And, The Ignorance Of Times Readers On The Left Coast

Must be something about newspapers called "Times." Mickey Kaus notes something interesting about the Los Angeles Times' coverage of the foiled terror plot story the other day.

"Too interesting! One major metropolitan newspaper story on the administration's alleged success in foiling Al Qaeda tells us, in its second paragraph, that

The reported plots aimed to strike a wide variety of targets, including the Library Tower in Los Angeles, ships in international waters and a tourist site overseas, the White House said last night. [Emph. added]

Another major metropolitan newspaper doesn't mention the possible targeting of L.A.'s tallest building. The paper that doesn't bother to mention the gripping Los Angeles angle would be the major newspaper of:

a) Los Angeles

b) Washington, D.C.

Time's up! Brendan Loy has the answer. .... P.S.: New L.A. Times editor Dean Baquet is quoted in Ken Auletta's New Yorker piece saying "we haven't mastered making the paper feel like it is edited in Los Angeles." Uh ... yeah! But how hard is that? Here's another pop quiz:

The L.A. Times doesn't report an allegedly foiled Al Qaeda plot against a Los Angeles landmark because of:

a) mid-level editors imbued with a numbing, pompous, fake-newspaper sensibility that instinctively sneers at any story that might rouse local animal spirits; or

b) budget cuts

Bonus question: Which of those two choices--(a) or (b)--do Times editors spend most of Auletta's piece whining about?"