What Do You Think of the A-Section Redesign?
October 22, 2006 | 10:35
am
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
Re: The new changes at the LA Times
In a word - dreadful.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 23, 2006 at 11:16 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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