Publisher Eddy Hartenstein's note to Times staff:

I’m pleased to announce that Jim Newton has agreed to return to The Times to resume his duties as editor of the editorial pages. You all know Jim, so no introduction is needed. I would like to note that his decision to rejoin our enterprise, despite the demands of his book-writing career, is a vote of confidence in what we are trying to accomplish.

He’ll start on Monday and report to me.  In the meantime, Jim asked that I send along this note:

“As you all know, The Times has a special claim on my heart and I’m convinced that Eddy represents our best chance for sustaining and building great journalism. Given that, I’m delighted that he’s offered me the chance to return, and I’m thrilled to move back into my old office—the best in the building. See you all in a few days.”

Please join me in welcoming Jim back to the team.

The readers' representative office sometimes hears from readers who claim that the first thing they look at each day is the "For the Record" box on Page A2 (published online at a corrections link on the left bar of the latimes.com homepage). Whether it's an affinity for accuracy or a sense of schadenfreude that's behind their interest in the page, the readers are seeing the result of an emphasis on correcting the record that was strengthened eight or nine years ago at The Times.

The "For the Record" section also includes contact information for the readers' representative office. And many of the corrections and clarifications are there thanks to the participation of (as Jay Rosen at PressThink identifies them) the people formerly known as the audience -- those readers who contact The Times in an effort to help keep the published record straight.

Nowadays, The Times addresses inaccuracies that might have gone unnoted years ago. An opinion piece in Op-Ed in 2001 had Toni Morrison born in "Loraine," Ohio. At the time, a reader noted that the city is spelled "Lorain." No correction ran; today it would be corrected. Why the fuss over an E? It's simpler to acknowledge in writing all misspelled proper nouns rather than have staffers debate how many wrong letters of a name warrant correction.

Though some matters are black and white -- ages that are wrong, proper nouns that are misspelled -- in other cases, things are less clear. The section is called "For the Record" for a reason: Not everything is a correction. Sometimes entries simply clarify.

That gray area is where readers, editors, reporters and members of this office often find themselves wrangling over what warrants a for-the-record. Just one recent example: Did the headline and Sept. 10 editorial about the 99 Cents Only Stores upping prices to 99.99 cents deserve a for-the-record? The headline read "The almost 1% solution." Mathematics-minded readers pointed out that the price change wasn't "almost" 1%. But the editorial referred to a "1% price hike," then said, "or rather, a price hike that approaches 1%." Was the thing wrong? Misleading? Yes, and no. Because the correct figures were in the article, it was decided that for the average reader it wasn't a correctible offense. But -- although letters to the editor cannot be used in place of a for-the-record -- letters-page editors did decide to publish on Sept. 14 a reproval from Christopher Hoffman of Long Beach. As Hoffman pointed out, "A 0.99-cent increase is not 'a price hike that approaches 1%,' it equals 1% exactly. Simple math: 101% of 99 is 99.99. Or 99.9900000000 -- without rounding, the need for a parabolic curve or anything else."

What has brought the most debate in the newsroom these days are questions raised by the fact that The Times publishes constantly, on the Internet.

Here's a memo to the staff from Foreign Editor Bruce Wallace and Managing Editor Davan Maharaj:

We are very pleased to announce that John Glionna is joining The Times’ foreign staff to contribute to our coverage across Asia. We’re all familiar with John’s superb work, not only from the Bay Area where he has been based since 2000, but as a roving pinch-hitter on the foreign staff producing stories ranging from the aftermath of a Pakistan earthquake to the 50,000 Filipinos who live among the dead in a Manila cemetery.

John grew up in Syracuse, New York and graduated with a BA degree in English and American literature from the State University of New York at Buffalo. His first job was as a copy clerk for the Washington bureau of the New York Times, but moved to the writing side of the business soon after. He began at the Virginian-Pilot in Norfolk, moving to the Kansas City Star and San Diego Tribune before joining The Times San Diego County edition in 1989. He later worked at the paper’s San Fernando Valley edition as a metro reporter, and was a state reporter based in Santa Monica.

Below are links to some of the past week's columns by ombudsmen, readers' representatives and editors around the nation. More columns and information about ombudsmen in the U.S. and around the world can be found at the Organization of News Ombudsmen website (which has a permanent link on the right side of this page).

L.A. Times editors wanted to acknowledge the seventh anniversary of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington in the Sept. 11 print edition. So they published two articles on the front page -- a report on the weakened state of Al Qaeda (even as officials worry about how the threat of terrorism is evolving), and a story about the presidential candidates' similar platforms on Iraq, Afghanistan and national security. Editors also put a story and photo on the Nation page about a memorial at the Pentagon ("the first national memorial to the victims of that tragic day," according to the story), and another news article on the front of the California section about an assistant religious studies professor at UC Davis who has studied what he calls "the most complete audio library of Bin Laden's past."

But for some readers, the photo choice on the front page Thursday apparently overshadowed the stories: On Wednesday, the Angels beat the Yankees 4-2 to clinch the American League West -- the team's fourth division title in five years -- and the image on A1 on Thursday showed outfielder Reggie Willits getting dunked in a tub after the win.

Nearly 20 readers had comments like the phone message from Eileen Ales of Malibu on the readers' representative phone line: "This is 9/11 and how do you cover it? How soon we forget."

Debra Tenzer of Los Angeles did see the stories, and in a follow-up call said that she appreciated them. But her voicemail message left early in the morning was this: "I was appalled to open the L.A. Times this morning -- on Sept. 11 -- and find a large photo of the celebrating Angels dunking in a tub of ice on the anniversary of one of the greatest tragedies our country has ever experienced. This is not like you. I highly enjoy The Times and am shocked that you would use such bad judgment and put this photograph above the fold on page one of this day."

"I noticed you had a big expose on Sarah Palin on the top of the front page last week. You just had to rain on her parade.  You had better open your eyes to the fact that there are conservatives who live in L.A. too," read part of an e-mail from Barbara Hardesty of Los Angeles.

The Times heard from the other side of the aisle as well, getting a number of comments like this one from Pat Taylor of Calabasas: "I must comment on the inclusion of an article blasting Joe Biden, printed not 24 hours after his nomination.  Your bias is showing and has been each day of the Democratic convention."

Most readers who took the time to contact The Times about coverage of the conventions did so because they were unhappy. Those front-page examinations of the vice presidential candidates were but two specifics readers named. Dozens of others thought the front-page report on Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnancy was inappropriate; they thought the overall coverage of the GOP vice presidential candidate was too negative. Among complaints from the other side, a number of readers asked why the Los Angeles Times hadn't challenged a statement that Palin made in her speech about Obama's record in the Senate.

Below are links to some of the past week's columns by ombudsmen, readers' representatives and editors around the nation. More columns and information about ombudsmen in the U.S. and around the world can be found at the Organization of News Ombudsmen website (which has a permanent link on the right side of this page).

The performance of latimes.com, and recent developments there, are covered in this memo to staff from Executive Editor for Interactive Meredith Artley.

Colleagues: Let’s start with some mentions of outstanding coverage this month.

The Olympics team raised the bar for event coverage. Highlights included:

• A continually updated, visually dynamic blog with links to daily articles, a wide range of unique multimedia, links to other sites, fun features like “while you were sleeping” updates and Philip Hersh’s “Phil Cam,” all browsable by sport from swimming to archery.
• Great video coverage. As Mike James said, “Plaschke was everywhere,” and we got it all on video from his soul-searching homage to a giant statue of Shaq to taking on the IOC. The team contributed dozens of unique videos.
• Stunning, daily photo galleries and great images from the archives. Browse the entire collection here.
• The collection of graphics included simple, elegant explainers on gymnastics and swimming.

Amazing stuff. Congratulations to the Olympics team, who may have sent subtle signals that they were in need of rest after it was all over. 

Deputy Managing Editor Melissa McCoy last week distributed The Times' Taste and Obscenities policy, and as her cover note to the staff said, the biggest change is that the guidelines now look more closely at online content. What hasn't changed is the overall goal: "to maintain a clean, dignified and civil tone."

So much of what The Times publishes now lives in the Wild West of the Web, where practices differ considerably from the relatively staid world of print. That's why, starting some 18 months ago, a Standards and Practices Committee was convened to consider how The Times might change various editing and publishing procedures. When it comes to cussing, the group saw no reason to lower the standards from the ruling that has existed since the guidelines came out several years ago.

That's the reason, for example, a story on Dec. 16 in Calendar in the midst of the writers strike quoted veteran Letterman writer Bill Scheft as saying that "David Letterman, on the air without writers . . . is the greatest ally the writers would ever have, because he would rail nightly. He could be more influential as an on-air stone in people's shoes. "

In fact, what Scheft had said to reporter Matea Gold was, "David Letterman, on the air without writers, pissed off, is the greatest ally the writers would ever have, because he would rail nightly. He could be more influential as an on-air stone in people’s shoes."

"Pissed off" is among crude language regularly removed from Times coverage as part of what McCoy acknowledges is "a conservative standard" when it comes to publishing coarse or vulgar remarks. When the copy desk suggested the deletion and pointed to the guidelines (noting that "the rest of the quote is still strong and conveys the point"), the editor of the piece, Kate Aurthur, agreed to use the ellipsis but was disappointed. She says she finds the policy "infuriating": "As a media organization," she writes in an e-mail taking issue with the newly released policy, "we should certainly have high standards -- above all, to accuracy. To that end, we should reflect the world as it is, even if we don't like how people talk sometimes. I would argue that being able to quote someone in full goes to that most important goal of accuracy, rather than what is to me a slightly scolding, prudish language policy. We might pretend otherwise, but changing that quotation changed its meaning. Why would we ever do that?"

Along with Aurthur, a few other staffers also argue that the paper's role is to reflect the community and greater society. To that, the policy says this: "We acknowledge that a wide range of vulgarities are commonplace on the Internet and elsewhere, but we intend to maintain a much higher standard." And the subjective nature of editing means even those who support that goal differ -- an editor or writer who might flinch at allowing "he sucks" in a story might not hesitate at allowing the word "hell," or vice versa.

Clark Stevens oversees the style and usage guidelines at The Times and has his own take on the use of an ellipsis in the quote about Letterman: " 'Pissed off' is an interesting example because it's on the borderline. It's not, in itself, obscene, but it is a crude colloquialism. Would it offend some readers? A few, no doubt, but probably only mildly. It's a phrase we've all heard, and most of us have used. But is it essential to the story (or the quotation) here, and is it consistent with the overall tone and image we want to project to our readers? I think that's where conservative judgment prevails in favor of not using it. But it's a close call and a subjective one, with no hard and fast rule to govern it. And there shouldn't be a hard and fast rule. We depend on the very wide range of often conflicting opinions of writers and editors here to ultimately come up with language that is clear and accurate, evocative and contemporary, refined but realistic."

The policy for the first time takes into account the online world vs. the print world. As McCoy wrote in her cover note to staff when she distributed the updated guidelines on obscenity and taste, "A less formal voice may be appropriate in online stories and on blogs (as is often the case in feature stories too), but a conversational style is not an invitation to abandon The Times’ high standards by introducing gratuitous obscenities."

So whether it's on latimes.com or in print, curse words and crude language are supposed to be used only when they are essential to conveying an important point of the story. As just one example of a very complex issue, The Times might quote obscenities used by an elected official if they were spoken in the middle of a campaign in which he's portraying himself as a family man.

The policy follows below, or can be found at this link.

Below are links to some of the past week's columns by ombudsmen, readers' representatives and editors around the nation. More columns and information about ombudsmen in the U.S. and around the world can be found at the Organization of News Ombudsmen website (which has a permanent link on the right side of this page).