Hi.
If you're a loyal Sun reader, a casual Sun reader, or a "I'll never read The Sun Again" reader, please take a minute to vote in the poll on the right side of this blog.
Sure it's informal and unscientific. But we're curious to see what people think about the new look of The Sun under it's "reinvention."
One big change: we're now called The Baltimore Sun. Check out our new front page and compare it to an old copy from last week -- or go back further, say, a copy from 173 years ago -- to note the difference.
We'd like to post another poll soon that pertains to the new Baltimore Sun. But this time, I'd like to see some reader input on what you're all curious about learning in such a poll. So...Submit your poll question ideas in the comments section below. Thanks!
P.S. You can submit your opinions on the "reinvention" at the Baltimore Sun's official promotional website for the new-looking newspaper here. Please -- I implore you to do so. However, also vote on this site because it's not yet clear whether Sun management will disclose the reader feedback they've been receiving. For all of us, I hope they do.
Posts
10 comments:
Discussion of the redesign is on baltimoresun.com if you look for it:
http://www.baltimoresun2.com/talk/showthread.php?t=157476
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/dining/reviews/blog/2008/08/the_newspaper_beside_your_brea.html#comments
cool. thanks. i really want to craft one or two meaningful polls for people. so, please share any ideas you may have. thanks.
On Monday, I e-mailed The Sun about the new look and new content. I hate the so-called "bold graphics," the almost lifesize photos of columnists, and the glorification of sizzle over substance (e.g., a Kevin Cowheard column on the fron page!).
Yesterday, I received a one-size-fits-all reply; tellingly, it was not from anyone connected with the newsgathering side of the paper. Rather, it was from the Vice President for Business Development.
Terribly disappointing but not surprising. The redesign (and shrinkage of newshole) is at once an insult to readers, to the institutional history, and to the profession. The one group of people The Tribune absolutely refuses to please are actual readers -- people who want to be informed and enlightened, who are interested in the world beyond their own noses. The philosophy in the redesign is that we are all primarily enthralled with ourselves. You might as well call it "The Narcissist." Or "Today's Triviality" if the Mailbox and Bay Bridge lead stories are any indication. Sam Zell, Randy Michaels and Lee Abrams have all failed to appreciate what newspapers did best that no one else could provide: depth, analysis, artful storytelling. Instead, they are giving readers the mediocre, the mundane, the superficial. As a business model, it won't work, and in the meantime they will destroy everything of value. There's no worse combination than ignornance, arrogance and incompetence, but that's what The Tribune represents. What a shame for this proud newspaper.
Over beers with friends last night, we cussed the redesign (hideous beyond belief) and slow but seemingly sure death of the paper. Someone suggested that the Tribune wants to make the paper so revolting that people drop their subscriptions and only access the paper on the web. That would save them big $$ by laying off even more people, shutting down the press and moving to smaller quarters. Crazy talk or not?
I think what folks fail to realize is that the 'local Baltimore' staff at The Sun have no say really. They just have to keep drinking the rotten tasting kool-aid that Tribune forces down their throats. The Tim's at The Sun are just hanging on for dear life by being 'yes' men. I'm sure Tim Franklin really despises the redesign, although he'll never say it.
My comments:
1) Extremely busy with graphics (Thank Lee Abrams for that)
2) Nice touch on covering up the missing news with 'more readable type' line spacing - don't forget, we're supposed to be stupid now.
3) Why is the nameplate half way down the fold? It looks like 'poopy' too, Monty, did you do this?
4) Ditto on the Maryland section everyone else speaks of... bring it back, oh wait, no one has a say at The Sun now. Randy Michaels, listen for a change! And don't make up 'bull-dookey' "I only saw two complaints" stories like you did with Orlando.
It's just amazing what has happened there in such a short time.
Hey, if the push is the Internet, why in the heck did Tim Windsor, VP Interactive, get kicked to the curb... guess he didn't like the kool-aid. Good for you Tim W., you'll be much happier now!
Trust what I say, no one at The Sun appreciates what is being done! They're being forced to spew the dung they are preaching. A bunch of fat-heads in charge of something they know absolutely nothing about. As Sam Zell said to all of the Tribune staff in the beginning, "This won't affect me either way, but it sure as hell will affect you!" And, it has Sam, it has.
I say this to those left, I'm so sorry for you.
If the push is internet, why is there some barely college aged kid knocking on my door every month or two asking if I want a subscription? Instead of wasting the money on the kids, how about make a way for someone to buy a reasonably priced subscription to the Sunday paper?
what a shame
Though online revenues are growing steadily, The Sun and other newspapers still rely on advertising in the print edition to bring in the bulk of the revenues.
And as you probably know, the advertising market has really bottomed out for print. And classifieds have all but defected to Craigslist and other free sites on the Internet. So, the industry can't neglect print -- from a business perspective -- until more money is being made on the online side of the biz. Editorially, however, clearly the concerns from an unspecified number of readers and the workers in the profession is that the product is being neglected.
the only upshot...the full-body shots of many of my colleagues has afforded me a pretty nice paper doll collection! check out this gem from reader lawrence f. haislip, of monkton, which ran in wednesday's letters to the editor, which described the changes to the paper as "an act of vandalism." loves it!
Post a Comment