Sandy Banks' Tuesday column was about an event that drew thousands on Sunday -- and that wasn't covered otherwise in the L.A. Times.

"I was astonished to find no article in The Times regarding the EIF Run/Walk for Women held at the Coliseum," wrote Gerry Suzuki of Torrance on Sunday. "Did I somehow overlook it?  When 50,000 or more people  show up to support such a worthwhile fundraiser, it deserves attention. Most of the participants wore signs on their backs honoring several friends or relatives. You found space to report a rally of 400 parents supporting students of Crenshaw High and to report a march of about 400 in Hollywood supporting China's Olympics. Also an article about Ojai's Pastie Lady.  Are those items so important that there was no space left for an event involving more than 50,000? What kind of newspaper can ignore a topic  affecting so many local people?" Donna Trimingham of Redondo Beach wrote too: "How about next year you come walk with me and the 60,000 others or at least give us a paragraph or two in your paper."

It's not uncommon to get such complaints every month or two, given the fact that a region this size gives rise regularly to well-attended events, be they protest marches or fundraising rallies for a good cause.

Below is a partial list of the winners of the 2007 Los Angeles Times Editorial Awards; names of the recipients of the Editor's Prize* and a Special Citation* (see updates) will be announced at a staff gathering tonight.

Why would a Times article call the American Enterprise Institute "conservative-leaning," but not refer in the same article to the politics of the Mike Mansfield Foundation? Why do stories refer to the Brookings Institution variously as "centrist," "conservative" and "nonpartisan"?

Some readers have an answer to the inconsistent application of labels: They think it shows bias, saying it suggests that the reporter believes that one is mainstream and thus needs no label, while the other needs to be identified as somewhere relative to that norm.

The question was most recently raised on the April 23 article about a CIA report to Congress alleging ties between North Korea and Syria. Reader Norman Nathan of Los Angeles noted, "The article identifies the AEI as 'right-leaning' but it does not identify the Mike Mansfield Foundation as a 'left-leaning organization.' And the story gives no context as to the reasoning." In a follow-up phone call Nathan said he thought it showed liberal bias, and that furthermore, "I would have thought there would be a policy, a standard, consistent way of identifying foundations."

The April 23 article on North Korea-Syria ties reported that "disclosure of the relationship to the committees is likely to bring criticism from conservative lawmakers" who already believe that the U.S. has been too gentle with the government in Pyongyang. The story went on: "Danielle Pletka, a vice president of the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute think tank, said the congressional briefings were simply a step the administration needed to take to move forward." Here's the reference to the foundation: "'You'll have some outcry, but I doubt there are enough people on Capitol Hill even paying attention to oppose it,' said Gordon Flake, who follows the issue as executive director of the Maureen and Mike Mansfiel