LA Times unsure of how to cover Zell?

Speaking of Zell (in the previous post) and the differences between the print and online editions, there is an article that covers a rather sleazy story involving the Chicago magnate. It comes off as if the writer, Tony Perry, is trying not to piss off the boss and get his ass fired, nor that of Nicholas Goldberg, LAT op-ed editor.

Read it and wince at the contortions in the final paragraphs like I did. Is it just me or did he prove his contrary argument?

"We recognize that we have a responsibility to cover Sam Zell when he makes news -- which we have done on the opinion pages and elsewhere in the paper," Goldberg said. "But we also feel that we shouldn't give him excessive coverage.

". . . We asked ourselves whether we would publish this op-ed piece about a mobile-home-park owner's battle with the county of San Diego if it was not about Sam Zell, and we decided we probably would not."

In today's print edition, this article appeared in the California section at the bottom of page 3. In today's online edition, it is the NINETEENTH item in the California|Local link-- way, way down the page. In the online version of the print edition (follow that?) it is buried even further so as to be virtually invisible to the way most people use the Internets for news.

One thing seems certain to me: If a major media owner is accused of throwing elderly tenants out of mobile homes parks in SoCal that he also owns, it's news, especially to the city that his paper serves.