The reporters were right for the wrong reasons. The only reason they care is because they honestly believe readers care and because they honestly think this caused irreparable damage. This is also the kind of things reporters' unions hate because technically more ad space leads to reduced content and fewer reporters' jobs.

That said, such an ad on the front page is nothing more than tacky and while the damage is certainly repairable, a continuing practice of plastering ads like this on the front page could cheapen the newspaper. Still, the print edition is fading, so what's the real concern here. It's like complaining your shoes are soaked as the Titanic sinks.

It's a tacky and short-sighted ploy. If their online readership is so strong, then focus on growing the already-healthy ad base out of that by connecting with your readers.

I agree wholeheartedly with the news team on this. What passes as news in some media these days is laughable. Facts are often watered down by opinion and newspapers are one place where you can get the those facts. I commend the journalists for defending their integrity and the integrity of their profession. We all know ads pay the bills, but people don't read papers for the ads, they read for the news. If the front page is more advertising and less news, what will motivate people to pick it up off the newstand. This doesn't only bring the paper's credibility into question, it's a bad business decision.

The line between news and entertainment began to blur years ago. We live in the age of "entertainment news". I agree with the response of journalists and feel proud that there are folks who still understand the importance of keeping the two seperate. The manipulative effect of advertising can easily cloud judgement. It certainly won't impact everyone the same way, but to confuse one is enough damage.

The main problem of ad/news blurring, which seems like the direction we are headed in is that it produces an un-informed audience on real local and international issues. Uninformed audiences ask uninformed questions, focus on unimportant issues, become uninformed citizens and vote for leaders carelessly. How's that for impact?

I think the staffers are upset mostly about placing "faux news" on the front page.

I understand the need and have no problem with an item that's clearly an ad -- but fake news on the front page? No way. Adding "Advertisement" in two-point microtype doesn't cut it.

No question about it: the new market realities are changing the rules of the financial game. But thinking out of the traditional box still has its limits; you have to know where to draw the line.

I'd be upset if my paper was selling its soul, too.

What's the difference between the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today and countless other papers running front page display ads and the LA Times running this ad? Sure it apes a news column but it is clearly marked as advertising and not nearly as intrusive as many front page display ads.

If you get a few minutes, read Jack Shafer's column on this subject ("Front Page Ads For Sale"), which he wrote three years ago after the New York Daily News ran a front page ad.

As Shafer notes, newspapers in foreign countries have run front page ads for years. One hundred years ago front page ads were rampant. The New York Herald's front page in the 19th century contained nothing but ads.

As Shafer insists, it doesn't matter where newspapers put ads as long as advertisers aren't allowed to influence the news.

Shafer's column:

http://www.slate.com/id/2149176/

I love the attitude. If you don't like it, you should leave? That's just fantastic. Perhaps these are journalists who, even if they don't love their jobs, take great pride in the effort they put into the product. Maybe it's not about the money. Maybe they have worked so hard, for so long for this publication that it just about kills them to see a bunch of marketers do what amounts to placing a fly in the soup. Perhaps for journalists, it's not about the money, but it's about keeping their integrity intact while providing their readers with what they see as a quality product. Perhaps journalists know something about newspapers that the business office and marketers do not. Perhaps they know that if they lose their credibility, they lose everything.

The problems that newspapers are having are directly related to figuring out how to make money with their online product. In the meantime, they have to quit sacrificing the quality of their print product. Through the years, they've reduced the quality and the size of their papers, they're providing less news and they've been slow to innovate. They need to improve in a lot of ways. Front page ads are not one of them.

You guys have lost your minds on this one.

No journalist watching his or her profession crumble around them would handle this any differently.

The ad portrayed the newspaper owners for precisely what they are ... folks who are clueless about what comes next.

I'd be curious to hear how much NBC payed for the ad compared to what they would have been charged for the same thing a year and a half ago, if the LA Times would have even run the ad a year and a half ago of course.

When did it become OK to lower standards for money? Isn't that what this is about? Money or no money, a standard is set for a reason. Money should not be the reason to change that standard. I whole-heartedly support the editorial team. And my guess is that readers of the L.A. Times have stuck with it this long in part for the standards it upholds.

I side with the journalists in this. An ad set up as a news story is always sleazy, putting on the front page hurts the credibility of the paper. And credibility is what is already hurting the mainstream media in the US.

Did you know that in nearly every other country in the world, newspapers are doing just fine? Yet in America, political scandals are revealed in internet blogs while newspapers ramble about the latest starlet escapades and print government news releases without fact checking. One can blame the journalists, true, but to keep their jobs they are following the "editorial policy" set by management.

If the journalists at the LA Times and other papers had anything remotely close to the capital it takes to set up a paper and keep it running against the most incredible corporate monopolies ever, I'm sure many would love to quit their present jobs and resurrect the type of newspaper Americans could trust.

Readers were pissed about the ad. Some of them canceled subscriptions. That might fly in the face of your argument.

http://www.businessinsider.com/people-actually-cancelled-la-times-subscriptions-over-southland-ad-2009-4