Foodie Rant - Properly Sauced? Try Properly Ripped Off.
Oprah-geddon: Winfrey To Quit Show In 2011
Daley Blames - Who Else? - The Media For Oprah-geddon
NYT Preps For Chicago Edition
Chicago Gets Googled
Editor and Publisher got a sneak peek at what could become the new Chicago Tribune - and it ain't pretty. The news that Red Eye founding editor Jane Hirt would be promoted to managing editor worried a lot of people, and now it appears that the Red-Eye-Ification of the Tribune goes much further than just personnel changes.
The design has been completely redone, but the main change would be the name. Since 1847, "Chicago Tribune" has been good enough for most of us, but if the changes are implemented, we'd be looking at just the more-casual "trib" above the fold, with the old Tribune logo hidden amongst the lower-case lettering. E&P reports that the days of the current Trib could be extremely numbered; the Zellots are looking to make the changes before the end of September. But all is not lost:
"I would caution you against accepting anything you have as anything other than a work in progress," said Tribune Co. Senior Vice President/Corporate Relations Gary Weitman. When asked if the prototype was among those still being considered, he said: "We are just not talking about it until it is debuted."
Maybe Mariotti is right (words we thought we'd never type) and maybe the papers are on their last legs. Regardless, this redesign looks to us like the newspaper equivalent of Mountain Dew advertising. New! Extreme! Hip! In-Your-Face! High Five! Ooooooooh Yeah! Yuck.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I stopped grabbing the red eye, b/c I started to resorting to discussions on sudoko times and celebrity gossip. Occassionally I pick up a paper, but they all seem to be tid bits of actual articles, poorly written, and much to do about celebrity gossip and personal essays.
I tend to grab my news from online sites now, as the newpapers in the town make me feel dumber by the day.
Recently, I could only get my hands on a Sun Times, and I had to do a double take to ensure I didn't accidentally pay 50 cents for The Onion.
Thing is, Mariotti IS right in that one regard: everything is moving online. Problem is, it seems the newspapers aren't responding correctly. At least to my knowledge. Not that I would know how to react in their shoes...
But this Trib redesign is atrocious, if that's what they're going with.
It all reminds me of that old Anti-Drug commercial where the parents try some painfully embarrassing rap to tell their kids don't do drugs ("The wacky weed/ it is bad/ take it from me/ i am your dad"): just out-of-touch people trying desperately to keep up with what the kids are into.
Yup, that's RedEye: slick and without substance. May the new Trib crash & burn.
I actually like it.
When I see someone reading a Redeye I assume they are stupid. It looks like I'll assume the same thing about people reading the new look Tribune.
If the Trib wants to redesign something (aside from their management and editorial staff which would be best), why don't they start with their website. Maybe getting rid of some of the millions of ads and making it look less like something I made on angelfire seven years ago would be a start.
Clearly Sam Zell hates newspapers.
Gee Notanotheruser, that's a pretty bold statement. If somebody wants to give me a free newspaper, I'm going to take it, and read it. It's better than sitting on the train trying to figure out what the sticker on some guy's oversized headphones says. I most certainly wouldn't pay for a Redeye, or rely on it to be informed, but it passes the time.
Looking at that redesign makes me wonder if Creative Loafing is behind it.
And it's not like any of you people actually pick up and read the tribune every morning.
This redesign looks really fresh, more european style. It really looks like something I'd be interested in reading.
I dont' know anything about printing, but the photo connected to this entry *looks* like it would be more expensive to print than their current layout. Do they really think they will get additional readers to make up for the cost?
I get the Trib delivered every morning. Interestingly, they have not billed me for it in ages. Anyway, what I find is that there are things that are not as easily available on the web that I will read. Bigger, more in-depth stories, and the sort of "Letters from " articles from some correspondent abroad. These are usually not about "current events" but about some part of being stationed abroad. Like the woman in New Dehli who wrote about traffic and the estimate that 100,000,000 traffic violations took place there every day. That was an interesting read.
The newspaper is not valuable to me for the "breaking news" because I saw that last night. However, it is still an opportunity to mix some news with thoughful analysis and stories that would never make my "top headlines" sources. Unfortunately, they seem to be headed towards shorter, less thoughtful coverage. What a mistake. They are looking at the Red Eye for inspiration when they should be looking at the Christian Science Monitor (admittedly not a big money-maker, but the idea is good).
matty is right: The redesign doesn't look all that bad -- if the Tribune were to use it for a free evening paper we could grab on the way home. But for the main paper? Ugh. It reminds me of when they added Poochy to the Itchy & Scratchy Show on The Simpsons. What these kids want is photos, big ones, and attitude, and graphics, and, and ...
Which is all fine and good for the RedEye or a free evening edition -- something quick to read on the train or bus home. But not for the main, serious paper.
I saw this image flashed on the television last night (the sound was down, so I didn't hear the context) and honestly thought it was a "worst case scenario, wouldn't it be funny if the Tribune did something as obviously fake and obnoxious as this?" illustration.
Yikes.
You're obviously not alone, as I think the ill-fated $.25 experiment a few years back ended with a lot of leftover copies.
But hell, if someone wants to give me a free one to skim through on the L, I have no problem with that. If nothing else, the crossword keeps me occupied for a few stops.
Print is dead. No reason to pick up a paper unless you can't wait to get to work to read it on line.
A paper that will survive is one that moved away from a print edition in the next year.
I don't mind the design either, but I would rather see it in tabloid format. So much easier to handle on the El than its current broadsheet format. Which is why I grab a RedEye for the train ride, then read the real Trib when I get home.
(I realize the S-T is a tabloid, but I don't like their paper.)
And I agree that the Web is great for the breaking news, articles that are "advertised" on the front page, but I like turning the pages of the actual paper, so I can skim all sorts of headlines and read about things I wouldn't even see on their Web site.
To me, they complement one another, it's not one or the other.
Man, and next year there will be a wall street journal redesign?
i've said it before, but does having a Newspaper that looks like a website actually going to keep people from going online?
The new logo and design actually does seem to make the Trib LOSE credibility, a la the red eye.
As far as free dailies go, the RedEye is pretty awful. It reads like the crap we wrote in the student paper back all those years ago in college -- sure I was proud of myself then, but I can't stand to even look at it now. The only reason you'll see me reading the RedEye on the train is because I'm scared that the woman who passes them out at my station might lose it one day.
So far, the best of the free dailies I have seen is the Metro Express (I think that's the name) produced by the Washington Post. I haven't seen it lately, so it may have changed, but I remember it being more like a mini version of the main paper, better written than the RedEye, with more professional-lloking news, features and so on. WaPo lite.
This may be due to the fact that there are more journalism geeks per capita in DC, or because all those think-tank wannabees on the Metro are less likely to care what "Whizzer" thinks.Either way, I'd take the Express over the RedEye any day.
Ugh. This is like your 60-year-old father putting on baggy pants, a big white T-shirt and putting Líl Wayne on the victrola...
Slapping a fresh coat of paint on the thing won't help. and anyone who picks up the Trib just becasue it LOOKS different is a superficial idiot.
Garish and ugly. It's like the paper is shouting at me and the abbreviation to capitalize on "cool" seems ham-handed.
It will do nothing to move more papers, since it's not design that's keeping younger readers away, but the internet.
Newspapers transforming from printhouses into news gathering organizations that deliver vibrant, local-focus news, in-depth reportage and fresh content, that's the path of survival.
Deck Chairs, Titanic.
tecki: Agreed, the Express is a great free paper. I think it actually has more substance than the Sun-Times.
The daily commute from Chicago to pick one up sucks, though...
What will be really interesting as newspaper die in print form--and thank god, what a waste of newsprint and other resources--is where the content will come from as the journalism business model is, one hopes, reinvented.
For instance, with less real news to link to, how will blogs make up for the lost content? Or, will blogs such as this (and many, many others) create a business model that allows for professional reporting? Will so-called "citizen" journalists really be able to work as government watchdogs, or will their true talents be to offer even more movie, food, booze and music reviews, which are relatively cheap and easy to do?
The redesign does look European, and not that bad, at least for this leaked copy. Besides, it's the content that matters--if the content is more like RedEye, that is the main problem, not the overall design.
Crook County,
I think you are wrong about that. I think there is a place for print, and there will continue to be. It will be at least another generation before that transition is complete. People like being able to do a crossword puzzle and sudoku on the train without needing a gadget to do it.
That being said, the content is crucial. Banner headlines are a thing of the past. They need to generate content not available everywhere else.
Man, that's really bad. Just because people call it the Trib doesn't mean you should put it on the front of the newspaper in great big letters!
Slaphappy: Formally calling it the "Trib" is the journalistic equivalent of McDonald's referring to themselves as "Mickey D's" or White Castle calling its own burgers "sliders" (sorry, "Slyders"). It's a cynical (and desperate) effort to capitalize on a name that's already 'out there' in an attempt to make yourself seem cool and hip.
Ironically, it winds up having the exact opposite impact, and only makes the company seem stupid and out of touch.
Disgusting.
This design makes the USA Today look like the Wall Street Journal.
I've always liked to think that content is king. Perhaps that is just a delusion of mine.
What will be really interesting as newspaper die in print form--and thank god, what a waste of newsprint and other resources--
And all of that energy and chemicals and poisonious material used to build the computer or laptop you use to look at the online version ISN'T a waste?
Trees are renewable. newsprint is biodegraable. A landfill packed to the gills with your wornout or out of date laptops and computers isn't.
That looks like a high school freshman's design for the sports section of the school paper.
I am not going to take the Tribune seriously if that's what they turn into. There are plenty of other places to get information.
Oh, and not to mention the environmental impact that the creation of the electricity to run your computer has:
Environmental Impact
Don't rush to abandon print for online newsgathering. You just might get what you hope for.
Another instance of Chicago's backwater conservatism run amok on a messageboard.
Seriously, nothing changes in this city because no one wants it to. It's a freggin' newspaper for crying out loud.
Let me future cast a bit for you.
In a decade you'll have a device, just one, that's a solid digital camera, a PDA/PHONE and web browser. Ubiquitous wi-fi (Wi-max, or whatever is next) will put all those PDA in constant contact with the net (see the iphone apps) and news content. You'll get pinged when a story on your hot list of topics gets updated or when new content (columns, photo essays, videos) comes online. You see the rudiments of this with DIGG, Apple Apps and blackberries.
Now picture it with better uster interface, cheaper and more common. Entry level phones will have features that high-end devices now boast. The tech will be light, possibly even wearable.
Once tech and design are simplified, the big question becomes one of CONTENT.
News papers that can shift from mainly print editions to filling that content void will do great business. Newspapers who hope that slicker design and less local content will save them are doomed.
The design's not bad at all, but it doesn't seem appropriate for a respected daily newspaper.
To Whom It May Concern: I subscribe because I like to read a paper for adults. Thank you.
News papers that can shift from mainly print editions to filling that content void will do great business. Newspapers who hope that slicker design and less local content will save them are doomed.
Great post.
Oh, and I know this is a mockup but if ran across a newspaper that had a big ass photo of Valerie Jarett-as-Smeagol on the front, I'd run from it.
"My preciousssssssssss"
LOL. I crack me up.
Albany,
This is what concerns me: "You'll get pinged when a story on your hot list of topics gets updated or when new content (columns, photo essays, videos) comes online."
If you think people are provincial and close minded now, wait until they can't even accidentally see news they didn't ask to see.
Ugh. If I wanted to subscribe to USA Today I would. They do this and I'm canceling my subscription.
If you think people are provincial and close minded now, wait until they can't even accidentally see news they didn't ask to see.
No argument from me, and web 2.0 (3.0? Whatever...) geeks are all for that. You can create a narrow bandwidth of news just for you. We see that with other content. What's the last song that you heard EVERYWHERE? The "song of the summer"? That's gone. A big story on DIGG or Feedburner or Huffpo or drudge might get mass media play, but by then it's old and new content/news is churning.
It's the death of the public good, the notion that some things are simply important news that should be covered. Single-crafted exclusive content for the "end user" as opposed to soaking in the editorial content of a whole paper, which is the work of hundreds, if not thousands.
There are already people who can tell you all about "Gossip Girl" and any given pop starlet is boinking this week but can't name the vice president. They're not going to be signing up for the NY Times editorial page.
Chicago D: I agree. One of the pleasures of reading a newspaper is seeing what else is going on outside my little world. At the same time, I like to get breaking news online. And, given my somewhat unique position, I need the web to keep track of the news important to me:
I am from Charlotte, NC, so I read the Observer site each day for local news and to keep up with the Panthers. I lived in Asheville for 3 years, so I occasionally read the Citizen-Times. I lived in Baltimore for 2 years, so I sometimes, but not often, read the Sun. I used to visit DC all the time as a kid, spent a lot of time there when living in Baltimore, and have friends and relatives living there now, so I read DCist and, sometimes, the WaPo. I also read A.M. Guanajuato for news in the city we lived in in Mexico in 2006, and the Boston Globe for Red Sox news --and of course, the Tribune and Chicagoist for news here at home.
Without all this online news, I'd have no idea what was going on in the places that matter to me.
Anyway,
One of my friends from the college paper at UNCC lives in Rock Hill, SC, and we often talk about the decline of the newspaper industry. For a guy living about 800 miles away, he sure has a lot to say about the Tribune. I think that shows just how much trouble they are in.
My prediction for the newspaper industry:
Successful papers will move all breaking news to the Web, with access for hand-held devices. They will include video, photos and audio reports that could never be done in print, along with professionally written blogs (as opposed to every nitwit with an internet connection) covering a wide variety of topics.
But paper will survive. Have you ever tried to read a long, in-depth article online? Newspapers will evolve into free daily newsmagazines that offer longer, in-depth news analysis and features that just don't fit on the web, along with news briefs, games and cartoons. In fact, it might even make sense to have 2 dailies -- a shorter, content-light version for the morning to catch you up with what's happening, and a detailed one at the end of the day to explain why things are happening(or vice versa).
The venerable Sunday paper will become smaller than it is now, but larger than the daily versions.
Unfortunately, we'll have to endure several more years of the RedEye before that happens.
It's brilliant. As newspapers succumb to the internet age, redesigning a hoary old newspaper to look and feel like a website will help transition its readers to the ultimate fate of this and many other papers. Of course Chicago will always be able to support the physical thing in some form, or even a traditional broadsheet of limited circulation, but for the Tribune, too much is riding on its ability to connect with hundreds of thousands of readers and remain healthy and profitable. It's tough medicine for the traditional crowd but what other option exists?