What Do You Think of the A-Section Redesign?
Above-the-masthead sky boxes, a thousand headline-fonts blooming, a mix of 21st century sass and old-timey newspaper ALL-CAPS ... plus an intriguing note from new Publisher David Hiller. Thumbs up? Thumbs down?
And stay tuned tomorrow for the Opinion Section's inaugural appearance in the back of the A section, which will be accompanied by various editor's-note explainers and manifestos letting you know the who, where, when, why and how of what we do.
Dear LA Times,
I guess it was bound to happen. How can the Times cut costs and cover that heavy handed move? With a coat of junky, 10 years later graphic icing to fool dumb old Times readers? Why didn't you junk the logo? It doesn't fit a new "cool" newspaper. I say one way to save money is to remove a boss who thinks so little of his readers that he wants a great newspaper to look like USA today. "Different fonts, splashy photos, more adds, more previews, less stories, that’s what they want."
Nope, I'm out, cancel my subscription. After reading the paper at home to subscribing on my own, for a total of 40 years. I value continuity in this changing world., but I guess I have to change.
The regular reader doesn't want something dishonestly new sold to us in empty speak, and the "new" reader who would be attacked by flashy graphics is a myth. I know I worked in publishing for 30 years. I think I could go along with the change if it wasn't so obviously giving us more of less. Newsflash! Readers notice when there is less to read! Four cover stories instead of seven...
I'll re-subscribe when you go back to the old paper. I hate to do it, but I think it's the only way to be taken seriously. You guys made a history raping decision. Bush stuck in Iraq bad. Like him, you will have to eventually crawl back, If you do it quick you can save yourself, if you stay the course, you will be f****d. Sober up, there is still time, the bravest can admit their mistakes. Oh and Dave? You can go home now.
William Wray --
Posted by: william.wray@verizon.net | October 22, 2006 at 11:20 AM
So that would be a Thumbs Down?
A reminder, kids -- Please try to refrain from using the F-word & related unprintables, don't use the comments here to advertise your unrelated websites (though you can certainly throw a URL into the URL form), and if at all possible use your real name. Comments are "moderated," which means three things:
1) They have to be approved before they're posted.
2) It's me doing the approving (for now), and sometimes I'm not around a computer.
3) I (or others) can and will edit comments for seven-dirty-words language and gratuitous self-promotion.
That said, we are glad to take as much brutal criticism as you've got.
Posted by: Matt Welch | October 22, 2006 at 12:51 PM
My initial reaction this morning was negative. To be honest, however, it could simply be resistance to change.
FWIW, I still dislike the graphics on "Current" and I've had time enough to get accustomed to them.
I don't think the Times problems have much to do with the paper's look. I would rather see you invest on expanding the utility of the Web site.
Again, thanks for inviting responses.
Posted by: Tim McGarry | October 22, 2006 at 05:50 PM
As I heard my LA Times hit the driveway loudly, at six this morning, I rushed downstairs half dressed and out the front door in anticipation of how the new format would appear.
Once the plastic wrap was peeled away I searched through all the sections until I found what I was seeking, the Los Angeles Times famous front page. My first reaction was negative, seemed to look like an East Coast newspaper. But I had not consumed my morning cup of coffee and could not really be honest, as I am grumpy before having my fix of coffee.
After reading the Times Opinion Blog tonight, I placed the new section A out on my desk and have to admit, I like the changes the newspaper has made.
Coach Bob said:
“Someone once said that a definition of insanity goes something like this: doing the same thing over and over again the same way and expecting a different result.”
The Los Angeles Times must evolve, as we see it’s attempting to do.
Great Job everyone.
Posted by: Edward Padgett | October 22, 2006 at 08:49 PM
I agree with William Wray, the man above who is planning on cancelling his subscription.
I am not going to do that,at least not yet, but I do want to post a complaint about what you have done. I think that basically you have gone from tasteful to garish in the way the A section now looks. I am just simply dumbfounded that someone thinks that the new look is an improvement.
I am alarmed by what is happening to the paper. I worry about finding out that someone else has been axed.
Posted by: DeAnn Morris | October 22, 2006 at 11:02 PM
I too have been a Times subscriber for many years, and been saddened by continuing slippage in quality. The Times is now in free fall. The statement on the front page which says "on weekdays, the changes are even more pronounced".......These changes will highlight our best work" is so incredibly sad and pathetic. That men and women who consider themselves journalists consider this combination of enormous fonts, photos, ads and little substance in the Sunday A section of a major city paper as their "best work" is an embarrassment. My subscription also is being cancelled first thing tomorrow.
Posted by: Nansi Taggart | October 23, 2006 at 12:36 AM
All of the new features strike me as having absolutely nothing to do with what is most important to me in the paper--the quality of the journalism--and in fact it seems that these gimmicks will take up space for actual journalism. Combined with the Times' penchant for full page underwear ads from Macy's, can we soon expect articles to be the secondary mission of the paper?
I must agree with Nansi above. The redesign just seems like a desperate act, one that wasn't necessary in my opinion. I feel as if the Times has an insecurity problem, that we as readers must constantly be reminded that the Times is Significant, that it is just as important as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal.
The disconnect between the Times and those papers was symbolized when I looked at the front section of the Times next to the Sunday NYT, which I also subscribe to. On the left, the NYT front section looked staid, predictable, and somewhat boring. All of which would be negatives if I was looking for innovative design in my newspaper, but I'm not. I'm not saying that a newspaper must be boring looking in order to be good, but it also doesn't have to be snazzy. If anything, I think the new changes takes the Times away from its ambitions and the great papers that it likes to think of itself alongside.
Posted by: Evan | October 23, 2006 at 05:58 AM
What a dissappointment with the front page. I feel they should bring back our famous Eagle on front page. Our paper looks like a refurbished USA TODAY.
Posted by: Guillermo Benavides | October 23, 2006 at 08:19 AM
I like it a whole lot. Just a gut reaction, and no Doug Arellanes-level psychodynamic data to back it up. But the front page looks like it can kick more ass than before. And in a newspaper, I think that's a good thing.
Posted by: Ben Sullivan | October 23, 2006 at 09:45 AM
The L A Times has been trying too hard to appeal to the younger crowd that doesn't read, can't read etc, etc.... and probably never will subscribe to the physical paper. They need a different medium to attract them like the web and other future tech-driven devices. This current re-design alienates every reader who embraces quality journalism/content of the paper. This is a poor tummy tuck and face lift that is not necessary. The L A Times without the Eagle is not the L A Times. Change and evolution is good, but do it in a way that maintains the quality that has attracted us readers for many decades. We will stick with you and encourage the next generation. Please do not alienate us.
Posted by: Marcia Ho | October 23, 2006 at 10:39 AM
Re: The new changes at the LA Times
In a word - dreadful.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 23, 2006 at 11:16 AM
Reminds me of a major healthcare company I used to work for. When things got bad, they changed their name and moved. Looks like the Times is trying to glaze over some significant in-house problems by changing the "look" of the paper. I really like the Times (especially since I live in the OC) and wonder why a major, good paper has to have such a facelift when one was not needed in the first place. Seems to me your time and effort could be spent better addressing what's "in" the paper as opposed to how it looks.
Posted by: Lee Gross | October 23, 2006 at 11:26 AM
I have to laugh that Nicholas Goldberg thinks people don't understand the editorials are biased. Any twit knows that. The bias people dislke is in the "News" section, which is subtle (and not so subtle). And I see it every single day.
Due to lack of time, I haven't thoroughly perused today's paper. But I did have time to read this story in today's Times:
"Attacks on French police rise."
What group is attacking the French police? The article mentions some of the officers claim they are facing a "permanent intifada." (Oh, yay! The Times is now just giving us hints in place of news) And the article mentions problems with Ethnic Integration and minority youths....
Great! We have to guess...Is it a problem with the Dutch imnigrants? The Chinese? Is it the Buddhists who are attacking the French? You know if it were the Christians attacking the police you all wouldn't just give hints, but put it right in the headline. And I say this as someone who's never gone to church.
I happen to know that the hints at "Intifada," "gangs," "Ethnic integration" are all written in place of stating the facts: The French police are being attacked by MUSLIMS. Are you afraid to state this? Because if fear is going to lead your reporting, what good is reporting? Why don't you start giving us less scary stories about the world's best chocolate chip cookies or drawf tossing contests in Ireland.
I see this all the time. I believe this is one of the major problems people have with your paper and many other newspapers...and why people go to other sources that will state (without fear) what is going on in the world.
Changing around your font styles and editorials isn't going to change that people need to KNOW what is going on...not get hints which lead us to seek our news elsewhere.
Posted by: Michele | October 23, 2006 at 12:14 PM
One more thing...And, yes, I see I spelled immigrant wrong. But I was like a dervish of passion and my m's and n's were a blur...
Do you see that your esthetic changes will be akin to South-Central's name change to South Los Angeles? It still the same violent blood-bath every night - but, hey! Now it's got a brand-spanking new name.
Good luck...and I mean that. I love Sunday's West section, Thursday's Weekend Calendar, the indepth personal stories - I hope you guys actually improve more than your design.
Posted by: Michele | October 23, 2006 at 12:22 PM
Thumbs down--The Sunday Magazine was already dumbed down and made into supposedly a more trendy format that would appeal a young audience--who actually never read paper news anymore anyway. Now you're starting on the newspaper. The "new" front page looks very tabloid--very offensive to a long time subscriber who has been on the verge of cancelling for quite some time. Meanwhile, I'll keep my subscription to the NY Times for the news. That's why I still read a newspaper!
Posted by: wendy rossen | October 23, 2006 at 12:55 PM
A new font package and some “me-too” redesign isn't going to replace all the reporters and editors the Chicago-based owners have slashed.
As a long-time subscriber, I see that while the LA Times is profitable, the Tribune Company still tries to increase margins by destroying the one thing that truly makes a paper great: its newsroom expertise. And yet, my sub rates continue to rise? Why is that?
The only thing that keeps me subscribing is that 1) I want my children to grow up in a newspaper-reading household (your circulation managers can thank me for seeding your future market), and 2) the Orange County Register is a joke. If there were a decent competitor to the Times, I’d have dropped my sub to your paper in a heartbeat back during the first cuts, or perhaps when you dropped Robert Scheer.
I noticed that we’re not supposed to use the “F” word, so I’ll be more gentle. If the penultimate rule of publishing has been “know thy reader,” I’m going to have to assume the clowns back in Chi-town figure the adage meant “know” in the Biblical sense.
Nice knowing you?
Posted by: David Kopf | October 23, 2006 at 01:04 PM
Much of the new look is garish, choppy, chaotic, tabloidesque. Impression: Trying too hard.
But then I remember recoiling when the Times initiated its own special new font a couple/few years ago. I guess I like it just fine now.
Sunday's debut was made all the more awkward by a confusing front-page headline referencing "lax" standards for something -- the all-caps headline made it look like a story about LAX, but the words around it didn't add up to aviation... confusing... caused my wife and I separately to read and re-read the head a few times. Message: beware the wording of all-caps heds.
Posted by: Jake Skell | October 23, 2006 at 01:45 PM
Maybe due to my age (43) or my long-term association with the paper (I subscribed even before moving to LA 20 yrs ago), I view the current re-design as nothing more than an identity crisis, similar but deeper perhaps than a mid-life crisis. Like it or not, new people from Chicago, you have to carry the baggage of the folks who came before you - the many and recently departed. And now you are contributing in the exact same vein as they; where they moved the world news from front to back and back again, you're changing fonts and adding strips of screaming ads on the tops and bottoms of pages. They added two page "overview/index/synopsis" of the entire paper and you are just plain printing less stories. I ask you: what is the LA Times' identity? What do you want to be? Maybe you need to spend some time in the desert communing with your inner editorial soul to find out. A recent comment from one of your own writers suggested you focus on your strengths in west coast high tech/finances and the entertainment biz, all of which is relevant--albeit not particularly competitive nor urgent like world politics--but nonetheless important to your readers. Like those above me, I urge you to stop straddling the very large abyss that exists between USA Today and the NY Times, and instead, reach over, grab a spine and stake a claim: declare what it is you want to be and then just do it. But stop making us suffer through this crap.
Posted by: David Warren | October 23, 2006 at 02:01 PM
First thought: It's ugly.
Second thought: The typeface you're using for the top right corner is really bad; doesn't go with the rest of the page, too narrow, too tight to read easily - and that's the one you're using to sell the paper.
Third thought: Why are you going back to the NINETEENTH CENTURY for your front page design? (I've seen enough newspaper from that era to recognize it when I see it - and they covered local news much better than you guys have been doing.)
Posted by: P J Evans | October 23, 2006 at 02:10 PM
Okay. I'm going to lay this out there: I think that anyone who cancelled their newspaper subscription because of a change in fonts or type is a muppet.
Maybe there is a new look, Mr. William Wray, but last time I checked there were the same number of articles/column space devoted to international events and national news. The paper might look different, but the content (which is pretty good compared to most American papers) is still quality.
I don't care about the flashy new packaging. The LA Times still gives me the quality read that I've always found and that's okay.
Posted by: Marty | October 23, 2006 at 02:11 PM
Perhaps you could run a reader contest to see who can accurately guess how many different fonts you used on the front page?
It's time for a new look to an old newspaper, but you really should have brought in some bold design talent to destroy the old archetype instead of merely mixing and matching fonts.
Posted by: csufbomb | October 23, 2006 at 02:32 PM
I saw nothing wrong with the way the Times front page looked in the first place. I thought it was terrific, worthy of mention with other top papers in the US, e.g. noted East Coast papers. The content and writing matched the look.
Now, aesthetically, I'm confronted with several disparate fonts and the notion that merely changing the look will somehow improve the paper and increase circulation. The new look is dumbed down, USA Today-ified, McPaper. I don't need more pictures, more graphics, different fonts, etc. to enjoy the paper. And those whom you are obviously trying to attract are, well, probably not going to be constant readers/subscribers anyway, no matter how it looks.
Posted by: Kyle Baker | October 23, 2006 at 04:31 PM
i hate the design. pulling my subscriptioin becuase of it. the paper now looks like some cheap second class newspaper, usa today, pasadena star, etc... The Los Angeles Times used to stand for quality journalism but now it's going down. Improve the quality of the journalism. Don't change the design. It's just so awful. I can't even look at it let alone read it.
Posted by: mszeto | October 23, 2006 at 04:40 PM
Ask anyone who ever did professional graphic design . . . too many fonts was THE hallmark of amateur desktop publishing!
Posted by: Joe Reid | October 23, 2006 at 04:41 PM
My perceptions of the redesign are decidedly mixed. On the affirmative side, I am thrilled to see the editorial / op-ed page moved to the back of Section A, where it belongs. I also liked the different fonts on the headlines, namely the New-York-Times-esque all caps. The sub heads also looked good, though I wish the lines separating them were justified center.
The most confusing addition of the new look to me is why someone finds bold black lines so visually engaging. I believe one of the aspects that makes a paper visually engaging is how clean it looks. Having (10?) pt. lines at the top of sections and extra bold lines between stories buries the actual pieces of journalism. To me, the bold lines make the paper difficult to look at. I think the fonts and point size of lines are what make the Washington Post so sharp. (Would you ever consider its font for the copy? It's the easiest to read I've seen of any paper.) Regardless, I will certainly not cancel my subscription, as I believe the journalism produced in the Times rivals any paper in the country. (Just wait for the reactions when the New York Times leaves its broadsheet format.)
Posted by: Andrew Mollenbeck | October 23, 2006 at 05:19 PM