I’m really interested in newspaper design changes: why they happen, what’s the end goal, what informs the design/rhetorical choices, etc. I knew this was going to be something I could look at from a variety of angles, and since I’m not sure exactly what my focus will be, I’m going to use this blog post to generate some ideas and (hopefully) organize my thoughts into something coherent and useful.
I like to check out www.poynter.org regularly, and something caught my eye this morning: three newspapers have just undergone redesigns (Chicago Tribune, The Oklahoman, and the Hartford Courant). The Hartford Courant’s new design is especially intriguing, considering their use of the masthead: it’s vertical! (Check out http://www.visualeditors.com/apple/2008/09/hartford-courant-redesign-launched-today/ for screenshots and a brief analysis.) Traditionally the masthead included a period at the end, and while it went away for awhile, it came back recently and the new design incorporates this in an unusual way: ‘Hartford Courant’ is vertical, and then the period draws the eye to the horizontally placed ‘com.’ The masthead now references the newspaper’s web site www.hartfordcourant.com which seems like an almost implicit (explicit?) nod towards the importance of the web site over the print edition. Or maybe it’s just PR.
I’m not sure what my research question will be, but I do think I’m going to choose a specific newspaper and do some form of diachronic analysis of its design changes using an old design, the present design, and the present web design. I’m interested in how the newspaper conveys meaning through these different designs and media, and how/if the designs and media influence the meaning. I don’t want this to simply be an explanation of what changes (because that’s obviously not productive), but I would like to see how the print/electronic media work (in)dependently in this situation.
It’s also quite informative to read what journalists and editors say in response to the redesigns. (These quotes can be found at: www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=47&aid=151319) Jonathon Berlin, Chicago Tribune design director, says, “A newspaper in 2008 needs to be able to change frequently.” In addition, Yvette Walker, director of presentation at the Oklahoman, discusses three major changes she is really excited about: “the size of the paper, the use of color and a new way to present information through tighter writing. You really can't ignore the size of the paper; it's getting narrower -- to a 44-inch web. I believe we're the first U.S. paper to go 44 inches. That's a really big part of it. So I can't leave that out.”
44 inches wide?! I remember when newspapers were printed on huge tabloid paper, and in the last ten years or so inches have been shaved off to cut costs. How does this inform/influence their design choices? It certainly seems like a big influence. Stories will obviously be shorter, but how will photos and other visual aspects work on the page? There must be serious thought about the rhetorical choices made when redesigning a paper, especially with a paper that will also get smaller.
Anyway, these are just some ideas and points of interest that I’ll start with. Any suggestions are welcome!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
There are a lot of interesting things going on in Gitelman, but I must say that one of the most important things that I “got out” of the book was the realization of technology. Honestly, I always think of technology as an entity that does not have to do with me and as something that “just happens.” Well, after reading our books and our discussions I am starting to realize that technology is not only a process but it is a social construction and it is happening ALL the time! Craziness—im sure some of you are thinking that I am being obtuse, but I really did just live my technological life thinking that the “powers that be” who create technology will let me know when the new, hot thing will be out and then I will struggle to use it and finally when I learn it and accept whatever technology then something new will be out. Well, I just want to reiterate that I am suddenly realizing how theory-based and complex the entire technology machine is. And on that note, I think I am going to ramble on a bit about literacy and the “best” technologies.
Gitelman mentions the “ideology of literacy” on page 41. She explains that the production of some writing technologies such as shorthand and then the typewriter helped solidify the idea that literacy was a thing that could be “right or wrong.” Suddenly with the development of the typewriter spelling counted, and when someone has to type their writing and send it out into the vast world of readers then the ability to spell is suddenly very important. It also follows that if someone is not a strong speller then perhaps they will be viewed as a weak writer as well. All of this because someone invented the typewriter…I know that there is a lot more theory and execution involved in this process and the ideology of literacy but for my own sake I have condensed my ideas as much as possible. Now, I also found it interesting when Gitelman explains that the “best” technology is not always the “best.” She states, “’Best’ may be entirely a construction of hindsight in ways that are difficult to recover”(40). Therefore what may have seemed to be the best invention or type for society may not have been, and I think that a lot of factors go into this creation of the best and then the closure of the product. The amount of advertising and money thrown into a product would help secure its position in the best category. I know that this is not always the case ,but it seems to me those who had the means would gain the ends…I don’t know, I just think it is somewhat funny that what was the “best” is sometimes reflected on in hindsight and seen as not the best at all but perhaps the most commercialized or somesuch.
Finally, I just wanted to touch on the idea of technology as progression. We talked about this a bit in class today and I think that technology is quickly attempted to reach the “ideal” state of automaticity. I think that is why technology is seen as progress because supposed it is taking us to a place where we will have to do less and less for ourselves and rely more and more on the technology presented to us. For me, that is a scary prospect. Don’t get me wrong, I love technology and some of the creature comforts it allows me to have but the idea of reaching an ideal state of dependence frightens me (I don’t want to float around on my recliner, relying on the little screen in front of me to tell me what is happening in my world).
A cool song that goes along with the idea of mankind over technologizing (yea, I made that up) themselves is “In the Year 2525” by Zieger and Evans. I would post it on here, but, sadly, I have no idea how…let me know what anyone thinks…it really is a cool song.
Sorry linds...i didnt mean to post that as a comment, but i couldnt figure out how to make my own post....someone help :) thanks
Post a Comment