking Up for Himself
In an interview that lasted almost two hours, Mr. Munitz - who earns $635,000 a year as well as retirement benefits that make his overall compensation about $1.2 million - was rarely defensive as he talked about the trust's recent troubles.
OK - let's do some math. The Getty Trust has over five billion dollars in its endowment. Figuring you earn even - 5% on that - that should throw off about 250,000,000 in spendable cash - easily. And yet, all they can spare to spend on art for Los Angeles is... 20 million... in a market where masterpieces sell for between 20 and 100 million. And this figure is less than half of what they used to spend.
Meanwhile, Munitz is giving grants to some of the richest institutions in the world totaling $30 million a year - three times what he used to give. And his own salary alone is 6% of the entire budget to acquire art.
.... he (Munitz) was accompanied by a public relations executive who specializes in crisis management, and he expressed exasperation with his critics at the museum. "Part of the frustration," Mr. Munitz said, "is people didn't come to me and say - from the museum - 'If you head in this direction, this a problem,' or 'Please don't do that,' or 'It's embarrassing here,' or 'It's awkward there.' Never. I promise."
But those who have dealt with Mr. Munitz said they did speak up, although his staff often insulated him and made communication difficult. And they added that when they did object openly to his decisions, he frequently overruled them. They cite the incident involving the dinner party and the drawings as a prime example, one that angered and embarrassed the museum staff.
And...
Mr. Munitz's critics complain that many of the people he knows best tend to be ones who cannot much help the Getty.
Mr. Broad, for example, is a renowned collector, but he specializes in contemporary art. Works he owns are to be displayed in a new building that will be part of the Los Angeles County Museum.
Mr. Munitz also has close ties to Lord Rothschild, the English banker and arts patron, a relationship that has led to much deeper involvement by the Getty with the Courtauld Institute, a respected teaching center and museum. The Getty is in the process of giving it a $12 million gift.
Lord Rothschild praised the links between the two institutions. "I think it's been a very symbiotic and positive relationship, both for the Courtauld and for the Getty," he said. But some at the Getty say that the Courtauld will get far more out of the relationship than the Getty ever will.
So... one of the richest art institutions in the world, with an art collection far superior to every art collection in this city put together - an art collection supported by both the British government and some of the richest patrons in the world including the Rothschilds - is being given $12 million dollars by a Los Angeles based trust while only $20 million can be scraped together to buy art... for Los Angeles.
And...
Mr. Biggs said that while he believed there was "a legitimate policy issue driving some people's concerns" within the museum, he said that such anger should be directed primarily at the board, which sets the institution's priorities, not at Mr. Munitz.
Legitimate policy issue? If any other city's richest art museum said it can't buy art for its own collection because it sent all of its money to other art museums far richer in art - the heads of those museums leaders would be sticking on pikes in front of those museums.
But critics inside and outside the museum complain that the board has been increasingly disengaged from the issues facing the museum. And, they say, because the board is made up of many of Mr. Munitz's business-world friends - including the billionaire investor Ronald W. Burkle and Jay Wintrob, an insurance executive and protege of Mr. Broad's - there are few checks and balances on Mr. Munitz.
In 2003, for example, he asked several senior officials of the museum and of other Getty programs to fly to England for a meeting at Chatsworth in Derbyshire to explore a partnership and possible loans from its collection, including its old master drawings, considered among the world's best.
Some museum officials, however, said they felt that a partnership with the Chatsworth did not make much sense for the Getty and that the drawings would not make a particularly interesting loan because many had been shown in the United States several times, some as recently as 1996, in an exhibition at the Pierpont Morgan Library.
Barbara Whitney, who left the museum last year as its associate director for administration and public affairs, said there was widespread dissatisfaction with Mr. Munitz's plan, "yet nobody felt they could say no." Ms. Whitney and other persistent critics of Mr. Munitz said there was a feeling that his initiatives were making the Getty seem erratic and hurting its reputation.
"The Getty worked very hard for two decades to build its credibility in the art world, in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere, by being very selective about the projects it took on and only doing things that fit the mission and added value," said Ms. Whitney, who now works as a private-school administrator.
"Many of us have become concerned in recent years that Munitz is diminishing that credibility through grants and partnerships that don't make much sense, either for the Getty or the partners."
And - lastly - from earlier in the article - the crux of the Getty's problem - and the true shame of the Getty:
The departure last year of the museum's previous director, Deborah Gribbon, who cited philosophical differences with Mr. Munitz, was in large part a response to such interference, said former and current employees, most speaking on condition of anonymity, partly because of fears of reprisals against current staff members.
And they characterized many of Mr. Munitz's initiatives at home and around the world as propelled more by his social aspirations and connections than by considerations of what was best for the museum.
And there is the real scandal; the reason why Barry Munitz, John Biggs and every member of the Getty board needs to resign.
Instead of running a museum and an art institution for the people of Los Angeles, the Getty Trust's rubber stamp board - under the direct leadership of John Biggs, is using the Getty's billions to further Barry Munitz's social aspirations.
----------------------------------------
Oh -- and one last irony. The Courtland Institute can use some extra cash since they not long ago had to spend many millions to build new galleries:
The catalyst for this ambitious project was the gift to the nation of the magnificent Gilbert Collection of gold, silver and mosaics, and the subsequent financial support provided by the Heritage Lottery Fund for the development of a new museum here to house these works of art.
And for those with short memories - that magnificent collection was going to be given to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art - until that board of directors refused to house this priceless collection. It was then quickly accepted as a gift by the very grateful London museum that Barry Munitz is now going to gift another twelve million dollars.
And one final irony; should the Getty ever resume serious art buying - the competition will be well funded as every dollar the Barry Munitz gives them for programs - frees up more money for them to buy art for their museums.
Finally - the REAL scandal at the Getty!
After Barry Munitz's softball interview with the Daily News produced a puff piece, Barry Munitz decided to take his show on the road; a two hour appearance - complete with PR handler, of course - before a New York Times reporter.
After reading today's article, he will not make that mistake again.
Rift Grows, Challenging Getty Museum's Leadership
By RANDY ROBERT
.... Barry Munitz, president of the J. Paul Getty Trust, had invited his good friends Sherry Lansing, then the chairwoman of Paramount Pictures, and her husband, the director William Friedkin, to dinner last year in a house used for parties at the hilltop Getty complex in Los Angeles.
Because the couple collect Dutch art, Mr. Munitz wanted to impress them by having two 17th-century drawings by the Dutch artist Herman van Swanevelt from the Getty Museum taken to be displayed at the house.
Museum officials, who said they felt that the event was more about socializing than about wooing important collectors, protested. They argued that moving the drawings posed too many risks, and that the climate control in the house was inadequate for fragile works on paper.
The drawings were moved anyway.
Later in the article:
"One of the most alarming things for me was that it was such a clear-cut demonstration of Barry's lack of concern for the works of art," said Ms. Whitney, who was about to depart from the museum around the time of the incident.
Mr. Munitz insists that the drawings were adequately protected, and he defended having used them to entertain Ms. Lansing and Mr. Friedkin. "The goal was to try to get them more interested in the institution," he said.
Asked whether the couple had a significant art collection, he said, "They are interesting collectors who are beginning to build a collection." He added that in campaigning on behalf of the museum, "you don't start with people that you don't know - you start with people you know."
And back to earlier in the article...
Today the Getty is under siege. Its former antiquities curator faces an indictment in Italy, and allegations of lavish travel by Mr. Munitz have led to a wide-ranging investigation by the California attorney general into the trust's finances.
Overlooked in these controversies, some of Mr. Munitz's critics say, is the harm suffered by the museum itself, including acquisitions, curatorial choices and departures by talented staff members who bridled at Mr. Munitz's decisions and style.
In 1982, when the museum received the estate of the oilman J. Paul Getty, it instantly became one of the world's wealthiest. Given that it had six times more money than its next-richest American sibling, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, competing institutions anxiously waited to see how that fortune would reshape the museum world.
Over the next two decades, the Getty grew significantly, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to enlarge its collection. But many critics say it has failed to live up to its early promise, a problem even before Mr. Munitz's arrival.
And far from tilting the playing field with its money, the Getty - which has lost several high-profile bidding battles for artwork in the last few years - has recently begun to see that it cannot buy its way to greatness. It has decided to devote itself to what its poorer colleagues have always done: seeking donations of world-class private collections.
Yet the museum is facing serious questions about its worthiness as a home for such collections. Most of these questions revolve around the structure of the trust, its board and Mr. Munitz, who has overseen the museum and the trust's other art programs for eight years.
And...
... several former and current museum employees complain that Mr. Munitz - who has no background in art - has significantly interfered with the museum's curatorial operations and demoralized much of its staff by imposing his own vision in several crucial areas, disregarding or overruling many museum decisions.
They describe a frustrating work environment in which Mr. Munitz has formed strong alliances with art institutions in England and Germany, and insisted on collaborating with them. While this has sometimes yielded loans of impressive works, they say, it has consumed time and resources that could have been directed elsewhere, organizing exhibitions that better illuminated its core collection of European paintings and Greek and Roman antiquities.
As a result, they say, the museum's direction often appears erratic, and its reputation has suffered nationally and globally.
And...
Critics say that Mr. Munitz - with the support of a board that includes many of his friends and allies, few with backgrounds as dedicated collectors - has placed far less emphasis on the museum than his predecessor, Harold M. Williams, did.
The amount of money annually available to the museum for buying art, for example, has dropped to among the lowest levels ever. And Mr. Munitz has recently built what critics see as ill-advised alliances - some accompanied by multimillion-dollar grants - with the State Art Collections in Dresden, Germany; with the Courtauld Institute of Art in London; and with Chatsworth, one of England's grandest estates, which houses the Duke of Devonshire's art collection.
These partnerships have been a source of frustration within the museum, where some curators question their value. Some of the Courtauld's most important masterpieces, for example, cannot leave London because of restrictions in the will of their donor.
"The Courtauld, Chatsworth and Dresden initiatives are Barry's," said a former museum employee. "They are not necessarily projects that the museum would have otherwise undertaken."
And...
Grants awarded by the Getty have risen to around $30 million a year, compared with $10 million a year in the mid- to late 1990's, even as money for buying art for the museum has declined to about $20 million budgeted for this fiscal year.
(In the past, the average was about $46 million a year, though in 2003, when the Getty paid a reported $70 million for a Titian masterpiece, the museum spent around $100 million.)
Speaking Up for Himself
In an interview that lasted almost two hours, Mr. Munitz - who earns $635,000 a year as well as retirement benefits that make his overall compensation about $1.2 million - was rarely defensive as he talked about the trust's recent troubles.
OK - let's do some math. The Getty Trust has over five billion dollars in its endowment. Figuring you earn even - 5% on that - that should throw off about 250,000,000 in spendable cash - easily. And yet, all they can spare to spend on art for Los Angeles is... 20 million... in a market where masterpieces sell for between 20 and 100 million. And this figure is less than half of what they used to spend.
Meanwhile, Munitz is giving grants to some of the richest institutions in the world totaling $30 million a year - three times what he used to give. And his own salary alone is 6% of the entire budget to acquire art.
.... he (Munitz) was accompanied by a public relations executive who specializes in crisis management, and he expressed exasperation with his critics at the museum. "Part of the frustration," Mr. Munitz said, "is people didn't come to me and say - from the museum - 'If you head in this direction, this a problem,' or 'Please don't do that,' or 'It's embarrassing here,' or 'It's awkward there.' Never. I promise."
But those who have dealt with Mr. Munitz said they did speak up, although his staff often insulated him and made communication difficult. And they added that when they did object openly to his decisions, he frequently overruled them. They cite the incident involving the dinner party and the drawings as a prime example, one that angered and embarrassed the museum staff.
And...
Mr. Munitz's critics complain that many of the people he knows best tend to be ones who cannot much help the Getty.
Mr. Broad, for example, is a renowned collector, but he specializes in contemporary art. Works he owns are to be displayed in a new building that will be part of the Los Angeles County Museum.
Mr. Munitz also has close ties to Lord Rothschild, the English banker and arts patron, a relationship that has led to much deeper involvement by the Getty with the Courtauld Institute, a respected teaching center and museum. The Getty is in the process of giving it a $12 million gift.
Lord Rothschild praised the links between the two institutions. "I think it's been a very symbiotic and positive relationship, both for the Courtauld and for the Getty," he said. But some at the Getty say that the Courtauld will get far more out of the relationship than the Getty ever will.
So... one of the richest art institutions in the world, with an art collection far superior to every art collection in this city put together - an art collection supported by both the British government and some of the richest patrons in the world including the Rothschilds - is being given $12 million dollars by a Los Angeles based trust while only $20 million can be scraped together to buy art... for Los Angeles.
And...
Mr. Biggs said that while he believed there was "a legitimate policy issue driving some people's concerns" within the museum, he said that such anger should be directed primarily at the board, which sets the institution's priorities, not at Mr. Munitz.
Legitimate policy issue? If any other city's richest art museum said it can't buy art for its own collection because it sent all of its money to other art museums far richer in art - the heads of those museums leaders would be sticking on pikes in front of those museums.
But critics inside and outside the museum complain that the board has been increasingly disengaged from the issues facing the museum. And, they say, because the board is made up of many of Mr. Munitz's business-world friends - including the billionaire investor Ronald W. Burkle and Jay Wintrob, an insurance executive and protege of Mr. Broad's - there are few checks and balances on Mr. Munitz.
In 2003, for example, he asked several senior officials of the museum and of other Getty programs to fly to England for a meeting at Chatsworth in Derbyshire to explore a partnership and possible loans from its collection, including its old master drawings, considered among the world's best.
Some museum officials, however, said they felt that a partnership with the Chatsworth did not make much sense for the Getty and that the drawings would not make a particularly interesting loan because many had been shown in the United States several times, some as recently as 1996, in an exhibition at the Pierpont Morgan Library.
Barbara Whitney, who left the museum last year as its associate director for administration and public affairs, said there was widespread dissatisfaction with Mr. Munitz's plan, "yet nobody felt they could say no." Ms. Whitney and other persistent critics of Mr. Munitz said there was a feeling that his initiatives were making the Getty seem erratic and hurting its reputation.
"The Getty worked very hard for two decades to build its credibility in the art world, in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere, by being very selective about the projects it took on and only doing things that fit the mission and added value," said Ms. Whitney, who now works as a private-school administrator.
"Many of us have become concerned in recent years that Munitz is diminishing that credibility through grants and partnerships that don't make much sense, either for the Getty or the partners."
And - lastly - from earlier in the article - the crux of the Getty's problem - and the true shame of the Getty:
The departure last year of the museum's previous director, Deborah Gribbon, who cited philosophical differences with Mr. Munitz, was in large part a response to such interference, said former and current employees, most speaking on condition of anonymity, partly because of fears of reprisals against current staff members.
And they characterized many of Mr. Munitz's initiatives at home and around the world as propelled more by his social aspirations and connections than by considerations of what was best for the museum.
And there is the real scandal; the reason why Barry Munitz, John Biggs and every member of the Getty board needs to resign.
Instead of running a museum and an art institution for the people of Los Angeles, the Getty Trust's rubber stamp board - under the direct leadership of John Biggs, is using the Getty's billions to further Barry Munitz's social aspirations.
----------------------------------------
Oh -- and one last irony. The Courtland Institute can use some extra cash since they not long ago had to spend many millions to build new galleries:
The catalyst for this ambitious project was the gift to the nation of the magnificent Gilbert Collection of gold, silver and mosaics, and the subsequent financial support provided by the Heritage Lottery Fund for the development of a new museum here to house these works of art.
And for those with short memories - that magnificent collection was going to be given to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art - until that board of directors refused to house this priceless collection. It was then quickly accepted as a gift by the very grateful London museum that Barry Munitz is now going to gift another twelve million dollars.
And one final irony; should the Getty ever resume serious art buying - the competition will be well funded as every dollar the Barry Munitz gives them for programs - frees up more money for them to buy art for their museums.
Friday, November 04, 2005
But My Fingers Are Getting Tired!
This is what one gets when one attempts to access one's GOOGLE e-mail account:
Gmail is temporarily unavailable. Cross your fingers and try again in a few minutes. We're sorry for the inconvenience.
Gmail is temporarily unavailable. Cross your fingers and try again in a few minutes. We're sorry for the inconvenience.
PS - The BLOGSPOT spell check disservice does not recognize either Gmail or even... Google... as being .... words.
UPDATE - E-mail back on sometime after 1 PM
Is The Wax Holding Together GOOGLE's Features/Feathers Beginning To Melt?
Besides BLOGSPOT being buggier than a 1970's Lower East Side squat, Gmail is having more and more... failures of service. It has been over an hour this morning since I have been able to send or receive e-mail. And earlier this week - entire threads of e-mails just... vanished.
UPDATE!
Now well over two hours of no Gmail service.
UPDATE - E-mail back up sometime after 1 PM.
UPDATE!
Now well over two hours of no Gmail service.
UPDATE - E-mail back up sometime after 1 PM.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
New York Times Reinvents Rodeo Cowboy Lingo?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/04/sports/football/04pickett.html
Interesting New York Times article on former high school rodeo star, Cody Pickett, from a two generation rodeo & three generation football family who is now a quarterback with the San Francisco 49'ers.
Now granted it's been more than a few years since I made anything resembling a living on the back of a horse... but as far as I know, not a whole lot of new lingo has been added to the cowboy culture; still, of course, I could easily be mistaken. Like I said... it's been... a few years. Ergo - anyone out there have any idea what the last sentence below is supposed to mean?
"I had a rope in hand from the time I was born," he said. "It's something I'll do one of these other days again. But it's not like I'm going to ride my horse back to the deal tonight and feed and water my steer."
I guess the phrase - 'the deal' - has a meaning up in the Northern ranges that escapes me - since Cody Pickett was raised in Idaho - and I spent most of my time in South-Western/mid-Great Basin areas. Also, the phrase, go home and 'feed and water my steer' is a little odd, as that phrase is usually used in referring to feeding and watering one's horse; but that can be easily attributed to being humorous.
But - 'back to the deal tonight'? Is ' deal' supposed to be a ranch? Stable? Corral? Remuda?
So - do any of you Northern range types out there know what the heck 'back to the deal' means?
PS - And speaking of (potential) New York Times Corrections -
http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2005/11/in_all_truthiness.html
Kevin observes that the New York Times is still sticking by 'Marina County' as being LA's newest exurban real estate hot spot...
Interesting New York Times article on former high school rodeo star, Cody Pickett, from a two generation rodeo & three generation football family who is now a quarterback with the San Francisco 49'ers.
Now granted it's been more than a few years since I made anything resembling a living on the back of a horse... but as far as I know, not a whole lot of new lingo has been added to the cowboy culture; still, of course, I could easily be mistaken. Like I said... it's been... a few years. Ergo - anyone out there have any idea what the last sentence below is supposed to mean?
"I had a rope in hand from the time I was born," he said. "It's something I'll do one of these other days again. But it's not like I'm going to ride my horse back to the deal tonight and feed and water my steer."
I guess the phrase - 'the deal' - has a meaning up in the Northern ranges that escapes me - since Cody Pickett was raised in Idaho - and I spent most of my time in South-Western/mid-Great Basin areas. Also, the phrase, go home and 'feed and water my steer' is a little odd, as that phrase is usually used in referring to feeding and watering one's horse; but that can be easily attributed to being humorous.
But - 'back to the deal tonight'? Is ' deal' supposed to be a ranch? Stable? Corral? Remuda?
So - do any of you Northern range types out there know what the heck 'back to the deal' means?
PS - And speaking of (potential) New York Times Corrections -
http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2005/11/in_all_truthiness.html
Kevin observes that the New York Times is still sticking by 'Marina County' as being LA's newest exurban real estate hot spot...
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Curbed Comes To LA! How Did This Cowboy Miss This???
http://www.la.curbed.com/
With all this things going on in my life, I have been rather remiss at looking at many of my favorite sites - so I have just been taking quick 3 AM peeks at Curbed and Gutter - two deliciously wonderful NYC architecture sites. And somehow... oh - the shame of it! - I missed seeing on their opening pages that they now have a CURBED LA site! Since... September!
And this is really, really embarrassing since you guys link to me.
So why no notice you were in town?
Why no grand opening party? Particularly since - given some subtle clues on your site... you may even have your offices... very... very... close to this cowboy. In fact - I may even be stealing your wireless - right now!
But belated as my discovery is - now that you're here, I've already wallowed in all kinds of local architectural trivia and gossip and ... even more gossip.
So... welcome to the hood! And you'll be glad to know that an architecture gallery I leased to will soon open up very, very near us very, very soon as well as a bookstore with a world class collection of used architecture books.
UPDATE!!
OK - so I now know that I have not been all that remiss. You just opened today - or yesterday, now - but you have put up all your LA posts from your New York site - which I had noticed were getting suspiciously numerous - on your new LA site.
Whew!
UPDATE!!!
Just talked to one of the LA CURBED guys and they are both recent USC grads - and yes, I know, I know ... USC... but after, not just anyone can get into UCLA these days.
And it turns out they are NOT perched on the floor above me lurking in another well known architecture site. They are instead installed within seperate lairs at opposite ends of the rail lines that terminate in downtown.
With all this things going on in my life, I have been rather remiss at looking at many of my favorite sites - so I have just been taking quick 3 AM peeks at Curbed and Gutter - two deliciously wonderful NYC architecture sites. And somehow... oh - the shame of it! - I missed seeing on their opening pages that they now have a CURBED LA site! Since... September!
And this is really, really embarrassing since you guys link to me.
So why no notice you were in town?
Why no grand opening party? Particularly since - given some subtle clues on your site... you may even have your offices... very... very... close to this cowboy. In fact - I may even be stealing your wireless - right now!
But belated as my discovery is - now that you're here, I've already wallowed in all kinds of local architectural trivia and gossip and ... even more gossip.
So... welcome to the hood! And you'll be glad to know that an architecture gallery I leased to will soon open up very, very near us very, very soon as well as a bookstore with a world class collection of used architecture books.
UPDATE!!
OK - so I now know that I have not been all that remiss. You just opened today - or yesterday, now - but you have put up all your LA posts from your New York site - which I had noticed were getting suspiciously numerous - on your new LA site.
Whew!
UPDATE!!!
Just talked to one of the LA CURBED guys and they are both recent USC grads - and yes, I know, I know ... USC... but after, not just anyone can get into UCLA these days.
And it turns out they are NOT perched on the floor above me lurking in another well known architecture site. They are instead installed within seperate lairs at opposite ends of the rail lines that terminate in downtown.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Slatin's Newman Gehry Aesthetic Agnostic! Doesn't' Like His Buildings Much, Either!
http://www.theslatinreport.com/top_story.jsp?StoryName=1031gehrygrand.txt&Topic=Design&fromPage=
Basically, the Slatin Report's Morris Newman suggests that Frank Gehry is working on creative fumes, coasting on his name and phoning in his new work. He also suggest that having Gehry design building next to Disney Hall is a bad thing, since they would be too much alike.
To illustrate his point, he shows four unbuilt skyscrapers designed by Gehry - two of which date from almost 20 years ago, one in Dallas which I have never seen before (and never want to again) and the New York Times design of several years ago with - shudder - Mr. David Childs.
None of the exciting designs he is currently working on around the world, though, are shown; just some paper, ink, CAD and cardboard tigers.
Still, the article makes some valid points about how a Gehry showstopper hitting high 'C' on Grand Avenue, directly across from Disney Hall, might not be ideal, along with some concerns on how Gehry may start to repeat himself.
Where Mr. Newman goes wrong, though, is that this is not just any town; this is Frank's hometown and this is not a site that he is going to either phone it or allow the new building to hurt the Disney Hall experience.
Plus there is a developer involved, a JPA, the CRA - and the Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council that he has to answer to.
So... I'm not worried.
Just let Frank be.. Frank - and everything will be cool.
Basically, the Slatin Report's Morris Newman suggests that Frank Gehry is working on creative fumes, coasting on his name and phoning in his new work. He also suggest that having Gehry design building next to Disney Hall is a bad thing, since they would be too much alike.
To illustrate his point, he shows four unbuilt skyscrapers designed by Gehry - two of which date from almost 20 years ago, one in Dallas which I have never seen before (and never want to again) and the New York Times design of several years ago with - shudder - Mr. David Childs.
None of the exciting designs he is currently working on around the world, though, are shown; just some paper, ink, CAD and cardboard tigers.
Still, the article makes some valid points about how a Gehry showstopper hitting high 'C' on Grand Avenue, directly across from Disney Hall, might not be ideal, along with some concerns on how Gehry may start to repeat himself.
Where Mr. Newman goes wrong, though, is that this is not just any town; this is Frank's hometown and this is not a site that he is going to either phone it or allow the new building to hurt the Disney Hall experience.
Plus there is a developer involved, a JPA, the CRA - and the Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council that he has to answer to.
So... I'm not worried.
Just let Frank be.. Frank - and everything will be cool.
WHY? WHY?? WHY??? Can Not The LA Times Get Even The Simplest Facts Right?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-housing1nov01,1,4323158.story?coll=la-headlines-california
I just skimmed the above article online - and it seemed - overall - an intelligent and balanced look at SRO's and loft developments using the Bristol, the El Dorado, the St. George and the Alexandria Hotels as examples, among others.
However... and this is a seriously BIG however - the bonehead factual errors were just so staggeringly blatant... I had to stop reading if I expected to get any sleep tonight. Or ... at the very least...to not be tempted into re-enacting the bombing of the Times Building as a cure for my LAT induced insomnia.
To begin with, the single most unforgivable error was saying the Bristol Hotel was built in... 1920. I say this because, first, anyone with any knowledge of... anything... should be able to take one look at it and know it was built a lot earlier than that.
But - secondly - far worse than that, on October 12th, the LA Times (quoting another inaccurate - as if there is any other possible kind - LA Times article) said the hotel was built in 1927. That article also, I might add, misidentified the architecture as being Art Nouveau (instead of the late Victorian Italian renaissance/Queen Anne/Richardson Romanesque influenced architecture it actually is) which it is not.
But getting back to the date; the LA Times was finally roped into correcting that date the following week - at which time they gave the correct date of... 1906.
But now - hardly is the ink barely dry from correcting that mistake - and then they get it wrong again! And they even get it wrong in a totally different way!
I mean, exactly how could one easily verifiable date - morph in three weeks in three different articles from 1927 to 1906 to 1920? And in the same series in the same month on the same story of SRO housing!
And it gets even better...
Next, the Bristol Hotel is described as being a few blocks from the renovated St. George Hotel with its 'modernist exterior'.
Modernist exterior?
Say - what?
The Skid Row Housing Trust's architects took extreme care in restoring the St. George's wonderfully ornate Victorian bay windows and and beautifully preserved brick exterior of the building. In fact, the entire facade (other than a small part of the very narrow ground floor) is exactly the way it was built in 1904.
So how is this... a modernist exterior?
And also, how is it a few... blocks away? To me a few blocks is three, four - maybe five... but nine blocks? I don't think so.
Then the article claims that a loft conversion is planned at the El Dorado. Uh, no. It is not being 'planned' - it has been under construction for most of the year. It is being converted, present tense . But, more importantly - in a sin of omission, what this - and most other LA Times articles fail to say is - the El Dorado was closed and vacant before the first loft was even built.
Its conversion has not displaced anyone. And lofts had nothing to do with its closing.
Then article claims that the Alexandria has been identified as a possible loft conversion.
At this point, it is no longer necessary to question if everyone at the LA Times is stoned out of their minds on drugs.
It is now merely necessary to ask - what drugs are they using over there that have burned out the brain cells of everyone at the LA Times?
I say this because... just weeks ago... still another LA Times article said the Alexandria was in escrow to a low income housing developer and that the CRA had given tentative approval for $55 million to keep the Alexandria as low income housing so it would NOT become... lofts.
Now can anyone tell me why - with of all the many residential hotels downtown - with only the Alexandria now being recommended to be financed by the CRA as low income housing - exactly why would the Alexandria be the ONLY hotel to be mentioned as being potentially... lofted?
Lastly, once again, the LA Times endlessly talks about all the SRO's that have been already converted into loft buildings; but never, not once, has the LA Times ever identified any of these mysterious phantom SRO's that have been converted to mythical lofts with real loft dwellers actually living in them.
And I could go on and on... in just this one article... with error after error... particulary when it came to... the quoted statistics.
And, again, the scary part is that this article is not a bad one. During the brief moments before my blood pressure reached cowboy life threatening levels, it seemed to be a decent overview.
But the simple fact remains... day after day... week after week... month after month.... year after year...the LA Times is simply totally and completely incapable - on every possible level - of ever writing about this city and getting the facts correct.
I just skimmed the above article online - and it seemed - overall - an intelligent and balanced look at SRO's and loft developments using the Bristol, the El Dorado, the St. George and the Alexandria Hotels as examples, among others.
However... and this is a seriously BIG however - the bonehead factual errors were just so staggeringly blatant... I had to stop reading if I expected to get any sleep tonight. Or ... at the very least...to not be tempted into re-enacting the bombing of the Times Building as a cure for my LAT induced insomnia.
To begin with, the single most unforgivable error was saying the Bristol Hotel was built in... 1920. I say this because, first, anyone with any knowledge of... anything... should be able to take one look at it and know it was built a lot earlier than that.
But - secondly - far worse than that, on October 12th, the LA Times (quoting another inaccurate - as if there is any other possible kind - LA Times article) said the hotel was built in 1927. That article also, I might add, misidentified the architecture as being Art Nouveau (instead of the late Victorian Italian renaissance/Queen Anne/Richardson Romanesque influenced architecture it actually is) which it is not.
But getting back to the date; the LA Times was finally roped into correcting that date the following week - at which time they gave the correct date of... 1906.
But now - hardly is the ink barely dry from correcting that mistake - and then they get it wrong again! And they even get it wrong in a totally different way!
I mean, exactly how could one easily verifiable date - morph in three weeks in three different articles from 1927 to 1906 to 1920? And in the same series in the same month on the same story of SRO housing!
And it gets even better...
Next, the Bristol Hotel is described as being a few blocks from the renovated St. George Hotel with its 'modernist exterior'.
Modernist exterior?
Say - what?
The Skid Row Housing Trust's architects took extreme care in restoring the St. George's wonderfully ornate Victorian bay windows and and beautifully preserved brick exterior of the building. In fact, the entire facade (other than a small part of the very narrow ground floor) is exactly the way it was built in 1904.
So how is this... a modernist exterior?
And also, how is it a few... blocks away? To me a few blocks is three, four - maybe five... but nine blocks? I don't think so.
Then the article claims that a loft conversion is planned at the El Dorado. Uh, no. It is not being 'planned' - it has been under construction for most of the year. It is being converted, present tense . But, more importantly - in a sin of omission, what this - and most other LA Times articles fail to say is - the El Dorado was closed and vacant before the first loft was even built.
Its conversion has not displaced anyone. And lofts had nothing to do with its closing.
Then article claims that the Alexandria has been identified as a possible loft conversion.
At this point, it is no longer necessary to question if everyone at the LA Times is stoned out of their minds on drugs.
It is now merely necessary to ask - what drugs are they using over there that have burned out the brain cells of everyone at the LA Times?
I say this because... just weeks ago... still another LA Times article said the Alexandria was in escrow to a low income housing developer and that the CRA had given tentative approval for $55 million to keep the Alexandria as low income housing so it would NOT become... lofts.
Now can anyone tell me why - with of all the many residential hotels downtown - with only the Alexandria now being recommended to be financed by the CRA as low income housing - exactly why would the Alexandria be the ONLY hotel to be mentioned as being potentially... lofted?
Lastly, once again, the LA Times endlessly talks about all the SRO's that have been already converted into loft buildings; but never, not once, has the LA Times ever identified any of these mysterious phantom SRO's that have been converted to mythical lofts with real loft dwellers actually living in them.
And I could go on and on... in just this one article... with error after error... particulary when it came to... the quoted statistics.
And, again, the scary part is that this article is not a bad one. During the brief moments before my blood pressure reached cowboy life threatening levels, it seemed to be a decent overview.
But the simple fact remains... day after day... week after week... month after month.... year after year...the LA Times is simply totally and completely incapable - on every possible level - of ever writing about this city and getting the facts correct.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
LA Times Publishes - LA Cowboy! Billy Crystal, Neil Simon And Eli Broad Asked To Save Los Angeles!
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-broadway30oct30,0,2773623.story?coll=la-sunday-commentary
Yes, journalistic standards have plummeted so low at the Los Angeles Times, they have stooped to printing an Op-Ed piece by... LA Cowboy.
Oh, the shame of it!
And it's not even one of their Out-Of-The-Tent' features, either (which would then, of course need to be called, the 'Not-Even-In-This-Friggin' -Universe' feature), but as a regular Op-Ed piece in the Current section.
So go read it!
OK. Finished? Now despite the comedic tone of the piece, my intent is serious.
A major concern of Mayor Villaraigosa is how to stop the Convention Center from continuing to hemorrhage taxpayer's money.
Another civic concern we all share is that LA's hotel occupancy rates remaining low (though improving) at the same time hotel rates in New York have not only surpassed 9/11 figures, but they now have the highest ever occupancy rates according to the New York Times (not counting the WW II era, I presume) - 85%, which essentially means they are... full.
And among the many points I did not have space to make in my piece, is that in LA at night you can see the same movies you see anywhere else, attend the same concerts by the same artists that tour anywhere else in the country and go to bars and clubs and restaurants that are not all that different than what you find in every other major city.
But the big difference with both New York and London, is that every night you can choose from dozens of major Broadway (or... West End) plays and musicals you can not see anywhere else in the world.
And the over 4.5 billion dollars - yes, over FOUR BILLION dollars - that Broadway brings into the New York economy makes theater the single number one reason why tourists go to New York.
The frustrating thing for many of us downtown is that not only do we have a existing dozen Broadway style theaters only minutes from the convention center, but we also have all the producing - and performing - talent right here in LA to get them re-opened.
All it would take is for Disney to make a fraction of their commitment to theater in New York - to Los Angeles theater or for Neil Simon to adopt one theater in downtown for revivals of his plays or for Billy Crystal to do a run in a LA Broadway theater of his one man show or for Mel Brooks to bring the Producers - with its original cast - for a run in a LA Broadway theater - to re-start our once thriving commercial theater district.
So how can we make this to happen?
What are the exact, specific things that we need to do?
Well, more on this later today - but I just got an IM that my cell phone voice mail is now ... full, so I have to return some calls.
Yes, journalistic standards have plummeted so low at the Los Angeles Times, they have stooped to printing an Op-Ed piece by... LA Cowboy.
Oh, the shame of it!
And it's not even one of their Out-Of-The-Tent' features, either (which would then, of course need to be called, the 'Not-Even-In-This-Friggin' -Universe' feature), but as a regular Op-Ed piece in the Current section.
So go read it!
OK. Finished? Now despite the comedic tone of the piece, my intent is serious.
A major concern of Mayor Villaraigosa is how to stop the Convention Center from continuing to hemorrhage taxpayer's money.
Another civic concern we all share is that LA's hotel occupancy rates remaining low (though improving) at the same time hotel rates in New York have not only surpassed 9/11 figures, but they now have the highest ever occupancy rates according to the New York Times (not counting the WW II era, I presume) - 85%, which essentially means they are... full.
And among the many points I did not have space to make in my piece, is that in LA at night you can see the same movies you see anywhere else, attend the same concerts by the same artists that tour anywhere else in the country and go to bars and clubs and restaurants that are not all that different than what you find in every other major city.
But the big difference with both New York and London, is that every night you can choose from dozens of major Broadway (or... West End) plays and musicals you can not see anywhere else in the world.
And the over 4.5 billion dollars - yes, over FOUR BILLION dollars - that Broadway brings into the New York economy makes theater the single number one reason why tourists go to New York.
The frustrating thing for many of us downtown is that not only do we have a existing dozen Broadway style theaters only minutes from the convention center, but we also have all the producing - and performing - talent right here in LA to get them re-opened.
All it would take is for Disney to make a fraction of their commitment to theater in New York - to Los Angeles theater or for Neil Simon to adopt one theater in downtown for revivals of his plays or for Billy Crystal to do a run in a LA Broadway theater of his one man show or for Mel Brooks to bring the Producers - with its original cast - for a run in a LA Broadway theater - to re-start our once thriving commercial theater district.
So how can we make this to happen?
What are the exact, specific things that we need to do?
Well, more on this later today - but I just got an IM that my cell phone voice mail is now ... full, so I have to return some calls.
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Getty Makes It Official! Inmates Running The Asylum!
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-getty30oct30,0,4211559.story?page=2&track=morenews&coll=la-story-footer
Well, the Getty has decided to set-up an 'special' commission to investigate how Barry Munitz has been doing. The 'investigation' will concentrate on how Barry has been spending the Trust's money and how he has been handling the probe of allegedly illegal antiquities purchases by the Getty.
Heading the panel is John - I See No Evil - Bogs who, according to the Times, had read incriminating papers regarding the Getty's activities that other board members were never made aware of until the Times printed them.
Looking into my crystal ball, I foresee... this special committee... will not be investigating that particular alleged incident.
Also on this special commission are... well, read what the Times has to say:
Jason Felch and Robin Fields Times Staff Writer October 30, 2005
After months of mounting troubles, the J. Paul Getty Trust announced Saturday that its board of trustees had formed a special committee to investigate its acquisition of antiquities and its use of tax-exempt funds.
The committee, composed of five board members, will review issues related to an Italian criminal inquiry into allegedly looted antiquities and an investigation by the state attorney general into spending by the trust and its chief executive, Barry Munitz.
John Biggs, chairman of the trust's board and head of the new committee, said through a spokesman that the panel would also "review the institution's corporate governance, including policies and procedures, and then make whatever recommendations — if any — we feel are appropriate for the full board to consider."
And...
In addition to Biggs and Bryson, the committee members will be Lloyd Cotsen, Jay Wintrob and Luis Nogales.
Cotsen, Wintrob and Nogales have links to Munitz.
Cotsen is a philanthropist, archeologist and former chief executive of Neutrogena Corp. Munitz sits on the board of Cotsen's family foundation. Nogales, the former president of Univision, sits with Munitz on the boards of AIG SunAmerica and KB Home. Wintrob is chief executive of AIG SunAmerica.
Sounds fair and balanced to me!
Well, the Getty has decided to set-up an 'special' commission to investigate how Barry Munitz has been doing. The 'investigation' will concentrate on how Barry has been spending the Trust's money and how he has been handling the probe of allegedly illegal antiquities purchases by the Getty.
Heading the panel is John - I See No Evil - Bogs who, according to the Times, had read incriminating papers regarding the Getty's activities that other board members were never made aware of until the Times printed them.
Looking into my crystal ball, I foresee... this special committee... will not be investigating that particular alleged incident.
Also on this special commission are... well, read what the Times has to say:
Jason Felch and Robin Fields Times Staff Writer October 30, 2005
After months of mounting troubles, the J. Paul Getty Trust announced Saturday that its board of trustees had formed a special committee to investigate its acquisition of antiquities and its use of tax-exempt funds.
The committee, composed of five board members, will review issues related to an Italian criminal inquiry into allegedly looted antiquities and an investigation by the state attorney general into spending by the trust and its chief executive, Barry Munitz.
John Biggs, chairman of the trust's board and head of the new committee, said through a spokesman that the panel would also "review the institution's corporate governance, including policies and procedures, and then make whatever recommendations — if any — we feel are appropriate for the full board to consider."
And...
In addition to Biggs and Bryson, the committee members will be Lloyd Cotsen, Jay Wintrob and Luis Nogales.
Cotsen, Wintrob and Nogales have links to Munitz.
Cotsen is a philanthropist, archeologist and former chief executive of Neutrogena Corp. Munitz sits on the board of Cotsen's family foundation. Nogales, the former president of Univision, sits with Munitz on the boards of AIG SunAmerica and KB Home. Wintrob is chief executive of AIG SunAmerica.
Sounds fair and balanced to me!
Watts Up With The New York Times?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/realestate/30nati.html
A New York Sunday Times Real Estate Section article on the housing boom in Watts suggests a 1300 foot house sells for between 300,000 and 400,000. It also states that homes top out at around 400,000 in Watts. The article then states, quoting a real estate agent:
High crime rates, declining school systems and, until recently, lower property values have motivated people to move out. Ms. Arnold said places like Marina County, Bakersfield, Ontario and Riverside, all an hour or two from the city, are luring people away with houses twice the size for half the money.
So... that means that a 2600 foot home in Bakersfield, Ontario or Riverside would sell for between 150,000 and 200,000.
Uh - really?
Well, according to Coldwell Banker, in 2005 the average 2200 foot home (and not... 2600') in Bakersfield sold for... $407,000 and in the Riverside/Ontario area for $459,000.
See below link for my statistics.
And even if CB's criteria in this survey is a somewhat different than the mean or the average price of those communities (it appears to be weighted towards more upscale neighborhoods) - it is still clear those cities are not a lot cheaper than Watts, much less twice the house for half-the-price cheaper.
For example, even counting all sales at all square footages, the cheapest of the three areas is Bakersfield - and even there the average sales price in all areas is just under $300,000, far above the $150,000 to $200,000 range. And average-sized house in Bakersfield is a hell of a lot smaller than 2600 feet.
But what really puzzles me is - what low cost city called - Marina County - is located within a two hour drive of Los Angeles?
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050922/nyth037.html?.v=23T
Since I assume the writer or the editor double checked any figures they were given before printing them, the NYT appears to be looking at summer 2005 figures for Watts and then the 1990's figures found in the 2000 census for the other areas. But even then, those figures would not back-up the premise.
The other possible reason for the disconnect is that some web sites show an city's average assessed value. And since any home which has not sold for many years will be still assessed at its long ago value in California, and since it takes time for properties to be reasessed even after selling, those numbers have no relation to what current values are.
But as for the comparative sales prices in.... Marina Valley - well, I'm still looking for it...
UPDATE!
Just realized writer likely meant Moreno Valley!
And, yes, that rather remote area (east of March Air Force base) does have many people coming from the inner city areas of LA looking for affordable newer housing. But the average sales price is still in the $350,000 range; cheaper per square foot when it comes to the smallest Watts houses - due to the high land values in LA - but more comparable in the per square foot prices when it comes to larger houses in Watts.
Still, nothing remotely near the twice-the-house-at-half-the-price scenario.
A New York Sunday Times Real Estate Section article on the housing boom in Watts suggests a 1300 foot house sells for between 300,000 and 400,000. It also states that homes top out at around 400,000 in Watts. The article then states, quoting a real estate agent:
High crime rates, declining school systems and, until recently, lower property values have motivated people to move out. Ms. Arnold said places like Marina County, Bakersfield, Ontario and Riverside, all an hour or two from the city, are luring people away with houses twice the size for half the money.
So... that means that a 2600 foot home in Bakersfield, Ontario or Riverside would sell for between 150,000 and 200,000.
Uh - really?
Well, according to Coldwell Banker, in 2005 the average 2200 foot home (and not... 2600') in Bakersfield sold for... $407,000 and in the Riverside/Ontario area for $459,000.
See below link for my statistics.
And even if CB's criteria in this survey is a somewhat different than the mean or the average price of those communities (it appears to be weighted towards more upscale neighborhoods) - it is still clear those cities are not a lot cheaper than Watts, much less twice the house for half-the-price cheaper.
For example, even counting all sales at all square footages, the cheapest of the three areas is Bakersfield - and even there the average sales price in all areas is just under $300,000, far above the $150,000 to $200,000 range. And average-sized house in Bakersfield is a hell of a lot smaller than 2600 feet.
But what really puzzles me is - what low cost city called - Marina County - is located within a two hour drive of Los Angeles?
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050922/nyth037.html?.v=23T
Since I assume the writer or the editor double checked any figures they were given before printing them, the NYT appears to be looking at summer 2005 figures for Watts and then the 1990's figures found in the 2000 census for the other areas. But even then, those figures would not back-up the premise.
The other possible reason for the disconnect is that some web sites show an city's average assessed value. And since any home which has not sold for many years will be still assessed at its long ago value in California, and since it takes time for properties to be reasessed even after selling, those numbers have no relation to what current values are.
But as for the comparative sales prices in.... Marina Valley - well, I'm still looking for it...
UPDATE!
Just realized writer likely meant Moreno Valley!
And, yes, that rather remote area (east of March Air Force base) does have many people coming from the inner city areas of LA looking for affordable newer housing. But the average sales price is still in the $350,000 range; cheaper per square foot when it comes to the smallest Watts houses - due to the high land values in LA - but more comparable in the per square foot prices when it comes to larger houses in Watts.
Still, nothing remotely near the twice-the-house-at-half-the-price scenario.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Denial Isn't Just A River in Egypt - It Is Also A River In Los Angeles!
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-beach27oct27,0,3509021.story?coll=la-home-headlines
At last Saturday's LA River Workshop, I had a long talk with the Terra Tech project head - whose name I, of course, do not recall, about the need to inject a little reality into the discussion. I was particularly concerned about the failure to address either the financial realities of funding the project and the lack of real world understanding of the immense problems in dealing with the health problems of the water in the river.
Granted this is at the very beginning of the process, but, still, it would have been helpful when everyone was expressing their utopian dreams, that the constraints the project faces hasd been more clearly laid out.
Below is the LA Times on the urban run-off we find in the LA River:
L.A. County Beaches Were State's Most Unhealthful This Summer
Despite cleanup efforts, bacterial counts were the highest in five years. Experts are baffled.
Kenneth R. Weiss Times Staff Writer October 27, 2005
Los Angeles County coastal waters this summer contained the highest levels of harmful bacteria measured during the last five years, accumulating more failing grades for human health standards than any other swimming beaches in California...
....None of this came as a surprise to surfers such as Cory Bleumling, a Cal State Northridge graduate student who recently experienced head congestion, chills and diarrhea after one surfing session.
"It's always a little nasty out here, a bit of funk," Bleumling said Wednesday, emerging from the surf at Malibu, a longboard tucked under his arm. Every time he paddles out, he said, there's some health risk. "It's like going to Mexico. You might get sick, or you might not."
The failing grades, compiled by nonprofit environmental group Heal the Bay, were recorded as Los Angeles County and its cities face a state deadline of July 31 to make waters healthful for swimming every day during the summer - or face hefty fines. The unhealthful conditions are blamed on multiple sources, including sewer spills, pet waste, fertilizer, oil and other pollution washing off lawns and pavement and ultimately into the sea....
... Relying mostly on state grants, local governments have already spent millions of dollars installing devices that divert and treat "urban slobber," the steady trickle of bacteria-laden water that runs down storm drains and creeks from urban centers.... Government officials and environmental activists have found this summer's high bacterial levels perplexing.
"It was, by far, the most polluted year we have ever seen in the past five years," said Gold, who helps analyze bacterial levels and grading of beaches from A to F.Gold said he initially blamed the failing grades on record rainfall. Raging storm water routinely overwhelms or breaks sewer lines, releasing raw sewage into the ocean.Storm-water runoff also augments the flow of urban pollutants into the ocean.
But other Southern California counties, from Santa Barbara to San Diego, also experienced record rainfall and still showed improvement this summer in keeping bacterial levels below federal and state health standards, Gold said. Furthermore, he said, the beaches with the highest bacterial counts were spiking off and on all summer, not just during the first months after the heavy winter rains...
And... finally...
Health officials recommend avoiding ocean waters within 100 yards of a flowing storm drain or stream.
At last Saturday's LA River Workshop, I had a long talk with the Terra Tech project head - whose name I, of course, do not recall, about the need to inject a little reality into the discussion. I was particularly concerned about the failure to address either the financial realities of funding the project and the lack of real world understanding of the immense problems in dealing with the health problems of the water in the river.
Granted this is at the very beginning of the process, but, still, it would have been helpful when everyone was expressing their utopian dreams, that the constraints the project faces hasd been more clearly laid out.
Below is the LA Times on the urban run-off we find in the LA River:
L.A. County Beaches Were State's Most Unhealthful This Summer
Despite cleanup efforts, bacterial counts were the highest in five years. Experts are baffled.
Kenneth R. Weiss Times Staff Writer October 27, 2005
Los Angeles County coastal waters this summer contained the highest levels of harmful bacteria measured during the last five years, accumulating more failing grades for human health standards than any other swimming beaches in California...
....None of this came as a surprise to surfers such as Cory Bleumling, a Cal State Northridge graduate student who recently experienced head congestion, chills and diarrhea after one surfing session.
"It's always a little nasty out here, a bit of funk," Bleumling said Wednesday, emerging from the surf at Malibu, a longboard tucked under his arm. Every time he paddles out, he said, there's some health risk. "It's like going to Mexico. You might get sick, or you might not."
The failing grades, compiled by nonprofit environmental group Heal the Bay, were recorded as Los Angeles County and its cities face a state deadline of July 31 to make waters healthful for swimming every day during the summer - or face hefty fines. The unhealthful conditions are blamed on multiple sources, including sewer spills, pet waste, fertilizer, oil and other pollution washing off lawns and pavement and ultimately into the sea....
... Relying mostly on state grants, local governments have already spent millions of dollars installing devices that divert and treat "urban slobber," the steady trickle of bacteria-laden water that runs down storm drains and creeks from urban centers.... Government officials and environmental activists have found this summer's high bacterial levels perplexing.
"It was, by far, the most polluted year we have ever seen in the past five years," said Gold, who helps analyze bacterial levels and grading of beaches from A to F.Gold said he initially blamed the failing grades on record rainfall. Raging storm water routinely overwhelms or breaks sewer lines, releasing raw sewage into the ocean.Storm-water runoff also augments the flow of urban pollutants into the ocean.
But other Southern California counties, from Santa Barbara to San Diego, also experienced record rainfall and still showed improvement this summer in keeping bacterial levels below federal and state health standards, Gold said. Furthermore, he said, the beaches with the highest bacterial counts were spiking off and on all summer, not just during the first months after the heavy winter rains...
And... finally...
Health officials recommend avoiding ocean waters within 100 yards of a flowing storm drain or stream.
Speaking Of The Obvious...
The recent drop-off in errors at the LA Times' editorial page has been so promising - I mean like two practically error free weeks! - I let one a week ago, go.
Well, actually... I was just too busy and way too damn lazy to get around to pointing out the major boner of calling ex-school board president Jose Huizar, the existing school board president.
Besides, anything that obvious would be instantly corrected.
Well... wrong!
Friday, October 28, 2005
City Council: An editorial Friday said Jose Huizar was president of the Los Angeles Board of Education. He stepped down from the presidency in July.
They also further confused the issue by saying the error occurred on a dateless 'Friday' unqualified by any modifier such as this or last - Friday ... just that it took place on a highly unspecific ... 'Friday'.
Plus - as has become more and more common - even after the correction had been posted on the correction's page - the correction has not still not been made in the actual article - where Jose is still - evidently - el presidente for life at the Los Angeles School Board.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-council21oct21,0,5154733.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials
The main candidates are Nick Pacheco, who represented the 14th for one term until Villaraigosa ousted him in 2003, and Jose Huizar, who is president of the Los Angeles Unified School District board .
UPDATE!!
Good News - Bad News.
The correction is now printed with the October 21st editorial. Good!
But the item telling us there was a correction made only a very, very brief run on the correction's page - somewhere around 1 AM or before - and then had... vanished... around dawn.
Now I am not certain if the correction only appeared last night because this correction was printed on the editorial page today (and I will have to wait until I find my free copy on the subway to see if it was), even though it might have been on the correction's page closer to the date of the actual error.
But even it it was, the editorial itself was not corrected until this morning. Lastly, the reason I can not tell if it was on the correction's page before, is because those corrections are not archived on the corrections page, a situation that needs to be... corrected.
Well, actually... I was just too busy and way too damn lazy to get around to pointing out the major boner of calling ex-school board president Jose Huizar, the existing school board president.
Besides, anything that obvious would be instantly corrected.
Well... wrong!
Friday, October 28, 2005
City Council: An editorial Friday said Jose Huizar was president of the Los Angeles Board of Education. He stepped down from the presidency in July.
They also further confused the issue by saying the error occurred on a dateless 'Friday' unqualified by any modifier such as this or last - Friday ... just that it took place on a highly unspecific ... 'Friday'.
Plus - as has become more and more common - even after the correction had been posted on the correction's page - the correction has not still not been made in the actual article - where Jose is still - evidently - el presidente for life at the Los Angeles School Board.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-council21oct21,0,5154733.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials
The main candidates are Nick Pacheco, who represented the 14th for one term until Villaraigosa ousted him in 2003, and Jose Huizar, who is president of the Los Angeles Unified School District board .
UPDATE!!
Good News - Bad News.
The correction is now printed with the October 21st editorial. Good!
But the item telling us there was a correction made only a very, very brief run on the correction's page - somewhere around 1 AM or before - and then had... vanished... around dawn.
Now I am not certain if the correction only appeared last night because this correction was printed on the editorial page today (and I will have to wait until I find my free copy on the subway to see if it was), even though it might have been on the correction's page closer to the date of the actual error.
But even it it was, the editorial itself was not corrected until this morning. Lastly, the reason I can not tell if it was on the correction's page before, is because those corrections are not archived on the corrections page, a situation that needs to be... corrected.
The Obvious Declared - The Obvious!
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-rail28oct28,1,174689.story?coll=la-headlines-california
For many years, there has begin no question in anyone's mind - except in Henry Waxman's, of course - that the technology to put a subway underground Wilshire Boulevard, existed.
But to give some political cover to the aging solon, a distinguished panel was last week gathered from around the country and they read some reports that they had likely already read. Yesterday, they then anounced what they (and everybody else) already knew.
But, hopefully, they got in some sightseeing before reviewing the facts for the two minutes necessary before they announced... it was possible to build the subway down Wilshire. It would be a shame if they had come all the way out here for... nothing.
Richard Fausset Times Staff Writer October 28, 2005
A westward extension of Los Angeles' Red Line subway can be safely built below Wilshire Boulevard despite the presence of dangerous underground gases, a panel of tunneling and transportation experts concluded Thursday.
"By following proper procedures and using appropriate technologies, the risk would be no greater than any other subway systems in the U.S.," the group concluded in a report to local transit officials.
The preliminary decision by the five-member panel, which was convened by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, could bolster Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's vision of building a subway to the beach.Currently, the subway runs between Union Station and North Hollywood.
Federal law bans using federal money to extend the Red Line. The law was introduced by U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles) after a 1985 methane explosion at a Fairfax-area clothing store. Concerns have also been raised about the presence of lethal hydrogen sulfide gas.
Earlier this month, Waxman said he would ask Congress to rescind the law if the panel concluded that tunneling was safe. On Thursday, Waxman said the conclusion was "encouraging," but said he would not seek to repeal the law until he had a chance to talk to panel members in the next few days.
For many years, there has begin no question in anyone's mind - except in Henry Waxman's, of course - that the technology to put a subway underground Wilshire Boulevard, existed.
But to give some political cover to the aging solon, a distinguished panel was last week gathered from around the country and they read some reports that they had likely already read. Yesterday, they then anounced what they (and everybody else) already knew.
But, hopefully, they got in some sightseeing before reviewing the facts for the two minutes necessary before they announced... it was possible to build the subway down Wilshire. It would be a shame if they had come all the way out here for... nothing.
Richard Fausset Times Staff Writer October 28, 2005
A westward extension of Los Angeles' Red Line subway can be safely built below Wilshire Boulevard despite the presence of dangerous underground gases, a panel of tunneling and transportation experts concluded Thursday.
"By following proper procedures and using appropriate technologies, the risk would be no greater than any other subway systems in the U.S.," the group concluded in a report to local transit officials.
The preliminary decision by the five-member panel, which was convened by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, could bolster Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's vision of building a subway to the beach.Currently, the subway runs between Union Station and North Hollywood.
Federal law bans using federal money to extend the Red Line. The law was introduced by U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles) after a 1985 methane explosion at a Fairfax-area clothing store. Concerns have also been raised about the presence of lethal hydrogen sulfide gas.
Earlier this month, Waxman said he would ask Congress to rescind the law if the panel concluded that tunneling was safe. On Thursday, Waxman said the conclusion was "encouraging," but said he would not seek to repeal the law until he had a chance to talk to panel members in the next few days.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Paging LACMA! The Getty Museum!! Eli Broad!!
There may be one final chance for the last Vermeer in private hands - and several other masterpieces...
http://www.calendarlive.com/printedition/calendar/cl-wk-quick27.3oct27,0,1527200,print.story?coll=cl-calendar
Mike Boehm LA Times October 27th 2005
Wynn gallery to close. Quoting an unnamed source "close to" resort magnate Steve Wynn, the Las Vegas Sun has reported that Wynn is planning to close the small but select Wynn Collection gallery at the Wynn Las Vegas resort, perhaps to replace the art showcase with retail space. A Wynn spokeswoman, Denise Randazzo, said Wednesday that "we have not made any official decisions yet" on whether the gallery will close.
Just 14 paintings hang there, including Pablo Picasso's "Le Reve," a Rembrandt self-portrait and a recently acquired Vermeer. Admission was $15 when the resort opened six months ago, but was reduced last month to $6 for tourists, $3 for Nevada residents.
OK. Now Wynn has in the past parted with - one way or the other - a number of his finest paintings. Still, the closing of this gallery does not mean he will be selling some or all of these paintings.
Clearly, though, here is an opportunity for a LA institution to see if they can create an art-oriented attraction in the space that could both attract customers to Wynn's casinos and also provide the cultural/educational component he wants. The prize for that might be to pry some of those paintings off his walls.
http://www.calendarlive.com/printedition/calendar/cl-wk-quick27.3oct27,0,1527200,print.story?coll=cl-calendar
Mike Boehm LA Times October 27th 2005
Wynn gallery to close. Quoting an unnamed source "close to" resort magnate Steve Wynn, the Las Vegas Sun has reported that Wynn is planning to close the small but select Wynn Collection gallery at the Wynn Las Vegas resort, perhaps to replace the art showcase with retail space. A Wynn spokeswoman, Denise Randazzo, said Wednesday that "we have not made any official decisions yet" on whether the gallery will close.
Just 14 paintings hang there, including Pablo Picasso's "Le Reve," a Rembrandt self-portrait and a recently acquired Vermeer. Admission was $15 when the resort opened six months ago, but was reduced last month to $6 for tourists, $3 for Nevada residents.
OK. Now Wynn has in the past parted with - one way or the other - a number of his finest paintings. Still, the closing of this gallery does not mean he will be selling some or all of these paintings.
Clearly, though, here is an opportunity for a LA institution to see if they can create an art-oriented attraction in the space that could both attract customers to Wynn's casinos and also provide the cultural/educational component he wants. The prize for that might be to pry some of those paintings off his walls.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Stay Tuned For December 26 Correction!
October 26 LA Times Correction Page
Money-laundering ring — A June 25 correction to an April 28 article about the investigation of an international money-laundering and drug-trafficking ring said that federal authorities had served a search warrant at the Brentwood home of Bijan Kohanzad. The warrant was served at Kohanzad's business in West Los Angeles.
Money-laundering ring — A June 25 correction to an April 28 article about the investigation of an international money-laundering and drug-trafficking ring said that federal authorities had served a search warrant at the Brentwood home of Bijan Kohanzad. The warrant was served at Kohanzad's business in West Los Angeles.
Monday, October 24, 2005
Halloween Comes Early! Horror Fest On Channel Four News!
Tonight's KNBC early Halloween horror story:
First, the female anchor announced that that audience for a town hall meeting about the special election will be scientifically selected by a 'bona fide company'... yup, a real company. Not one of those 'fake' companies. Nothing about the company's qualifications - but it is a real company.
And then the male anchor only minutes later (hey, I couldn't find my remote in time) announced that both Antiquities curator Marian True and former Getty Museum Director Deborah Gribbon had left the Getty due to the antiquities looting scandal.
Uh - say what?
First, True was officially fired not because of the looted antiquities scandal - but because she accepted a loan from someone the Getty bought art from. Granted this could possibly not be the full story, but that is the reported story.
But as for Deborah Gribbon... she only left because of her disgust at how Barry Munitz was ruining the Getty. There was never a hint of her leaving for any other reason.
Local TV News!
Someone has to make the LA Times look good - and it's their job to do it!
First, the female anchor announced that that audience for a town hall meeting about the special election will be scientifically selected by a 'bona fide company'... yup, a real company. Not one of those 'fake' companies. Nothing about the company's qualifications - but it is a real company.
And then the male anchor only minutes later (hey, I couldn't find my remote in time) announced that both Antiquities curator Marian True and former Getty Museum Director Deborah Gribbon had left the Getty due to the antiquities looting scandal.
Uh - say what?
First, True was officially fired not because of the looted antiquities scandal - but because she accepted a loan from someone the Getty bought art from. Granted this could possibly not be the full story, but that is the reported story.
But as for Deborah Gribbon... she only left because of her disgust at how Barry Munitz was ruining the Getty. There was never a hint of her leaving for any other reason.
Local TV News!
Someone has to make the LA Times look good - and it's their job to do it!
Sunday, October 23, 2005
It's Official! New Times Buys Village Voice/LA Weekly Newspaper Group!
http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2005/10/weekly_merger_rumors_true.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/business/24voice.html
The New Times chain of weekly papers is taking over the Village Voice, LA Weekly, OC Weekly and three other papers to form a group of seventeen more-or-less alt weeklies. New Times CEO Jim Larkin will be CEO and Michael Lacey will be Executive Editor.
Much more at LAOBSERVED, the NY Times and the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/23/AR2005102301504.html
One of the more interesting observations is in the Washington Post - quoting the new executive editor:
'Perfectly good journalism is commercially viable,' Lacey says. 'You have to give them well-written, well-reported stories. We don't need focus groups. We knew damn well that good stories sell, not people doing raving opinion pieces about how outraged they are. Blogs have made it completely unnecessary to have alternative newspapers fulfilling that role.'"
And...
"New Times will export its brand of 'desert libertarianism on the rocks, with sprigs of neocon politics,' writes Bruce Brugmann, publisher of the rival San Francisco Bay Guardian..
What made New Times unique in its day in LA was its interest in going after any malefactors of any ideological stripe whether or not they agreed with their politics while at the Weekly - ideological purity was all that counted. Ironically, the LA Weekly has become a far, far better paper in the last few years with reporters like Robert Greene and Jeffrey Anderson who are only interested in where the bodies are buried - and not the political credentials of bodies.
And with a million blogs offering opinions, we can use some more papers willing to do the detailed investigations only a real newspaper can do. Off the top of my head, I can think of a half-dozen major stories New Times covered - that no one has touched since then.
So while I would prefer we still had both the Weekly and New Times fighting for readers, a combination of the two might make for a more interesting paper than either of them separately. It might also make it possible for one of the other two papers move up the food chain.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/business/24voice.html
The New Times chain of weekly papers is taking over the Village Voice, LA Weekly, OC Weekly and three other papers to form a group of seventeen more-or-less alt weeklies. New Times CEO Jim Larkin will be CEO and Michael Lacey will be Executive Editor.
Much more at LAOBSERVED, the NY Times and the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/23/AR2005102301504.html
One of the more interesting observations is in the Washington Post - quoting the new executive editor:
'Perfectly good journalism is commercially viable,' Lacey says. 'You have to give them well-written, well-reported stories. We don't need focus groups. We knew damn well that good stories sell, not people doing raving opinion pieces about how outraged they are. Blogs have made it completely unnecessary to have alternative newspapers fulfilling that role.'"
And...
"New Times will export its brand of 'desert libertarianism on the rocks, with sprigs of neocon politics,' writes Bruce Brugmann, publisher of the rival San Francisco Bay Guardian..
What made New Times unique in its day in LA was its interest in going after any malefactors of any ideological stripe whether or not they agreed with their politics while at the Weekly - ideological purity was all that counted. Ironically, the LA Weekly has become a far, far better paper in the last few years with reporters like Robert Greene and Jeffrey Anderson who are only interested in where the bodies are buried - and not the political credentials of bodies.
And with a million blogs offering opinions, we can use some more papers willing to do the detailed investigations only a real newspaper can do. Off the top of my head, I can think of a half-dozen major stories New Times covered - that no one has touched since then.
So while I would prefer we still had both the Weekly and New Times fighting for readers, a combination of the two might make for a more interesting paper than either of them separately. It might also make it possible for one of the other two papers move up the food chain.
Daily News Interview With Getty Trust President Barry Munitz!
http://www2.dailynews.com/news/ci_3142264
Getty Trust's Barry Munitz sets things straight...
... seems to suggest the Daily News agrees Munitz is setting the record straight in the below interview as compared to what LA Times has written about him. I suspect (hope) that is not what the Daily News had intended to infer.
Though controversy swirls around him, Getty Trust President and CEO Barry Munitz weathers the storm calmly.
In the past year, Deborah Gribbon, the director of the museum - the most visible part of the trust - resigned amid rumors of conflict with Munitz. Then an investigation by Italian officials resulted in the curator of antiquities, Marion True, being charged with conspiring to traffic in looted antiquities.
Earlier this month True resigned, not as a result of the charges but over a loan arranged in 1995 by one of the museum's main suppliers of antiquities so she could buy a vacation home in Greece.
In June, a lengthy article in The Los Angeles Times raised questions about the way Munitz runs the nonprofit organization that is worth around $9 billion. Munitz, who has an annual compensation package worth about $1.2 million, was accused of lavish spending of trust money on first-class travel and extravagant dining. He was also accused of OK'ing a real-estate deal with Eli Broad that gave the billionaire businessman a $700,000 break.
The portrait was one of a man with "grand appetites" who prospered while the museum was experiencing cutbacks.
On Friday, Munitz sat in a conference room on the Getty "campus," and, in his first extensive interview on the recent controversies, addressed these issues with Daily News columnist Mariel Garza and entertainment editor Rob Lowman.
There is much more to read at the above link. Then come back for my response.
First, if Munitz is correct in saying the now infamous Porsche is used only for official business and that he never personally uses it (which would mean it does not go home with him at night), he has a potentially valid point for its purchase. However, one of its main uses appears to be picking up and taking board members and other guests from the airport, including chauffeur service, it appears. I do not see why they can not transport themselves when they come to LA.
As for the Eli Broad real estate deal, I know the hazards in appraising hillside land with all the geological, slope density formula and easement problems - so Broad could have easily paid full market value for the property. And the person willing to pay the highest price is often the adjoining property owner. But more needs to be known for anyone to make that determination and the process by which the transaction was handled, was clearly flawed in at least appearance.
Some of what Munitz said about the difficulties in buying antiquities is true, but he ignores - and the Daily News appears not to ask - about all the incriminating documents hidden from the board and from authorities by him - and that is the case against Munitz, not the purchase of antiquities - or the purchase of much of anything for that matter since the Getty's collecting has dramatically declined under his reign.
Munitz also makes something of a case on his salary if you compare it to the salary of his predecessor, but not if you compare it with the heads of other non-profits.
As for his claim he is tightly controlled by a tough and vigilant board, it's nice to see his problems have not affected his sense of humor. Even several of his own board members have been quoted on how clueless they are on what is going on at the Getty and how documents have been withheld from them.
And while Munitz denies in the article using Getty money for personal uses, he was no asked any specific questions in the printed interview. He did, however, bring up and defend his use of first class travel with absolutely... breathtaking... arrogance:
If you talk to anybody who knows me, you won't find anyone who describes me as an extravagant-living person. ... Part of it is a question of interpretation. To somebody who's never flown first-class, first-class is an extravagance. ... Those are silly things to me. I do what I'm asked do.
Now granted the above quotes have some gaps in them, but it appears Munitz feels that anyone (such as the heads of almost all other non-profits) who thinks flying first class at the non-profits expense is extravagant is being silly, since they can not recognize it is not a luxury, but a necessity. But it doesn't matter anyway, since it's not his fault - he was only following orders.
But the big issue that I and many, if not most people, in the Los Angeles art community have with the Getty is the total failure of the Getty to build a major painting collection. This is particularly inexcusable when the last masterpieces by major artist after major artist are vanishing - forever - into public collections.
My only complaint about the LA Times series of article is that failed to hang Munitz for his only real crime against Los Angeles. While it is nice to have restoration projects around the world, education programs around the world and research around the world, there are endless needs for those projects and those needs will be there five, ten and a hundred years from now.
But there are only a limited number of paintings of the highest quality left to buy from private collections and the Getty has already squandered the opportunity to develop a world class collection. The only hope now is that it can somehow move up from a fourth rate collection to a third rate collection in the future.
But not if Barry Munitz remains at head of the Getty Trust.
Getty Trust's Barry Munitz sets things straight...
... seems to suggest the Daily News agrees Munitz is setting the record straight in the below interview as compared to what LA Times has written about him. I suspect (hope) that is not what the Daily News had intended to infer.
Though controversy swirls around him, Getty Trust President and CEO Barry Munitz weathers the storm calmly.
In the past year, Deborah Gribbon, the director of the museum - the most visible part of the trust - resigned amid rumors of conflict with Munitz. Then an investigation by Italian officials resulted in the curator of antiquities, Marion True, being charged with conspiring to traffic in looted antiquities.
Earlier this month True resigned, not as a result of the charges but over a loan arranged in 1995 by one of the museum's main suppliers of antiquities so she could buy a vacation home in Greece.
In June, a lengthy article in The Los Angeles Times raised questions about the way Munitz runs the nonprofit organization that is worth around $9 billion. Munitz, who has an annual compensation package worth about $1.2 million, was accused of lavish spending of trust money on first-class travel and extravagant dining. He was also accused of OK'ing a real-estate deal with Eli Broad that gave the billionaire businessman a $700,000 break.
The portrait was one of a man with "grand appetites" who prospered while the museum was experiencing cutbacks.
On Friday, Munitz sat in a conference room on the Getty "campus," and, in his first extensive interview on the recent controversies, addressed these issues with Daily News columnist Mariel Garza and entertainment editor Rob Lowman.
There is much more to read at the above link. Then come back for my response.
First, if Munitz is correct in saying the now infamous Porsche is used only for official business and that he never personally uses it (which would mean it does not go home with him at night), he has a potentially valid point for its purchase. However, one of its main uses appears to be picking up and taking board members and other guests from the airport, including chauffeur service, it appears. I do not see why they can not transport themselves when they come to LA.
As for the Eli Broad real estate deal, I know the hazards in appraising hillside land with all the geological, slope density formula and easement problems - so Broad could have easily paid full market value for the property. And the person willing to pay the highest price is often the adjoining property owner. But more needs to be known for anyone to make that determination and the process by which the transaction was handled, was clearly flawed in at least appearance.
Some of what Munitz said about the difficulties in buying antiquities is true, but he ignores - and the Daily News appears not to ask - about all the incriminating documents hidden from the board and from authorities by him - and that is the case against Munitz, not the purchase of antiquities - or the purchase of much of anything for that matter since the Getty's collecting has dramatically declined under his reign.
Munitz also makes something of a case on his salary if you compare it to the salary of his predecessor, but not if you compare it with the heads of other non-profits.
As for his claim he is tightly controlled by a tough and vigilant board, it's nice to see his problems have not affected his sense of humor. Even several of his own board members have been quoted on how clueless they are on what is going on at the Getty and how documents have been withheld from them.
And while Munitz denies in the article using Getty money for personal uses, he was no asked any specific questions in the printed interview. He did, however, bring up and defend his use of first class travel with absolutely... breathtaking... arrogance:
If you talk to anybody who knows me, you won't find anyone who describes me as an extravagant-living person. ... Part of it is a question of interpretation. To somebody who's never flown first-class, first-class is an extravagance. ... Those are silly things to me. I do what I'm asked do.
Now granted the above quotes have some gaps in them, but it appears Munitz feels that anyone (such as the heads of almost all other non-profits) who thinks flying first class at the non-profits expense is extravagant is being silly, since they can not recognize it is not a luxury, but a necessity. But it doesn't matter anyway, since it's not his fault - he was only following orders.
But the big issue that I and many, if not most people, in the Los Angeles art community have with the Getty is the total failure of the Getty to build a major painting collection. This is particularly inexcusable when the last masterpieces by major artist after major artist are vanishing - forever - into public collections.
My only complaint about the LA Times series of article is that failed to hang Munitz for his only real crime against Los Angeles. While it is nice to have restoration projects around the world, education programs around the world and research around the world, there are endless needs for those projects and those needs will be there five, ten and a hundred years from now.
But there are only a limited number of paintings of the highest quality left to buy from private collections and the Getty has already squandered the opportunity to develop a world class collection. The only hope now is that it can somehow move up from a fourth rate collection to a third rate collection in the future.
But not if Barry Munitz remains at head of the Getty Trust.
Last Day Of EdgeFest Theater Festival!
http://www.lavoice.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1202
At the above link are my choices for plays to see this Sunday at the LA Theater Center. Below is the link to Edge Fest:
http://www.edgeoftheworld.org/
At the above link are my choices for plays to see this Sunday at the LA Theater Center. Below is the link to Edge Fest:
http://www.edgeoftheworld.org/
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Last Day Of EdgeFest Theater Festival!
http://www.lavoice.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1202
At the above link are my choices for plays to see this Sunday at the LA Theater Center. Below is the link to Edge Fest:
http://www.edgeoftheworld.org/
At the above link are my choices for plays to see this Sunday at the LA Theater Center. Below is the link to Edge Fest:
http://www.edgeoftheworld.org/
Friday, October 21, 2005
Los Angeles Times Wants To Know What We Think Of Them!
Well, at least they are asking us what we think of specific pages on the website.
A little box started appearing last night on the site and when you click on it, it becomes a large survey box asking you what you think of that page. I assume Kevin at LAOBSERVED will have more details later today.
UPDATE! You can create the little survey box on any page by looking for a pair of parenthesis lurking at the lower right hand corner of the page and then clicking on that. I used it to report that the link to the jobs report from the front page goes instead to the Air One ceremony at the Reagan Library.
I found that link to be... not useful.
Link now fixed.
A little box started appearing last night on the site and when you click on it, it becomes a large survey box asking you what you think of that page. I assume Kevin at LAOBSERVED will have more details later today.
UPDATE! You can create the little survey box on any page by looking for a pair of parenthesis lurking at the lower right hand corner of the page and then clicking on that. I used it to report that the link to the jobs report from the front page goes instead to the Air One ceremony at the Reagan Library.
I found that link to be... not useful.
Link now fixed.
Mixed Messages In LAT's Column One Today!!!
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ramennation21oct21,0,215135.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Interesting Column One in today's Los Angeles Times on how fast food is changing the diet - and health - of Mexicans - and how instant ramen noodles (largely manufactured in the LA area - which makes for a good local angle) are supplanting beans and rice as the national dish of Mexico due to its convenience and its low price.
Or... not.
Below are several excepts from the article:
Marla Dickerson Times Staff Writer October 21, 2005
COAMILPA, Mexico — Only 3 years old, Leon Gustavo Davila Hinojosa is still learning to speak Spanish. But the precocious youngster already knows a bit of Japanese: "Maruchan."That's a brand of instant ramen noodles that to him means lunch. Leon's grandmother stocks them in her tiny grocery store in this hamlet 40 miles southwest of the capital. The preschooler prefers his shrimp-flavor ramen with a dollop of liquid heat...
... As part of a food assistance program, the Mexican government distributes ramen to c.ommissaries in some of the most remote pockets of the country, where it is supplanting rice and beans on many tables.The product is so pervasive that a national newspaper recently dubbed Mexico "Maruchan Nation."Purveyors say you don't have to strain your noodle to figure out why. Nearly 60% of Mexico's workforce earns less than $13 a day. Instant ramen is a hot meal that fills stomachs, typically for less than 40 cents a serving ....
.... Nutritionists likewise are alarmed that instant ramen, a dish loaded with fat, carbohydrates and sodium, has become a cornerstone of the food pyramid.With the majority of the population now urbanized and on the go, Mexicans are embracing the convenience foods of their neighbors in the U.S. while abandoning some healthful traditions. The result is soaring levels of obesity, diabetes and heart disease, particularly among the poor....
.... The most economical version is sold in plastic-wrapped, dehydrated squares that consumers typically heat in saucepans on the stove. The average U.S. price is 14 cents per package, thanks to highly automated manufacturing in plants on American soil. Most of Mexico's ramen is imported and served in insulated, disposable cups, which drives the price up to about 35 cents...
.... in Latin America, Mexico is the noodle champ. Its consumers ate an average of 9.4 servings in 2004 ....
.... A cup of instant ramen costs 4 pesos, or about 37 cents in Diconsa-affiliated shops. A serving of beans costs pennies in comparison. Still, the average Mexican's consumption of frijoles has dropped by more than half since 1995, according to an agriculture trade group. Per capita consumption of tortillas has declined precipitously as well.....
Ok - so what does this all mean? Well - color this cowboy confused.
To begin with, it is clear sales of ramen are skyrocketing in Mexico. But is it responsible for the 50% drop in frijoles and a large drop in the consumption of tortillas?
I don't think so.
According to the article, the average Mexican eats 9.4 servings of ramen a year. Figuring three meals a day that comes out to about...1100 meals a year - not counting snacks. This means ramen is eaten at less the 1% of all meals in Mexico. However, if one factors in snacks and people who eat more than one serving at a meal and... well, you get the point.
If fast food is transforming the diet and the waistlines of Mexicans, something other than ramen is likely the prime driving factor. Also the statement that ramen is now a "cornerstone" of the Mexican food pyramid when it is eaten at only 9/10 of 1% of all meals is... well... to put it tactfully... salsa flavored male cow crap.
Lastly, as for saying that price is a major reason why ramen is so popular, if beans and rice are only 'pennies' (which to me reads three or four cents - less than a nickel and certainly well less than a dime) per serving, why is this the case if the prices given for ramen are between 35 cents and less than 40 cents a serving? I assume that statement is comparing ramen to other food choices, but those choices and their prices are never mentioned, so it is hard to know what to think.
Overall, an interesting, informative article on many levels, including some very well observed cultural ones; the only problem is that in trying to use the rise of ramen in Mexico to opine on a few larger issues, there are not simply not enough facts cited to support those claims.
Interesting Column One in today's Los Angeles Times on how fast food is changing the diet - and health - of Mexicans - and how instant ramen noodles (largely manufactured in the LA area - which makes for a good local angle) are supplanting beans and rice as the national dish of Mexico due to its convenience and its low price.
Or... not.
Below are several excepts from the article:
Marla Dickerson Times Staff Writer October 21, 2005
COAMILPA, Mexico — Only 3 years old, Leon Gustavo Davila Hinojosa is still learning to speak Spanish. But the precocious youngster already knows a bit of Japanese: "Maruchan."That's a brand of instant ramen noodles that to him means lunch. Leon's grandmother stocks them in her tiny grocery store in this hamlet 40 miles southwest of the capital. The preschooler prefers his shrimp-flavor ramen with a dollop of liquid heat...
... As part of a food assistance program, the Mexican government distributes ramen to c.ommissaries in some of the most remote pockets of the country, where it is supplanting rice and beans on many tables.The product is so pervasive that a national newspaper recently dubbed Mexico "Maruchan Nation."Purveyors say you don't have to strain your noodle to figure out why. Nearly 60% of Mexico's workforce earns less than $13 a day. Instant ramen is a hot meal that fills stomachs, typically for less than 40 cents a serving ....
.... Nutritionists likewise are alarmed that instant ramen, a dish loaded with fat, carbohydrates and sodium, has become a cornerstone of the food pyramid.With the majority of the population now urbanized and on the go, Mexicans are embracing the convenience foods of their neighbors in the U.S. while abandoning some healthful traditions. The result is soaring levels of obesity, diabetes and heart disease, particularly among the poor....
.... The most economical version is sold in plastic-wrapped, dehydrated squares that consumers typically heat in saucepans on the stove. The average U.S. price is 14 cents per package, thanks to highly automated manufacturing in plants on American soil. Most of Mexico's ramen is imported and served in insulated, disposable cups, which drives the price up to about 35 cents...
.... in Latin America, Mexico is the noodle champ. Its consumers ate an average of 9.4 servings in 2004 ....
.... A cup of instant ramen costs 4 pesos, or about 37 cents in Diconsa-affiliated shops. A serving of beans costs pennies in comparison. Still, the average Mexican's consumption of frijoles has dropped by more than half since 1995, according to an agriculture trade group. Per capita consumption of tortillas has declined precipitously as well.....
Ok - so what does this all mean? Well - color this cowboy confused.
To begin with, it is clear sales of ramen are skyrocketing in Mexico. But is it responsible for the 50% drop in frijoles and a large drop in the consumption of tortillas?
I don't think so.
According to the article, the average Mexican eats 9.4 servings of ramen a year. Figuring three meals a day that comes out to about...1100 meals a year - not counting snacks. This means ramen is eaten at less the 1% of all meals in Mexico. However, if one factors in snacks and people who eat more than one serving at a meal and... well, you get the point.
If fast food is transforming the diet and the waistlines of Mexicans, something other than ramen is likely the prime driving factor. Also the statement that ramen is now a "cornerstone" of the Mexican food pyramid when it is eaten at only 9/10 of 1% of all meals is... well... to put it tactfully... salsa flavored male cow crap.
Lastly, as for saying that price is a major reason why ramen is so popular, if beans and rice are only 'pennies' (which to me reads three or four cents - less than a nickel and certainly well less than a dime) per serving, why is this the case if the prices given for ramen are between 35 cents and less than 40 cents a serving? I assume that statement is comparing ramen to other food choices, but those choices and their prices are never mentioned, so it is hard to know what to think.
Overall, an interesting, informative article on many levels, including some very well observed cultural ones; the only problem is that in trying to use the rise of ramen in Mexico to opine on a few larger issues, there are not simply not enough facts cited to support those claims.
Los Angeles Has FEWER Jobs Per Capita Than Any Major City In The Country!
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/daytime/daytimepop.html
First, thanks to Al's Morning Meeting at Poytner for the tip. A press release from the Census Bureau yesterday broke out the daytime population of each city in the country in contrast to its residential population, i.e., how many people are working in the city as opposed to people living in the city. Most cities have large inflows of workers during the day:
If it seems a little crowded on weekdays in cities like Washington, D.C.; Irvine, Calif.; Salt Lake City, Utah; or Orlando, Fla.; it's not your imagination. Among cities with 100,000 or more people, these four show the highest percentage increases in population during the day as opposed to their resident population.
The findings come from the first-ever U.S. Census Bureau estimates of the daytime population for all counties and more than 6,400 places across the country, based on Census 2000 data.
And where does Los Angeles rank? Among all major cities with daytime populations of over one million we rank... dead last. Time to get those economic development teams going in the Mayor's office. More from the report:
Among very small places, gains approached 300 percent in Tysons Corner, Va. (292 percent); and El Segundo, Calif. (288 percent).
Other highlights:
New York City has the largest estimated daytime population, at more than 8.5 million persons. The increase of more than half a million people over the nighttime population is bigger than that found in any other area. However, the 7 percent increase puts New York in the middle of the pack on percentage change among cities with more than a million residents.
The second highest numeric daytime increase is in Washington, D.C., where 410,000 workers boost the capital's population by 72 percent during normal business hours.
Other big cities with large daytime gains are Atlanta (62 percent), Tampa (48 percent) and Pittsburgh and Boston (both around 41 percent).
Typical examples of sizable expansion of daytime populations in small cities can be found in places such as Paramus, N.J.; Redmond, Wash.; and Beverly Hills, Calif., among others.
Los Angeles does not even rate a mention in the release.
First, thanks to Al's Morning Meeting at Poytner for the tip. A press release from the Census Bureau yesterday broke out the daytime population of each city in the country in contrast to its residential population, i.e., how many people are working in the city as opposed to people living in the city. Most cities have large inflows of workers during the day:
If it seems a little crowded on weekdays in cities like Washington, D.C.; Irvine, Calif.; Salt Lake City, Utah; or Orlando, Fla.; it's not your imagination. Among cities with 100,000 or more people, these four show the highest percentage increases in population during the day as opposed to their resident population.
The findings come from the first-ever U.S. Census Bureau estimates of the daytime population for all counties and more than 6,400 places across the country, based on Census 2000 data.
And where does Los Angeles rank? Among all major cities with daytime populations of over one million we rank... dead last. Time to get those economic development teams going in the Mayor's office. More from the report:
Among very small places, gains approached 300 percent in Tysons Corner, Va. (292 percent); and El Segundo, Calif. (288 percent).
Other highlights:
New York City has the largest estimated daytime population, at more than 8.5 million persons. The increase of more than half a million people over the nighttime population is bigger than that found in any other area. However, the 7 percent increase puts New York in the middle of the pack on percentage change among cities with more than a million residents.
The second highest numeric daytime increase is in Washington, D.C., where 410,000 workers boost the capital's population by 72 percent during normal business hours.
Other big cities with large daytime gains are Atlanta (62 percent), Tampa (48 percent) and Pittsburgh and Boston (both around 41 percent).
Typical examples of sizable expansion of daytime populations in small cities can be found in places such as Paramus, N.J.; Redmond, Wash.; and Beverly Hills, Calif., among others.
Los Angeles does not even rate a mention in the release.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Paging Michael Brand At The Getty! How To Expand Your Collecting Horizons!
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/19/arts/design/19pace.html?pagewanted=all
Now that the Getty is probably shipping much of its collection back to Italy, and there has been some likely idle talk about developing collections that are more... ethnically... diverse - I have some good news. There is a prime buying opportunity in New York!
It Was Multicultural Before Multicultural Was Cool
By HOLLAND COTTER New York Times
I was flabbergasted when I saw "African Zion: The Sacred Art of Ethiopia" in New York City in 1994, the first big display of Ethiopian religious art to travel to North America. I had known this art only in intriguing bits and pieces. But the sight of a hundred blazingly colored icons and glinting metal crosses in one place was sensational. I remember its impact in aural as much as visual terms, as a kind of charged chanting, though no music was playing.
What was news to me was news to a lot of other people too, not to mention the city's art institutions. The show wasn't at the Metropolitan Museum or the Brooklyn Museum. It was at the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture in Harlem. Famed for its library and archives, the Schomburg has an active gallery, though one unlikely to pull in the huge crowds that "African Zion" should have had. "Lucky Harlem," I thought at the time.
And now, lucky Midtown. The first major gallery sale exhibition of Ethiopian art in the United States opened yesterday at PaceWildenstein on East 57th Street. Organized by the London dealer Sam Fogg, it's a fierce, gorgeous, category-scrambling encounter.
And...
... in the fifth century A.D., when Ethiopia was, with Rome and Persia, one of the superpowers of the ancient world, Ethiopian Orthodoxy became the state religion. Later Islam swept in, cutting the country off from the Byzantine world and adding its own cultural impulses. Influences from sub-Saharan Africa were subtle and constant.
These ingredients contributed to a church distinctive in its beliefs, worship and art. The most familiar and durable forms are openwork crosses of bronze or iron mounted on long staffs carried by priests.
Meant to be seen in pierced silhouette against the sky or candlelight, they became ever more elaborate and delicate hybrids of Byzantine and Islamic designs. The workmanship of the finest of them is beyond superb, rivaling pieces from the royal ateliers of the West Africa kingdom of Benin. And Mr. Fogg has fantastic examples dating from the 12th to the 19th century.
The real attraction, though, lies in icons and manuscripts, several dating from the late 15th and early 16th centuries, a high point in Ethiopian church art, which means in Christian art, period.
So here we have a case of where the Getty can have its art and eat it too; spectacular examples of early Christian art that directly relates to the European art already collected by the Getty, while also being influenced by African cultures. So rather than having to develop an entirely new brand, all this requires is a simple brand extension.
And having seen examples of this work in London in some private collections - I also know it's seriously cool. So break out the platinum card, Michael (assuming Barry hasn't maxxed it this month on Porsche payments, of course) and start shopping!
Now that the Getty is probably shipping much of its collection back to Italy, and there has been some likely idle talk about developing collections that are more... ethnically... diverse - I have some good news. There is a prime buying opportunity in New York!
It Was Multicultural Before Multicultural Was Cool
By HOLLAND COTTER New York Times
I was flabbergasted when I saw "African Zion: The Sacred Art of Ethiopia" in New York City in 1994, the first big display of Ethiopian religious art to travel to North America. I had known this art only in intriguing bits and pieces. But the sight of a hundred blazingly colored icons and glinting metal crosses in one place was sensational. I remember its impact in aural as much as visual terms, as a kind of charged chanting, though no music was playing.
What was news to me was news to a lot of other people too, not to mention the city's art institutions. The show wasn't at the Metropolitan Museum or the Brooklyn Museum. It was at the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture in Harlem. Famed for its library and archives, the Schomburg has an active gallery, though one unlikely to pull in the huge crowds that "African Zion" should have had. "Lucky Harlem," I thought at the time.
And now, lucky Midtown. The first major gallery sale exhibition of Ethiopian art in the United States opened yesterday at PaceWildenstein on East 57th Street. Organized by the London dealer Sam Fogg, it's a fierce, gorgeous, category-scrambling encounter.
And...
... in the fifth century A.D., when Ethiopia was, with Rome and Persia, one of the superpowers of the ancient world, Ethiopian Orthodoxy became the state religion. Later Islam swept in, cutting the country off from the Byzantine world and adding its own cultural impulses. Influences from sub-Saharan Africa were subtle and constant.
These ingredients contributed to a church distinctive in its beliefs, worship and art. The most familiar and durable forms are openwork crosses of bronze or iron mounted on long staffs carried by priests.
Meant to be seen in pierced silhouette against the sky or candlelight, they became ever more elaborate and delicate hybrids of Byzantine and Islamic designs. The workmanship of the finest of them is beyond superb, rivaling pieces from the royal ateliers of the West Africa kingdom of Benin. And Mr. Fogg has fantastic examples dating from the 12th to the 19th century.
The real attraction, though, lies in icons and manuscripts, several dating from the late 15th and early 16th centuries, a high point in Ethiopian church art, which means in Christian art, period.
So here we have a case of where the Getty can have its art and eat it too; spectacular examples of early Christian art that directly relates to the European art already collected by the Getty, while also being influenced by African cultures. So rather than having to develop an entirely new brand, all this requires is a simple brand extension.
And having seen examples of this work in London in some private collections - I also know it's seriously cool. So break out the platinum card, Michael (assuming Barry hasn't maxxed it this month on Porsche payments, of course) and start shopping!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
