AFDI: “Actually Friggin’ Doing It.”
That’s some new phraseology at the Tribune Co., which as you know is in the hands of private ownership.
The company’s chief innovation officer, Lee Abrams, recently penned a memo that landed in the hands of the capable Jim Romenesko, at his Poynter Institute blog. He’s saying it’s time to take a 2×4 to the way things have always been done at American newspapers.
Upon reading it, I thought it was insightful. I’m still fairly convinced of that.
“I see newspapers fooling themselves by targeting 40+ but the content is clearly more 70+.”
“Why are most newspapers so subtle? I asked that question and the answer is that most newspapers are used to the monopoly environment where you don’t have to scream out… Well, there aren’t five newspapers, but there are about 50,000 Web sites and TV channels battling it out for attention. I’d urge papers to use the 2×4! …This is one area where papers should think more 1938… gotta fight back — it’s just other media you’re fighting, not other papers.”
It’s time to have fun with the newspaper. Forget that whole buttoned-down thing. Live a little. After all, readers do.
Please comment on the memo. I’d love to read what everyone thinks. I’ve passed it around my newsroom. Maybe we can all AFDI, too.
Doug:
I’m shaking my head if you’re buying into this stuff. For example, from the memo:
“*LOGOS OF SPORTS TEAMS. I rarely see logos of Sports teams on the Sports pages?” WTF is this guy talking about?
It’s all rhetoric and no specifics. This guy is precisely the type of blowhard whom newspapers would target back when newspapers were still relevant.
And — as always — deleting this isn’t really deleting it because it’ll appear in some form at my site, etc.
Newspapers are still relevant. Or at least, they can be, if they adapt quickly to changing times.
This wasn’t a memo for specifics. If I got a memo from corporate that told me “you must do this, this and this,” it’s because the Powers That Be thought I was a trained monkey, numb to the realities of a local market. That’s not the culture Tribune wants, at least according to Sam Zell.
To succeed, you put your people in the trenches in charge, not the ones at headquarters, in the rear with the gear. We lost Vietnam because the White House ran the war, not the in-theater generals.
I don’t like sports logos, either. (In fact, we killed them with our Pittsburgh redesign in 2003.) But what the guy’s saying is challenge your notions. Sports logos are silly sometimes, I agree, but he may be onto something. Sometimes, people want to see the things we think are superfluous.
Oh, incidentally: I don’t knowingly delete your posts. If they don’t show up, it’s because a filter snagged it before I could get it — and I routinely look at the filter because your posts go there. Regardless of how ridiculous what you say might be, well, even a stopped clock is right twice a day!
If you think you have ideas on how to make newspapers more relevant, step up to the plate. Weenerway may be a nice place to rant, but you need to put your money where your mouth is. Either step up to the plate or sit on the bench, buddy. Lead, follow or get out of the way.
Weenerway — how clever. When I “picked” the name for the site, I knew there would be all sorts of “original” variations.
As I said in the other thread, if I do take the time to come up with some sort of manifesto, it’ll likely be posted at my own site, and then you’ll get a link. Until then, you’ll have to settle for this one:
http://www.wenalway.com/forum/index.php?board=18.0
I will respond to your war analogy here. The people who “run” newspapers are not going to yield much power to the people in the trenches. In their mind, they’re in charge, and besides, it’s “always been this way.” That’s a major reason why I generally hope for some individual papers and even some chains to cease existing; only then will the pattern of “we’ve always treated our employees like dirt, and we always will” have any chance of fading away.
I’m not sure we should burn the village to save it, though “business as usual” ceased to be a long time ago.
I still believe the print newspaper is viable, and can thrive. Robert, you see design as “dumbing down” a newspaper, when if it’s used correctly (intelligently), the philosophy of news design can give storytelling so much more.
My previous post didn’t say anything about design, but I’ll respond anyway.
It’s incredibly easy to find examples of today’s newspaper being dumbed down. I’ll just focus on two — skyboxes and refer text. These frequently say nothing and are too often wrong. Here’s an example of one that says nothing (based on an actual refer):
Indy 500
Turn to Page B8 for the latest about the race.
Yawn. Why even bother writing a refer if it’s going to be this awful?
I’m sure this will spark the usual debate about whether design is to blame, but it is. No writer would turn out something that awful.
The concoct-and-chanters may keep claiming there’s some “boost” from the design obsession, but all tangible numbers prove them wrong. Almost no newspapers showed a boost in sales of the Sunday paper, when the PFAD push is at its highest.
So you may challenge me to write some sort of manifesto, but I will in turn ask you to do the same. What possible justification can you offer for the design obsession other than “We say it’s right!” Circulation is down. Credibility is down. Newspapers are cutting positions. The data would indicate it’s time to slash from the side of the newsroom that has failed to deliver on its promise.
Face it, Doug. There is no counterargument, other than newspapers have chosen to structure themselves poorly and they refuse to change. That’s an awfully weak reason to keep stumbling forward with lame Picassos For A Day, skyboxes that obviously are written by people who can’t/won’t/don’t read the articles, headlines that make no sense, AM(P)Es who know nothing about the product, designers who take pride in being too ignorant to understand articles written for, at highest, an eighth-grade reader, etc. The list could go on and on.
Robert, forget PFADs. There’s good journalism and bad journalism, and it manifests itself in reporting, photography, graphics, and design and editing.
Newspapers’ structure really hasn’t changed that much, if at all. It’s the cultures in newsrooms that need to change, and that’s what API’s Learning Newsroom project was all about.
That circulation is down is not directly correlated to design. That credibility is suffering has nearly nothing to do with design — for instance, Jayson Blair was not a designer.
Good journalism includes good design (which we call visual editing, not necessarily design, and no, that’s not doublespeak), design that knows what the news is, what’s coming and what’s already been.
Bad design, on the other hand, is bad journalism, too. You should take aim at that, and not at design as a whole. You’d get some agreement from designers who edit, as opposed to designers who decorate. I hope you’ll see the difference.
You’re sort of all over the place.
Last I checked, I had categories for blinding reverse type, giant numerals, replacing the letter O with objects, etc. Those things, to me, are bad design. People who constantly put hard news into hard reverse or who put complex drug information into 8.5-point type inside a reverse box shouldn’t be designing the front page, and they shouldn’t be working at a newspaper.
The Jayson Blair example is the usual straw man argument that designers fall back on. When I think of credibility issues, I think of things like an article having the year of the Battle of the Bulge wrong because a copy editor was drawing rule lines instead of checking facts. Typos and math errors happen, but if someone doesn’t know World War II ended in 1945, then that person shouldn’t be working at a newspaper.
You say newspapers’ structures haven’t changed, but you offer no basis for comparison. Are you talking about in the last year? Last 10 years? Last 25 years?
Some of that is before my time, but from what I gather, the current, failing design-based approach appears to have started in the 1970s when a bunch of dolts decided the job was too hard for them. Rather than improve, they decided to “reinvent” journalism into the warped form it’s taken.
But readers are turning away from a product that doesn’t give them what they want. Have you read some of the comments at papers recently? People are tired of getting a newspaper that has no substance and takes 5 minutes to read. My own consumption is down and probably will continue to decline. I usually have 3-5 Sunday papers easily available (not counting online). One of them is often featured at my site for its screw-ups. Another has no live game stories most weeks. These are not newspapers that are doing the job right.
Also, visual editing is a paradox. Most of the time in the newsroom, it’s all about visuals and nothing about editing. If anything, it’s a way to justify not editing. It’s foolish and wrong, and good newsrooms would move away from the concept if they had the sense.
Robert, sometimes giant numbers are the story. Sometimes, the photo is the story. But whatever solution is used, it’s the commission of journalism that’s paramount.
And while we agree that design in and of itself is not the answer, you’re dead wrong when you say there’s a “design-based approach.” It’s rooted in journalism, it’s grown as the time people spend with a newspaper has dwindled, and it’s taking hold because we’re a far more visual society than we’ve ever been.
You have to go where the market is. Unfortunately, it’s not in 80-inch-long obituaries.
I used Jayson Blair because he’s the most prominent recent example of how trust with readers has been breached. You say that a designer who takes his eye off the ball and focuses on lines is just as incredible. I agree that’s wrongheaded. And if someone doesn’t know when World War II ended, and doesn’t have the brains to go look it up, I agree, that person shouldn’t be working in a news organization.
This “design-based approach” of which you speak, I haven’t seen as anything more than newspapers responding to our changing culture. It’s been a slow slog, too. And people like you have kicked and screamed not to evolve.
You say readers are turning away from a product that doesn’t give them what they want, but you’re wrong about why.
“Also, visual editing is a paradox. Most of the time in the newsroom, it’s all about visuals and nothing about editing. If anything, it’s a way to justify not editing. It’s foolish and wrong, and good newsrooms would move away from the concept if they had the sense.”
Uh-uh, Robert. Not if I have anything to say about it. If you’re not committing journalism in visual editing, you’re beautifying, not telling a story. Do we agree on that?
DJ, why bother with this? There’s no discourse with Rknil that can turn into constructive thought past practice with this guy has shown that. To him it’s all “DESIGN IS BAD” despite the fact that design has been around since day one for newspapers, it’s not new it’s just taken a different direction — from papers with up to 35 stories on the front page (been there, worked for one) to what we have today (ditto).
Let Weenerway have his moment in the sun and let it go at that. Or, better yet, Robert, start your own paper and show us how it’s done. If you have the answer, then why not put your money where your mouth is?
In my book, tis easier to criticize than it is to do. Criticism with constructive ideas is fine, criticism done with a warped point and a directed meanness is not.
Mike, why don’t YOU start your own paper with your “visuals first” approach? It’d be fun to see how that works out.
“35 stories on the front page” — There’s that straw man argument again. Designers love it! They “deflect” the argument, and then they don’t have to respond to the valid points!
Doug: 80-inch obituaries? Straw man.
I don’t think I’d claim anything in newspapers is “taking hold” when so many people are leaving the product behind.
Finally, I’d have an easier time even attempting to agree with you if you argued a point honestly rather than creating some illusion and then saying: “We CAN’T have that!” You can make all the claims you want about “not evolving,” but if anyone isn’t progressing, it’s the newspapers that continue to cling to the failing design-based approach that you claim doesn’t exist at all.
Back to my original point: As I suspected, you can’t offer justification for the design obsession. The only logic behind it is: “This is the way we WANT to do it!” Doesn’t matter if it makes sense; doesn’t matter if it’s what the readers want.
NOTE FROM DOUG: Robert: Straw man, my ass. An 80-inch obit is extreme, but the point is that people don’t have the time anymore (or the attention span) to read long stories. They want more bite-size stuff. They want bits and pieces. It’s not that we think they’re idiots. It’s that we have to respect their time… and realize that we’re competing in a much more democratized news market. I’d love to run more takeouts and investigative pieces. Problem is, the money’s not there, and the demand isn’t, either. And that’s too bad. Unfortunately, you don’t seem to see where the market is. Readers are leaving newspapers because we’re not respecting them, we’re out of touch with them, we’re biased to them, and we just don’t connect with them anymore. We’re working on all that. More sophisticated editing and more thoughtful visuals are part of the approach.
We’ve had the obit discussion before. If the paper lets people buy them, some of them are going to be long. (But you do realize 80 column inches are more than half a page, right?)
And I’d say you’re the one who doesn’t see where the market is. I’ve asked repeatedly for some proof the design obsession has been anything other than a giant failure, and you have offered nothing.
The readers are saying there isn’t anything in the paper that interests them. More visuals are not going to bring those readers back.
I’ll give you the part about newspapers not respecting the readers and not connecting with them. But the design-based approach is a huge part of the problem; it’s not a solution. Never has been; never will be.
NOTE FROM DOUG: Robert, I know 80 inches is more than half a page. And I know there’s no “design-based approach,” as you’ve been flogging for years now. It. Doesn’t. Exist. Case closed. There is no conspiracy.
Then why design anything? Just put any old fishwrapper out there and it will either sell or die off, right? Robert, do you REALLY know ANYTHING about newspaper history and what newspapers have looked like in the past. There have been well-designed ones throughout history as well as atrocious amalgams that could barely be read. Formal design desks and design positions may be new, but there have always been designers — of one name or another.
Just for the record, though, and for curiosity’s sake, why are you so Hannity & Colmes about design? Most people who argue the points you try to argue do so with some sort of philosophy that is well-known and established behind them. What’s yours? I don’t think any of us who have been called out by you know fro whence your views come. You certainly know ours, we work on them every day. Come now, let us know the Knilands story so that we can better argue with you. I don’t think it a fair deal to joust with someone when I can’t see whom they are under their armor.
You may disagree with the terminology, but it’s awfully hard to close a case when you don’t offer any evidence.
I, however, have plenty: “Copy editor” positions with no copy editing listed in the ad. “Copy editor” interviews with no discussion of editing. “News meetings” where almost all of the focus is on how the front page will look, even before anyone has read a story or seen a photo. That approach leads to messes like the one cited here:
http://www.wenalway.com/forum/index.php?topic=9.msg2799#msg2799
Bad organization. Bad journalism. Yet the concoct-and-chanters in the design camp think stuff like this is cool.
It’s not. It’s awful. It’s one of the many examples of the DESIGN-BASED APPROACH and how terrible it is.
The DESIGN-BASED APPROACH: It’s been in newsrooms for years, no matter how many people want to ignore it. It needs to be eradicated. Today.
Hey, Bronzer, don’t insult Hannity and Colmes!
Robert, you cite some pages that should’ve been a little better edited (like the skyboxes that totally bury the nameplate), but then you also turn around and knock some pretty damn good stuff with comments like “Ernie likes giant, edible balls.” Come on. Turkey and football, for crying out loud. The head and visual are in total agreement. And because it’s not something you’d normally expect, it works. I like it.
We agree that some execution could have been better, but for the love of Pete, your hatred of anything visual has clouded your view of everything. When you get a grip, you’ll find more agreement among those of us who are still in newsrooms, toiling every day.
Otherwise, you, sir, are an idiot wrapped up inside a moron.
If people are still having trouble following the root and substance of the argument, then there’s not much that can be done to aid them.
There’s nothing positive about hiring people to “copy editing” positions based on interviews that include nothing about editing, then allowing them to spend entire shifts on a cover as they ignore all other aspects of the job.
Also, people keep blathering about how “both can be done correctly,” but that hasn’t been true for some time. Newspapers continue to cut staffing and resources, and time that’s wasted on giant illustrations could be better devoted to other areas.
Robert, we agree that design is visual editing, or should be. Design is NOT to be done in a vacuum. It’s a process that puts the journalism first as it organizes, highlights, unifies and streamlines content.
The. Journalism. Is. Paramount.
An entire shift on a cover? Can’t say I ever did that, but that would be a luxury, wouldn’t it?
While we might’ve let the horse out of the barn already, let’s close the door on this discussion. (Unless someone who isn’t named Robert wants to chime in, anyway.)