• by George Simpson , Featured Contributor, October 16, 2006

A team of Los Angeles Times editors, reporters, and columnists has returned from its globe-trotting "Manhattan Project" and submitted to management its proposal to "reimagine" the struggling daily. "Over the Line" has obtained a copy and provides a top-line look at the findings:

1) Staffing. There should be no cuts in newsroom personnel. After all, it is not the province of the state to lay off pontiffs, imams, prelates or ministers, is it? How about cutting out those country club memberships and first-class flights that top management enjoys--and tell the sales guys to skip Spago and stick with Pie 'n Burger. Use savings to upgrade editorial pension plan.

2) Too much boring news. Audiences are getting their news elsewhere and not waiting for the Times to provide its own "take." All foreign news will be relegated to digests of no more than 100 words per country, unless the natural disaster/genocide/ insurgency/invasion/incursion/nuclear meltdown/flu/ferry sinking body count exceeds 1,000--then the story can have an extra 25 words and, if possible, a gruesome photo.

Economic news will be organized under four headings: Your House; Your Car; Your Stocks; Plasma TVs, with editors allowed only to provide two words of copy in 28-point type under each heading--either BUY TODAY or SELL TODAY.

Political news will be incorporated under set headings that will run every day: Leaks We Got; Leaks We Wish We'd Gotten; What Matt Is Saying; Today's Scandal; Stupid Things Bush Said Yesterday; Stupid Things Our Governor Did Yesterday.

3) Stop paying the cost of gathering facts and figures. When you do a cost analysis of triangulating sources and fact-checking, you will find that since audiences are now citing Jon Stewart as a trusted source and getting their news from guys who sit up all night drinking Red Bull and pounding out secretly sponsored Wal-Mart blogs full of nonsense, it simply costs too much to get the story "right." We could save millions if we did what everyone else does: repurpose press releases and ask kids on Facebook who did what to whom. Hell, they know before we do, anyway. Use savings to upgrade editorial lunchroom.

4) Trim size. We are simply too large to line birdcages, wrap fish or homeless feet--the only enduring uses for newsprint. Suggest we size according to aluminum foil guidelines. Use savings to upgrade editorial health plan.

5) More naked girls. The U.K. guys we had a few pints with credited more than 30 percent of their newsstand sales to naked models, celebrity nipple-slip-ups and photos bought from paparazzi encamped in trees overlooking movie stars' backyard swimming pools. This is a town full of beautiful young women trying to get noticed. We could encourage jpeg submissions and get them by the hundreds. Why should the studio guys have all the fun?

6) Too much emphasis on the downtrodden. The one thing we learned is that our readers are fundamentally white, upper-middle-class white people who couldn't give two shits about the plight of the homeless, migrant workers or illegal aliens, and get pissed every time we run a story that says they should be paid at least minimum wage and get some health care for yard work, housekeeping and child care. Interestingly, readers love stories about blacks burning down their own neighborhoods during their periodic jury-decision riots.

7) Onerous expense accounting. The cost of time spent filling out editorial expense accounts is greater than the fraud that might accrue if we just threw out itemized expense forms. Instead, we will simply submit weekly e-mails with a lump sum payment that we think should cover everything. Hey, if you can't trust the editors of the L.A. Times, whom can you trust?