Contact | About Redesigns | Skills Training & Leadership Consulting | Tips, Articles, Resources | Calendar | Home Full index of past "Listen With Reason" columns
Why a column like this? Because too many web sites seem devoid of personality. Because the world of newspaper design can always use a little more dialogue. And because, hey, it's my web site. So I thought, why not create the first regular online column about newspaper design, on the first web site devoted to newspaper design? The goal is to discuss current issues fairly regularly; feedback and ideas for future topics are encouraged. Why "Listen With Reason?" Because "Listen to ..." sounded a little too preachy. The book "Eyes on the News" (Poynter Institute, 1991) summarizes the results of the Poynter study on the use of color in newspapers and how users process other graphic elements. Link here for details. Return to index of Listen With Reason columns. Back to home page: www.ronreason.com (more tips on newspaper design, graphics and editing).		Mythology plays a huge role in newsrooms, though not the "Xena" or "Hercules" kind. Legends, lore, edicts and myths about design conspire to create some strange operating guidelines for how we put the paper together. They are born in our newsrooms' histories, personalities, egos, memos circulated in 1972, college texts or lectures delivered long ago. Sometimes they just seem to come out of thin air. This week a visitor to this web site writes, "I wanted to get your thoughts on the newspaper convention (at least here in the U.S.) of placing the lead story on the right side of the front page." This caused me to consider an old chestnut I haven't heard in some time, though I know it still lingers. Some high school and college instructors may still be teaching it, perhaps based on the convention of papers like The New York Times to place the lead story so. It's a good example of a myth that deserves busting. I often tackle matters like this with the question, "does it make any difference to the reader?" I can't imagine that the readers of many newspapers, if asked where the lead story on the front page is always placed, would answer, "in the right hand corner." Rather, we know scientifically that readers first enter the page through the largest visual element, often the lead headline, regardless of where it is placed, even if the location moves daily. In terms of headlines and hierarchy, the visual clues readers search for are font size and weight, and logically, placement above the fold (for broadsheets). This was confirmed through The Poynter Institute's research study on how readers process design elements for news. Prototype page designs I created for the study (circa 1990), using the St. Petersburg Times as a model, arbitrarily placed the lead story on the right side of the page. The same stories and photos were recreated in another test market in the model of the local paper, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, which flipped the lead to the left corner, as was its style. (A third market, Orange County, designed the page with the lead on the right.) Writes Poynter's Roy Peter Clark in the foreword to the book: "I had always accepted the wisdom that readers begin reading at the top right corner of the front page, looking for the most important story. Forget it. This study suggests that readers will enter the page wherever the most powerful element is - right, left, middle. And depending upon the look of the page, they are willing to follow trails that editors lay for them." (The Poynter study was directed by Mario Garcia and Pegie Stark Adam in conjunction with the Gallup research organization.) The "right-hand lead" rule may very well spring from what I call the THWADI principle, which guides many newsrooms: "that's how we've always done it." From my own experience, the biggest argument against rigid rules like this is that they often indicate a lack of flexibility elsewhere in the newsroom. Here are two other common edicts that sometimes work against creating an inviting front page: "Each front page must always have five stories." The thinking is that this is what the reader expects and anything less would not be seen as a thorough news report, and perhaps not worth the day's 50 cents. (Wrong. The reader expects the most important stories to be out there. So what if some days this is just two or three big stories? Or seven lesser stories with a bit more variety?) "... and only two stories can jump." The thinking behind this one is that two jumps are annoying, but readers will really be annoyed by more than that. (Well, yes, anecdotally at least, we hear that readers don't like jumps, but is there any virtue in the solution of many newsrooms - cramming nine inches of a non-jumping story out front, which may not have been of interest to 90% of the readers to begin with? This often cripples the presentation of the rest of the page, making photos too small and kicking graphics, breakout boxes or other helpful elements off the page.) I love being asked by editors or designers to make suggestions for a more dynamic front page, only to be presented with edicts like the above. In newsrooms like this, at a certain point, any true chance for creativity and flexibility is "mythed" out of the process. The truth is, "recipes" like this do make the operation more efficient. They minimize the need for debate over the merits of front page candidates, and make it easier for the managing editor to control the story budgeting process. But I'd wager that often, these restrictions lead to a more monotonous and boring product in the end. * * * Closing thought: The news isn't exactly the same every day, so why should its presentation be exactly the same? You don't want to reinvent the design wheel, but readers adapt perfectly fine to flexibility in story count and placement, reflecting the volume and voice of important news on a given day. They like surprises in story play and selection - let's give them a few now and then. Do you have thoughts on the "right-hand lead" myth, or do you have another favorite anecdote about a newsroom edict or myth you'd like to share? If so, send me your views and we'll review some of them in a future column. Proceed to next column: Should newspapers be fun? To read? To work for? Back to top of page
Web posted: Oct. 19, 2000. design@ronreason.com