I used to say without hesitation that it was the best newspaper in the world. Now I hesitate.
The Guardian, something I'd long considered one of life's great pleasures, has changed. For the official view of management, as written by the editor, see here. And here's what graphic designers think. (I can tell you right away what they like, having worked with their ilk for 25 years: "more white space!")
To their credit, the Guardian has opened up their own discussion of the change, but since they didn't ask me my opinion I'm posting it here. What else are blogs for? Like the man said, "I've suffered for my art, now it's your turn."
First, let me note that my reaction to this format change is not based on having seen the actual paper. Oh no. The Guardian, perhaps in the run-up to starting a U.S. edition, has long made it impossible for American customers to buy their product (a problem none of the other English newspapers seem to have).
First came the withholding of the Saturday Review and magazine. Some weeks they made it out of Britain, other times they were left at the dock.
Then an “international edition” appeared, printed with the kind of ink (a ghastly shade of orange) and paper used by ancient presses in former African colonies. Fortunately, this being Washington D.C., I was able to make a special arrangement with a news agent who saved me a complete edition of the Saturday Guardian, little plastic bag and all.
But then the paper switched to the kind of technology used by hotel clerks in Ramada Inns to print replicas of newspapers on their fax machines, and my exalted Guardian became a black and white monstrosity about as much fun to read as a hotel bill. I was forced to pay nearly $20 per month for the digital edition, which I read far less carefully than I did the one with pages I could turn.
Sure, the columnists Simon Hoggart and John O'Farrell still write witty,
incisive commentary. The cultural coverage makes people even hipper than reading Mojo. The coverage of U.K. politics provides the
andrenalin political junkies in the U.S. find lacking from the state of things
at home. I used to savor page after well designed page of the overisized "broadsheet." Reading the Guardian was like settling into a comfy chair with a nice cuppa.
But you couldn't read it very comfortably on the subway, yada yada yada...New Yorkers long ago learned the "subway fold." You make do, at least we did, before "focus groups" asked us if we wouldn't really rather have a smaller paper, with catchier stories and more color, with valuable prizes and only really stupid people are preferring the old way anyway? Who can say no to change like that?
Well, me. But they didn't ask me. Instead they're betting the future on the "Berliner" edition, bigger than a tabloid but hardly something you can luxuriate with in on a hammock or beach.
I'll be in London in a few days and will be able to pick up the paper for the first time. Maybe I'm wrong. (I've been so wrong before.) Maybe I'll love it. Comments from Guardian readers are invited below. But unless things change radically, I fear newspapers, like networks and books of serious fiction, are going the way of the dinosaur.
For example, do you know why people in their 20s and 30s say they don't like to read newspapers? Come, on, guess.
I'll even make you click on the continuation to find the answer..
OK.
They hate they way all those papers pile up. True fact, that's what they said in focus groups.
(What, they never heard of recycling?)
It used to that sober, serious news organizations could wait for its audience to grow up past the point where the first page they turn to is the comics. Not today's multi-purpose brands formerly known as newspapers! Did you know that the New York Times is reviewing computer games in the business section now?
We'd all be better off, we'd do our jobs better, we'd be better citzens, better consumers, better parents, if we all were given time at work to read the paper. Pass it on. Tell funders. How about it, Mr. Soros?
Comments