Professor Estrich,

I ran the numbers for the LA Times and the NY Times from 1/1/05 through 3/15/05.
LA Times - 79.8% men, 20.2% women.
NY Times - 83% men, 17% women.

I also ran the numbers for both papers from 2/14/05 through 3/15/05.
LA Times - 76.8% men, 23.2% women.
NY Times - 84% men, 16% women.

Our campaign must have had a significant effect on the LA Times numbers, because they went up drastically since 2/14/05.  When compared to the LA Times January numbers, the difference seems too large to be a coincidence.
LA Times 2/14/05 - 3/15/05 = 76.8% men, 23.2% women
LA Times 1/1/05 - 1/31/05 = 85.7% men, 14.3% women

The LA Times in January was even worse than the NY Times in January.
LA Times - 85.7% men, 14.3% women
NY Times - 84% men, 16% women

Like you said, you can make the numbers show whatever you want.  If the author of the article had just looked at January, the story would have been much different.  Or if he had compared the LA Times in January to the LA Times after you started the campaign, the story would have been different.

Thank you,
Andrea