 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. Return to index of Listen With Reason columns. Back to home page: www.ronreason.com (more tips on newspaper design, graphics and editing). |
This will be a
short column because 1) I'm busy packing my bags for Iceland,
where I'm leading a short training program, and more important, 2)
I'm more interested in hearing what you have to say on this
particular subject.
I've been wondering about this a lot lately. Should newspapers be
fun for the reader to read? Should they be a fun place to work?
This isn't to imply that every day's paper should be a laugh riot -
fun has its place. Nor should every moment of our time in the
newsroom be giggles and snorts - we've got plenty of serious
business to do. But I fear that times are changing to such an extent
that 1) we're not enjoying our jobs in the newsroom as much as we
used to, and 2) the end result is a less dynamic, and sometimes
dreary, product.
Lately I've been talking with several papers that seem interested in
changing. I ask them questions like "what guides them" and "does the
staff know what they value." I fear sometimes that this can be
dismissed as "consultant speak," but I've been in too many newsrooms
where staffers tell me they really don't know what the mission of
the place is - why they are there or who they are writing or
designing for. So the "values" stuff is particularly helpful when
trying to imagine the place the paper needs to move toward.
I've been thinking a lot about a paper I consulted with several
years ago, one whose layouts continue to inform, startle, and
occasionally delight. Is it an accident that in conjunction with the
redesign, the newsroom had a serious conversation about how they
wanted to define themselves? A review of the paper's design
stylebook finds this mission statement "that directs both content
and design": "The (newspaper) will provide a daily package of news, business news, features and sports that is relevant to readers' lives. We will report the news, reflect the realities of daily life, and offer readers help in understanding and coping with a complex world. A clarification of the paper's design goals, which I
helped write and edit, went on for several pages, addressing issues
of photo play, white space, typographic restraint, etc. This was all
followed by the more dry specifics of font calls and pagination
specs.)
Such a statement that the newspaper should be "fun to read" seems
daring and provocative to me, because too many papers seem so far
from it. And I wonder, even in my brief forays into various
newsrooms, if people are having as much fun as I did years ago on
the copy desk, trading zany messages about the latest ludicrous
dispatch from the AP, newsroom gossip or photo headlines we'd
really like to see make it into the paper!
So you tell me: Is your newspaper fun to read (at the appropriate
time and place, of course)? Do you enjoy working for your newspaper?
(Do you even think you are entitled to enjoyment as a benefit of
work?) Has everything become more buttoned-down over the past few
years? Or is it just me? Eagerly awaiting your replies for use in a
future column.
Closing thought: Do you know what your paper values? Is fun
anywhere in that recipe? Is the thing that hits the doorstep each
day an appropriate reflect of the mission and the people of your
newsroom?I'd love to see examples of page designs that you think make your newspaper fun to read. Feel free to email me your JPG images as attachments, no more than 100k please, and we'll review some of them in a future column. Back to top of page |
| |
|
Web posted: Nov. 3, 2000. design@ronreason.com
| |||