Though The Times' Jan. 21 coverage of the inauguration brought sold-out newsstands and multiple press runs, it also spurred some quibbles and questions, with multiple comments made along three lines: lack of color in Wednesday's special section; allegations of a missing president in a montage on Sunday's special section; and criticisms of the Jan. 21 headline.

• Some readers complained there were too few full-color photographs in Wednesday's extra main section. Wrote Anne M. Brown of Fullerton: "Except for the color photograph on the front page and the crowd shot on the special section, there were no color photographs presenting the first couple during the inauguration or the attire worn by the first couple for the inauguration balls. Nothing to capture the event in the bold, striking way that color would have. You show the Hollywood stars in all their radiance when attending award shows, but this historic event is relegated to black and white."

As Brown pointed out, Page A1 featured a huge (full color) photo of the president being sworn in, but Pages A19 to A46, a separate section labeled "The Inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama," included only seven news pages with color. Blame it on the capacity of the presses: Printing a page in color requires that it be processed four times, which limits the number of such pages for a day's edition. Editors and the advertising department juggle which pages will get color.  (Those photos and more were online and in color.)

• Of the main headline on Jan. 21, "Obama Calls for Hope in Face of Cold Reality," with the deck headline reading, "A tearful yet jubilant crowd hangs on the president's words as they echo across the National Mall," Christopher and Barbara Haire wrote that they were disappointed: "The L.A. Times missed the mark with their sober headline for their offering about the inauguration of an American president. People wanted a headline to celebrate with, and one they could pass down to their children and grandchildren; one that cried out about this mark in history, this momentous event. It did nothing for us. Sorry!"

Executive Editor John Arthur oversees the front page; senior copy chief Tim Lynch wrote the headline. They knew the fact that this was America's first inauguration of an African American president meant  the page would be a historical keepsake. But they wanted to balance the unprecedented nature of the event with the breaking news too -- what the new president said. How they did that, and what other newspapers showed on their fronts, follows the jump. 

The lines outside The Times' Spring Street lobby are reminiscent of those on Nov. 5, when giddy crowds gathered to buy copies of the newspaper that recorded the historic election of Barack Obama as president. According to Times staffers arriving to work, people were lined up as early as 5:30 a.m.  Director of customer relations Carole Stein says that when she got to the building, people were in lawn chairs outside awaiting the hour the lobby would open for sales of the Jan. 21 newspaper. In fact, sales started at 7, an hour earlier than planned, prompted by the enthusiasm and numbers of people seeking the paper and other mementos of yesterday's inauguration.

An extra 250,000 copies were produced last night, and readers from around the country are calling to ask where they can buy today's Times; supplies are being restocked at all store locations throughout the day.

In any case, more are on the way: The circulation department had churned out more than 100,000 additional copies, for a total of about 350,000 as of noon.

Fans of "Battlestar Galactica" were angry about Saturday's story in Calendar, and if you haven't seen the show that aired Friday, do not read the second half of this post. Here was one of the more civil comments: "If you had half a brain (which it is clear you do not), you would have had some sort of spoiler alert in the headline and no photo.  Seriously people, get a clue."

Also among the less-insulting notes was this: "On the front page of your Saturday edition Calendar section, you published a major spoiler about the episode of 'Battlestar Galactica' that aired the night before. I had not had an opportunity to view the show yet, and had been trying to avoid learning any secrets about the show until I did so. The article had no spoiler warning, and included a photograph that ensured that even a casual glance would give the secret away. I am a long-time Times subscriber and do not read your paper to have my enjoyment of TV shows ruined. This was an incredibly stupid and inconsiderate thing to do."

Seriously, if you don't want to know, please don't read on.

A few readers have sent notes along the lines of that sent by Gretchen Armato of Santa Barbara, who asked by e-mail: "I would like to know why the paper is no longer reporting on the Phil Spector trial. I enjoyed your coverage of the last trial and am very interested in the current one as well. Will you be reporting on it any time soon?"

Spector is accused of killing actress Lana Clarkson at his Alhambra mansion Feb. 3, 2003; the first trial ended in a jury deadlock in September 2007. From coverage of the opening statements in April 2007 to the Sept. 27 piece reporting that jurors failed to reach a verdict, The Times published more than 100 news articles.

Times coverage of Spector's retrial started again in mid-October with selection of new jury. Trial No. 2 is turning out to be a bit more of the same, but The Times is still keeping an eye on it, says California Editor David Lauter.  His e-mail response to readers asking for more on the Spector trial follows.

The final tryout as features editors invite readers to decide whether a strip should replace "For Better or For Worse" is announced today in Calendar. Here's the note:

To Our Readers

"Stone Soup" joins the Calendar section today for five weeks. This new comic strip is one of four that we are asking readers to sample as a possible replacement for “For Better or for Worse,” which is now in reruns. "Stone Soup," by Jan Eliot, will continue until Feb. 22. Then we'll make a selection. Please email your comments to comics (at) latimes.com and include your name and city.

Back in August, a post about "For Better or For Worse" started it all. Earlier posts on this journal also introduced Luann,  Between Friends, and Home and Away.

Panel from "Stone Soup" courtesy Universal Press Syndicate

"Job losses highest since 1945," was the headline on Saturday's lead story, which started out by saying that jobs were "disappearing in numbers not seen since the end of World War II." A few sentences later, the story reported, "The nation's unemployment rate rose to an eye-popping 7.2% in December and brought the total jobs lost for the year to the largest number since 1945, the Labor Department said."

The monthly jobs report from the Labor Department often earns a place on the front page of the L.A. Times, but in this case, reader William Girvetz of Ojai questioned the comparisons: "Without denying that there appear to be disturbing upheavals taking place and that loss of jobs, particularly recently, is one symptom, I do not find any support in your article for concluding that the situation is comparable to that which existed in 1945 at the end of World War II.... Although there may be a lot to be concerned about, I see [your analysis] along with the headline as somewhat more dramatic than is called for."

The Washington Post and the New York Times each played the story on their Business fronts. The Post headline was, "Jobless Rate Jumps to 7.2%; Firms Cut Jobs as Well as Hours." The (other) Times said, "Broad job losses as companies face sharp downturn." Neither painted the picture as bright -- the Post story quoted someone as saying the economy is in a free-fall and the New York Times said "economists fell over themselves in describing the dire nature of the jobs report."

But was the comparison to 1945 the most accurate way to portray today's situation?

The decision to discontinue Al Martinez's weekly column has brought to the newsroom e-mails and calls from dozens of readers. Here is a note that California Editor David Lauter has sent to many who have written:

Russ Stanton forwarded your message regarding Al. You and I may not agree on the subject, but I'd like to explain our reasons.

As everyone knows, we're in the midst of the worst economic slowdown since the 1930s. Newspaper revenue, which comes overwhelmingly from advertising, is way down and is likely to drop even further over the course of the year as stores go out of business and those that remain cut back on the number of ads they run. As a result, we have to find ways to economize. And that means we have to make difficult choices. As California Editor, I've been happy to have Al's column in my section. He's a good man and a fine writer, and he's been part of the Times for many years. But my primary mission has to be news coverage. So when I'm looking at the budget, I have to weigh Al's column against things like keeping our Sacramento bureau operating to tell you and other readers what the governor and legislature are up to, or reserving money to buy fire gear to protect our reporters and photographers when they are in the field covering Southern California's  repeated wildfires.

David Krolik of Orange sent a note seeking correction. Other readers have been bothered as well by what the Los Angeles Times, and other news organizations, call President-elect Barack Obama. Krolik wrote: "You, along with EVERY OTHER media outlet have branded him, 'The first African American president.'  You are VERY WRONG. From what I understand, Obama's black father wasn't around very much, and his mother was white. Isn't it true that our president elect was raised by his WHITE grandmother?  If so, why aren't you reporting that he is the first MIXED RACE president?"

For Times editors, the answer is simple: Times news stories call Obama what the president-elect calls himself. And, as a Nov. 28 article in The Times put it, "Obama, 47, has historically described himself as 'black' or 'African American.' "

Clark Stevens, who oversees style and usage, felt the question had been settled some time ago. "We generally refer to people as they perceive and present themselves, especially if that's the way they're perceived and presented in the world at large. From the beginning, Obama's background has been thoroughly described and discussed by him, by us and by many other media outlets."

The announcement to Times staff from Editor Russ Stanton:

Al Martinez is not retiring, but his weekly column is. Al's last column in the California section will appear on Monday, Jan. 19. Al has been a member of our staff for 28 years and a columnist since 1984. We are working with him on some ideas so that his legacy of insight, stylish writing and passion for the underdog will continue to appear in both the paper and on the website.

Peter Apanel of Portland, Ore., was counting noses, not smelling the roses, when he read the day-after story on the Rose Parade. His e-mail said: "The Times reported that an estimated 700,000 people attended this year's Rose Parade. That figure is obviously false, so I'm wondering why The Times continues to report false attendance figures year after year."

Apanel's comments led California Editor David Lauter to send his own message to the staff (see below) about the problems in providing crowd counts and offering some guidelines for avoiding the sort of errors Apanel had noted.

Here's the passage from the Jan. 2 story that drew Apanel's attention: "More than 700,000 people lined the parade route, a fire official said, the biggest crowd count in three years -- thanks in part to the warmer weather, which climbed into the 70s. It was the kind of bright, clear day that parade boosters have long used as a floral-scented advertisement for sunny Southern California."

Readers so often raise questions about crowd estimates in stories that there's an entry in the "frequently asked questions" part of this journal.

As for the Rose Parade, as a Times story in 2003 reported, "it's almost impossible to come up with accurate estimates of the crowds that pack the route each year. Tournament officials long claimed that 1 million people attended the parade -- a number that researchers at Caltech have said is statistically impossible. Last year, the Tournament estimated parade attendance at 800,000, attributing the lower turnout in part to fears brought on by the 9/11 attacks." (The Jan. 2, 2002 story said, "While broadcasters trumpeted the traditional crowd estimate of 1 million, police and veteran parade-goers said the crowd seemed slightly smaller this year.")

The Dec. 25 story of Bess the cat hit feline lovers in wildly different ways.

More than 50 readers said they were touched by the tale. But almost 40 others were quite angry -- angry enough that reporter Kim Murphy was moved to write a note to those who were upset (see below).

Reader Donn Walker of St. Louis was one who sent praise: "I want you to know how enormously touched I was by your story today about Bess. As a longtime cat lover -- with a beautiful feline who looks just like Bess -- your story just grabbed me by the throat, and the heart, and still hasn't let go. I'm so happy you found her before it was too late. I wish you -- but more importantly, Bess -- much health and happiness in the coming year."

On the other hand, reader Leslie McMichael of North Hollywood was expecting something else: "I read with great anticipation the article about Kim Murphy's cat, Bess. Christmas morning, a feel-good story about pets sounds good. What I got was a heart-wrenching story of why some people should not be pet owners. The London Rescue had it right not to give Ms. Murphy a cat. Ms. Murphy told of escapades of her other cats and their predicaments, but she never thought to look in the window seat for Bess or eveywhere and anywhere and never give up? What does it say about how Bess felt, that she could not call out for help or even try to escape, too trusting or not enough trust of her family?"

And so it went, from this sentiment: "I'm sure everyone is writing to you saying how wonderful your piece was, and how they cried unabashedly at the ending. .. count me in as one more" (from Stephanie Daniels in Signal Mountain, TN) to this: "I'm perplexed as to why The Times would publish this terrible story on Christmas Day. Is this your idea of uplifting? At what point do all these cat 'accidents' become a pattern of negligence?" (from Ari Solomon of Los Angeles).

First, the answer to the two biggest questions from unhappy readers:

How could she miss the cat meowing all those weeks? Said Murphy in her note: "This cat NEVER meowed. Not once. We sat on that window seat every single day of her disappearance, and never heard ONE SOUND until the night she was discovered." 

And why did the story run on Christmas Day? This was "a good choice for anyone who believes in unexpected blessings," as editors on the National desk said when they pitched it.

As reporter Murphy put it in her e-mail to upset readers, "I have gotten many wonderful e-mails from people about my story of Bess, and a whole lot from readers who were shocked at what happened to Bess, and my lousy record of pet ownership. Let me start by saying that none of these reactions came as a surprise to me. As a lifelong cat lover (I find I am someone who likes animals better than people in  many ways), there is no way I would have put all that in the story without knowing how many people (such as myself) would react."

"I am sending this out in an attempt to explain what happened, and why I wrote the story as I did. Many of you will dismiss this as a sorry attempt to make excuses. Well, it is."

As evidenced by the comments that have come in on last week's announcement that Michael Hiltzik would again be writing a column for The Times, some readers recall that the paper chose to take away Hiltzik's column in 2006, and wonder why management changed its mind. The essence of the response from editors: Hiltzik has redeemed himself.

Russ Stanton, now editor of The Times, was Business editor when Hiltzik's popular column for the Business section was discontinued. As the editor's note published at the time said, Hiltzik had been found to be violating The Times' ethics guidelines by using pseudonyms to post comments on the Web that dealt with his column and other issues involving the newspaper.

Readers were also told in the 2006 editor's note, "Mike did not commit any ethical violations in his newspaper column, and an internal inquiry found no inaccurate reporting in his postings in his blog or on the Web."

Since his column was pulled in 2006, writes Stanton, Hiltzik "has been an invaluable asset to the paper. He has earned the right to return as a columnist." In those two years, more than 35 news articles written by Hiltzik have been published on the front page. Stanton says editors believe that what readers can learn from Hiltzik the columnist will be as trustworthy as what he's delivered in his news reports.

*Update - A reader asks in a comment below: "Yes, but he will still be able to do stories?" Says Business Editor Sallie Hofmeister: Yes he will, although with two columns a week, he will have less time to write stories. 

Business Editor Sallie Hofmeister's memo to Times staff:

Michael Hiltzik, one of the paper's most prolific writers and distinctive voices, will return to being a columnist for the Business section. 

A 27-year Times veteran, Michael has distinguished himself since returning to Business a year ago (after a brief stint in Sports) with smart, analytical stories, many of which have been followed by our competitors.

"Masterful piece of research and writing, " wrote Leah Sullivan of Pasadena.

"What in the world are you people doing?" asked Jim Schupp of Los Feliz.

Readers reacted in the extreme to the "Through Prison Glass" series, a highly detailed examination of a hardened criminal, his crimes and his decades-long relationship with an intelligent, accomplished woman. Readers who followed the three-part series wondered what would happen to the couple and why she stayed in love with him. Readers who didn't follow the story had their own questions: Is The Times a place for storytelling? Was this a story worth telling, and did it belong on Page A1?

In all, more than 200 readers praised the storytelling; some 100 others complained about The Times' publishing what many called a "human-interest" story on the front page (on Nov. 30, Dec. 2 and Dec. 4). Both sets of readers had one thing in common: Many called themselves longtime readers and subscribers.

Three editors -- two who oversee choices for the front page, and one who edited the series -- responded to the readers' concerns.

"Well-written character studies of unusual people have been part of the fabric of the L.A. Times for 40 years. We realize that not all of them will appeal to all readers, but this one did strike a chord with many," said Craig Turner, weekend editor. And from Executive Editor John Arthur: “We present these stories as significant parts of the front page because they are beautifully written and tend to involve readers."

More from readers, editors and the reporter follows.

The memo to Times staff from Editor Russ Stanton and Calendar Editor Rich Nordwind:

Betsy Sharkey, who has spent the last 10 years helping to guide our entertainment coverage, will refocus her skills on two of her great loves, writing and movies, in a new assignment: film critic. She'll join lead film critic Kenneth Turan to form a powerful team reviewing movies and commenting on the world of cinema.

Betsy joined The Times in 1998 as the television editor and quickly brought a new energy to the coverage, shepherding a hard-hitting series that looked at the lack of diversity in prime time. Since then, she has been responsible for the revamp and relaunch of Weekend Calendar and then became film editor, working with our critics and reporters to bolster our coverage of the increasingly complex world of movies and the constellation of stars who populate it.

Most recently, Betsy has been entertainment editor, responsible for directing the movie, television and pop music coverage and helping to launch The Envelope's highly successful print edition. She also has helped with the strategic rethinking of the paper's mission as a member of the Reinvent committee.

The Times is giving a new strip a trial run in the spot where "Luann" has been. Here's the note to readers that appears in Calendar starting today:

"Home and Away" joins the Calendar section today for five weeks. This new comic strip is one of four that we are asking readers to sample as a possible replacement for “For Better or for Worse,” which is now in reruns. "Home and Away," by Steve Sicula, will continue until Jan. 18. After that we’ll sample one more comic, then make a selection. Please email your comments to comics(at)latimes.com and include your name and city.

For those keeping score, yes, the game of picking a new strip is going into overtime: The editor who oversees the comics pages, Sherry Stern, says, "We originally planned to offer three comic strips for readers to try out, but we've decided to sample a fourth, which will begin after 'Home and Away' ends its trial run on Jan. 18."

Here's the note to the staff from California Editor David Lauter:

I'm very happy to announce the return to our ranks of a highly creative and esteemed journalist, John Hoeffel, who will move into the role of state editor. In this assignment, John will supervise the work of our San Francisco and San Diego bureaus as well as our reporters on the Central Coast, Steve Chawkins and Kay Saillant. He'll also work with reporter Dan Morain, who is taking on a new assignment that will involve statewide stories.

As many of you know, this is a return engagement for John, who worked as both state editor and local government editor in Metro before moving to the Washington bureau in 2006, where he handled coverage of Congress and domestic policy. He returned to Los Angeles earlier this year as co-director of the presidential campaign coverage. In each of his assignments, John's work has been notable for his strong news judgment, the thoroughness of his thinking and his dedication to excellence and high standards.

John came to The Times in 2004 from the San Jose Mercury News, where he worked five years, holding jobs as government and politics editor, deputy city editor and national and foreign editor. Before that, he worked for newspapers in the Carolinas and in Washington for the Winston-Salem Journal. He is also, I believe, the only person currently on the Metro staff with a degree in chemistry (Cornell, 1983). Now, he will take that wealth of experience and use it to guide our statewide staff, whose terrific journalism has long been one of the distinctive aspects of the The Times. Please join me in congratulating John on this assignment.

Thomas Wall of Rancho Palos Verdes wrote, "I did not think I would ever write to complain about the contents of an article by S. Irene Virbila concerning how to make a turkey pot pie, but my ethics require me to do so. I am referring to her otherwise excellent article [Nov. 26].  Her writing has compelled me to try the recipe. My concern, however, is very serious. She writes, 'This year, Ralphs had turkeys on sale for 37 cents a pound...'."

"She could have easily written, 'This year, turkeys were on sale at some stores for as low as 37 cents a pound.' I am concerned that the reason Ms. Virbila identified a particular store was that the store was a major advertiser with The Times. It is no secret that The Times, like other newspapers, are having severe economic problems, but to identify their major advertisers in major stories is something that even a small local paper would, I hope, have the ethics not to do."

Food Editor Russ Parsons assures us that the inclusion of that reference  had nothing to do with pleasing an advertiser. But it never occurred to the editor or reporter that including such  information might come across to readers as a sign of complicity between the newsroom and the advertising department. 

Susan March  of Los Angeles was one reader who responded to the news first announced on Monday: "Given that Sam Zell/Tribune has declared bankruptcy, will I continue to see the L.A. Times on the doorstep each morning?  What is the status of the L.A. Times?" And there was this from Stewart Resmer in Santa Monica: "I cannot imagine my mornings without the newspaper. I don't know what you all will come up with to stay such a leading part of our lives, but let me say, the morning coffee crowd is in your corner."

Others, like Hank Pierson, wrote, "Sooner you fail, the better! You are totally left wing."

Dozens of readers responded with confusion, concern and condemnation to the news that Tribune Co. filed Monday for bankruptcy protection from creditors. Readers received some answers from a note from Publisher Eddy Hartenstein published online on Monday and in the paper Tuesday. Some readers sent financial suggestions; others named specific coverage they didn't like as either the cause or effect of the economic problems.      

Hartenstein's note let readers know that the day-to-day operations won't change as a result of the voluntary bankruptcy filing, so yes, readers will continue to receive the paper and see it on the newsracks around town. Editor Russ Stanton met with senior editors over the course of the day that the filing was announced. He encouraged editors to assure reporters that life in the newsroom (and elsewhere in the building) wouldn't be directly affected. Stanton and Hartenstein emphasized to readers and staffers that The Times continues making money (today's news story says, "Before the bankruptcy filing, the Los Angeles Times projected it would make $100 million this year, down from about $240 million two years ago.").

There's no way to know precisely how many readers have commented to The Times up to this point (transcripts of phone calls to the circulation department take a day or two to make it to the readers' representative office). But as of Tuesday the letters-to-the-editor department and readers' representative office each had received about two dozen e-mails and calls, and some 20 calls had come in to the circulation department as of Monday. Below are some samples.

Foreign Editor Bruce Wallace announces three new bureau assignments:  Reporter Mark Magnier transferring to New Delhi; Peter Spiegel replacing Magnier in Beijing; and Tracy Wilkinson being named bureau chief in Mexico City. Wallace's memo to Times staff follows.