The newly departed LA Times editor Andres Martinez needs his own blog, but until that time, he's got LA Observed. He wrote an email about the lack of firm boundaries between news and editorial:

So Sue Horton, a senior news editor, takes it upon herself to call me up to suggest greater coordination between the news report and the opinion pages, as in the old days, and Julie Marquis feels empowered to email publisher David Hiller to lobby for his editorial page to pay closer attention to the newsroom's worthy investigative series, some of which, we felt on the editorial board, already came with their own built-in editorials, so what's the point?

In his resignation post yesterday, Martinez wrote:

I will not be lectured on ethics by some ostensibly objective news reporters and editors who lobby for editorials to be written on certain subjects, or who have suggested that our editorial page coordinate more closely with the newsroom's agenda

FBLA isn't all that shocked to learn that the LAT has some less-than-objective reporters wandering the halls.Too bad Cathy Seipp isn't here to write about this latest dustup at the paper.

The NY Times piece gives some backstory, and reveals that Martinez tried to influence the paper's own coverage of the story.

Around the blogosphere, Mickey Kaus wanted to read the Grazer section, which must be cold comfort to Grazer who's said to be disappointed and looking for a way to get the cancelled pieces to the public who don't seem to be panting for the section, judging by the comments at the LAT's website.