Congratulations to the Times and to all the individual winners. With all the (totally justified) complaints about the Times' abysmal local reportage and weak local features, one forgets about the high level of photogs, writers, and editors who have improved the Times measurably in the past 5 years. If only the local coverage was as well done as the international and nationwide stuff.

Great, now that snobby bunch will be even more intolerable.

Just wondering:

Is each member of the local staff who worked on the brush fire story now considered a Pulitzer winner?

To the Times: Well done and well-deserved...

To 'Ted': The local staff won the Pulitzer for spot news coverage of the fires. That's the fourth time in 11 years, including 1998 (North Hollywood shootout), 1995 (Northridge earthquake), and 1993 (LA riots).

Notwithstanding the begrudgers who so often post their bleatings here, that's an enviable record for any local reporting staff.

Now, if they could just find a good advice columnist....

OK 'Mark' (why is my name in quotes when I am the one with a real email address?), but I still stand behind my comments that the local coverage at the Times is no good. Sure there have been some prize winners, but day-to-day it's pretty much useless to me. I've been a subscriber for 10 years and lived in Los Angeles my whole life, and local coverage has always been weak, boring, and does nothing to capture the essence or energy of Los Angeles. Fine reporters they may be (as spot coverage awards would suggest) but the tone, tenor, coverage choices, are all weak, boring, and unsatisfying.

Ted, I agree with you, though five Pulitzers
in one fell sweep is nothing to minimize.
Isn't it interesting a paper consider
so milquetoast and disinterested in its
own backyard has rounded up a number of
Pulitzers for local events?
Anyway, L.A. is really a one paper town
and that in itself is worthy of a full-blown
takeout.
Congrats to the Times and my friend
John Corrigan, who edited the Walmart
series.

OK, Ted: Fair enough. The Times' standard local menu is not that different from most newspapers: cops, courts, city hall and a handful of "usual suspects" -- people and institutions who are either the darlings (or demons) of editors and reporters. Without arguing the quality of reporting, I guess I'd agree that that standard menu is weak, boring and unsatisfying.

So, how would you change it? What would you like to see more of, coverage-wise? If you had the power, what stories, trends, institutions would you cover more (or less)?

The question's posed in good faith -- what the Times, as much as any newspaper, needs to do a better job of is tapping the interest of its readers.

The Pulitzers show that they have the horses to do local coverage well: when a major event occurs that galvanizes local interest, the Times does an amazing job of covering it.

So assume you're the Local News editor. How would you deploy them differently on a day-to-day basis?

OK, I would like to see more immediate coverage of events happening in the city, not 5 days later, but as soon as possible. And those events should be as broad and varied as the city itself, everything from Armenian concerts to break-dancing competitions to the Opera, etc. I'd like to see more stories on places, architecture, local landmarks, restaurants off the beaten path. I'd like to see more... 'brazen' is probably the wrong word, as is 'sensational', but there is a certain flavor that local city hall, police, crime, and civic stories can have without drifting into tablod territory which can make them a lot more interesting. I don't want the LAT to turn into the New York Post, but there is something to be said for the way that the 'Post' can make trivial local stories seem relevant, scandalous, and important to Joe Average (me). I'd like to see gossip of the local variety, I'd like to see LA street trends in terms of fashion, street art, music, etc. covered with more vigor and actual interest. I'd like to see more stories about neighborhoods and how they're changing. I'd like to see graphs, stats, and hard info about my neighbors and about other neighborhoods in the city. I'd like to know who the richest people in the city are, and who are the poorest. I'd like to know about what cars we drive, and why. I'd like better coverage of the local broadcast media. I'd like more passionate coverage about anything that unites us as Angelenos, whether it be music, art, food, traffic, whatever. I'd like stories about local artists, eccentrics, haunts, dive bars, weddings, authors, dark moments in history, and scandals. I'd like great photographs of interesting local events, people, and places. I'd like trivia about the city which I can share with my co-workers...

Those are just the first things which come to mind. Obviously I have no idea how to accomplish them, but perhaps you can see that a common thread runs through everything I feel is missing, which is immediacy, sense of place, and love of the city , warts and all.

Nice work, LAT. Congrats to all the respective winners.

I agree about the need for local coverage to improve, however. The LAT often covers its own town like it's writing about some quirky, far-off travel destination.

Now, if they could just find a good advice columnist....

Better yet, it's long past time to leave "advice" columns to tabloids and teen zines -- where they belong.

I am curious why anyone sees any correlation between Pulitzers and merit? Walter Duranty from The New York Times in the 1930s won a Pulitzer for claiming that famine that was killing millions did not exist. The prize has never been rescinded. Janet Cooke at the WP won one for a fabricated story. I'm truly curious why anyone gives a hoot about an Oscar or a Pulitzer or an Emmy? I suspect empty people are seeking to latch on to something to give their lives meaning. If you know in your marrow that you are doing work with meaning, then these prizes have little importance.

I don't know, Luke. Why do porn people get so excited when they win an AVN award for "Best double-penetration scene" or "Best Girl on Girl?"

Because people like to be recognized by their peers for the work they do, no matter what it is.

Awards may be trivial, but when they register with us, they register emotionally. I was disappointed that Bill Murray did not win Best Actor. I am pleased that the Times won so many Pulitzers this year, because the attention is so hard-won. There are also the odd books that the Pulitzer lends well-deserved publicity to, especially in categories that we don't typically hear about, like poetry.

"Break dancing"? I don't think the Times can go back in time, no matter how badly it might want to. More stories on local landmarks--more on architecture? I'd be thrilled to see less--far less.

Congratulations to the Times STAFF on the Pulitzers...real people did the work, not the building.

That being said, Ted has a very valid point on local coverage.

This city, and this region, are among the most diverse and dynamic in the world, yet the neighborhoods and landmarks that make it what it is - and which are among the truly unifying forces in the lives of all angelenos - are constantly changing.

More coverage of communities and neighborhoods, and what forces are acting on them, for good and bad, are a huge part of what the Times needs to do to get and keep me as a subscriber.

> And those events should be as broad
> and varied as the city itself, everything
> from Armenian concerts to break-dancing
> competitions to the Opera, etc. I'd like
> to see more stories on places, architecture,
> local landmarks, restaurants off the
> beaten path.

I thought you were criticizing mainly the reporting and thoroughness of Section B or "California." But if your complaint about local coverage extends to things like opera or architecture, then the parameters of your comments certainly have to include other sections of the Times, Calendar in particular. In that regard, I think the paper has become somewhat better over the past 3 years, a few major gaps in its array of performing arts critics notwithstanding.

The Times' showing in the Pulitzers mainly means one thing: that the paper is finally and probably for the first time, truly in "the club". The Pulitzer committee is a clique that has always liked John Carroll (and disliked the LAT under its past managers and owners), the Bill Kovach crowd, the Gene Roberts crowd. Carroll has managed to deliver what the Chandlers had sought in vain to get by hiring Shelby Coffey -- acceptance. The journalism was good last year, but it's good every year. The writing was good last year, but it's good every year. The only real change is the names on the masthead -- they're names that are known and liked on the East Coast, particularly by the people who run mid-sized newspapers.

congrats to the times. they deserve it. but i completely agree with brad and ted's comments. it takes a certain amount of skill to make la boring and sometimes they plunge to lows that would freak out the cousteaus.

The LA Times does a great job covering "sexy," big local issues like Walmart and the fires. Their Pulitzer recognition there was much deserved.

Their macro-local coverage is fine. Their micro-local coverage is weak.

Their coverage, however, of local civic issues, land use, LAUSD, local government, the city council, and the like is very spotty at best.

On a local real estate development issue, for example, the Times just randomly runs stories seemingly unrelated to the newsworthiness of the event. There are three major land use battles in my area. The Times occasionally covers these, but there's no logic to the reporting. They'll completely ignore a major hearing or ruling, but then cover some minor twist or filing in the case.

Normally, such reportage would be the domain of smaller newspapers, as used to be the case. The Foothill Leader used to cover local issues in my area in great depth. The Times bought the Leader, however, then closed it down a few weeks later.

the times' local coverage gets a bad rap. their city hall staff is quite good. McGreevy in particular breaks stuff a lot, and Matea Gold did as well, but they keep moving her to national. the problem with that beat at least is it's hard to interest their editors in the stories. I heard last year they told McGreevy to write fewer stories. as for their other local coverage, I echo the previous comments.

Amen to comment about difficulty in interesting L.A. Times editors in good local stories...