V-J Day: Why No Articles on the 40th Anniversary?

How could the Los Angeles Times editorially ignore V-J Day on Aug. 14?

Was all the editorial hand-wringing earlier about the use of the A-bomb supposed to be recognition of the Americans who fought and/or died in the Pacific Ocean and Southeast Asia areas?

Was the brief story on Page 4 of the Aug. 15 issue (about an observance in San Francisco, properly on Aug. 14) supposed to make up for the lack of significant mention of the people’s V-J Day (as differentiated from the signing of official surrender papers later)?

True, you did run a front-page photo (Aug. 15) of Vice President Bush at an observance in San Francisco on Aug. 14. But the story stuck pretty much to Bush’s personal war record, his formal statement of the Administration’s present policy based on WWII’s lessons, and (virtually equal space) an account of some protesters not at the scene, but “nearby.”

But where in the story (or in any feature or the editorial pages) Aug. 14 or Aug. 15 was there any mention of the nation’s celebration starting about 4 p.m. Tuesday on Aug. 14, 1945, when war’s end was announced? Much less an editorial tip of the hat to those who fought the war that began when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor?

By what editorial yardstick is the actual, celebrated V-J Day 40th anniversary a casual second-day story inside the paper--while the 50th anniversary of Social Security and the 20th anniversary of the Watts riots are the subjects of long feature stories and editorials.

Jack Cornell

San Marino