Hopefully, the story will surface on a police website, or a local paper, or something, so I can find out what terrible crime merited six cop cars in a residential neighborhood.

More awesome blog reporting?

The problem isn’t that the Times is giving some great exposure to their blogs, which do have some great content that can be as good as their "mainstream" content, but that they’re steering readers to a blog to recap whats big in the news.

Let me spell this out: THE FRONT PAGE OF THE TIMES SITE IS STEERING READERS TO A BLOG TO READ HEADLINES.

Shouldn’t the front page of the Times have all the headlines one should need? Why should someone need to click to get a recap of important news as chosen not by the editors, but a staff writer?

Just a horribly clumsy and stupid waste of space.

Here are their top story headlines as I type this comment:

Clinton Fatigue/Steady Erosion Of Support From Past Supporters…
Fund-Raising: Major Donors Tapped Out

Media >> WATCH: Jon Stewart Rips ABC Debate

More in Media >> Katie Couric Memoir Rumors… Vets vs Time’s Iwo Jima Cover

WATCH: The Pennsylvania Democratic Debate In 1 Minute

And Arianna also slips in this vital info: Click here to pre-order my new book, Right Is Wrong.

Maybe the unfunded, lower echelon blogs should stay scrappy and continue to shoot from the hip if this is what money gets you.

Name me one reliable blog that doesn’t rely on reports from major news organizations for the bulk of its hard news coverage. Until there are blogs that can afford to pay a staff of reporters to spend their day gathering news* (and also hire photographers, editors, copy editors, graphic artists, etc.), then blogs really aren’t in the same league.

*By "gathering news" I don’t mean surfing the web for interesting items on other people’s sites or snapping a picture on your way to work of that cute dog poking its head out of a car window.

Don’t get me wrong — I’m not a hater. There are a lot of things that blogs — by their very nature — can do quicker and better than old media outlets, and I read quite a few of them on a daily basis (147 Google Reader subscriptions and counting). I just think saying "the war is over" is off the mark. If old-school media outlets were to disappear tomorrow, and the public had only blogs to rely on for their news … well, that would be quite scary indeed.

I meant to add…."and Scott Thomas Beauchamp debacles"… to the above.

Very few blogs news organizations even approach the level of quality control (fact checking, copy editing and general editorial oversight) that actual news organizations can afford.

I thought the Rathergate, Jesse Macbeth and debacles would’ve sufficiently put this tired argument to rest.

If anything, blogs are finally forcing news organizations to reach towards higher standards of journalist integrity.

"Very few blogs even approach the level of quality control (fact checking, copy editing and general editorial oversight) that actual news organizations can afford."

Yes, the L.A. Times has proven there are very, very good at this. Thank you for proving me wrong.

What frightens me is that someone would choose to believe anything as fact just because it is parked at some famous domain.

I do appreciate your comments, absconded. The idea that you took the time to read and comment on some blog full of "regurgitated rumors" somehow amuses me. I am delighted that a smart-alecky little post of mine, written out of complete boredom, regarding nothing more than one of my own personal observations and opinions has ruined your Friday. Let’s make this a weekly venture.

But what I wanted to say is: I had a discussion with another Metblogger yesterday about our differing perceptions of the LA Times. He thinks it still sucks big time, I think it has improved over the past few months. The difference is, he only looks at the online edition whereas I only see the print edition via daily delivery (which is cheap by the way.)

After we parted I looked at the online edition and found I would agree with him to an extent if it was the only version I saw too. One thing he pointed out is how the local coverage is sorely lacking. He’s right, it often seems haphazard. The term "local" that LAT uses could be subdivided into specific areas and mini-bureaus that would cover them but something tells me Zell will not be ponying up for that sort of thing.

Speaking of Zell, and the differences between the print and online editions, in todays edition, there is an article that covers a rather sleazy story involving the Chicago magnate as if the writer, Tony Perry, is trying not to piss of the boss and get his ass fired. Read it and wince at the contortions in the final paragraphs like I did. Is it just me or did he prove his contrary argument?

In today’s print edition, this article appeared at the bottom of page 3. In today’s online edition, it is the NINETEENTH item on the California|Local section way, way down the page.

To tie it together, this is story (about a Zell-owned company evicitng seniors from mobile homes parks in SoCal that it owns) for the local group blogs to investigate, since LAT practically comes clean with their confusion over how to cover Zell.