You know for a long article like this you think there would have been more space devoted to detail.

You know, important trends like:
1) The tabloid craze in the rest of the world
2) The rise of free papers
3) The Guardian transformation. (The Guardian didn't just 'experiment with story lenghts' or add color - they redesigned practically everything and in the process reinvented themsleves).
4) Most paper's anemic attempts to produce compelling internet or 'mobile' editions

Still -I am proud of the reporter for actually going outside the usual Rolodex of 'approved' newspaper experts and getting some fresh voices like Mark's!

You sounded good, brother!

Ha! Long for your paper maybe! I thought she packed quite a bit into what she had. She talked to Susan Goldberg, Monica Moses, Monty Cook, Steve Smith, Alan Jacobson and still had time for my wet kiss to Richard Curtis, George Rorick and Co. You know when The New York Times does this it'll be twice as long and they'll only quote Mario and John Morton.

Way to leave out the comments that don't serve your purposes. Did you see that statement from Steven Smith about redesigns not being a salvation?

It just goes to show that designers are afraid of anything that doesn't fit within their spin.

Anyone who wants the real analysis should read the whole story and not just the select bits that fit the design-based philosophy, which has been a miserable failure from the start.

Only when that philosophy is scrapped and when designers are fired and replaced with editors will newspapers have any hope of rebounding.

Oh yeah. 'Newspaper Industry Analyst" John Morton? He's the only such person quoted with such a title in almost anyone's newspaper stories.

Does that mean as an industry we have but one quotble 'analyst' in our Rolodex. If so - we're doomed. DOOMED I say.

Let's Lexus-Nexus his name and see just how lazy some reporters can be . . .

Still, Mark ignoring the primary consuner trend (smaller format) is kind of burying the head in the sand, no?

Robert,

I didn't "leave anything out," I just chose to excerpt something else. And I linked to the article so people could read it for themselves. But, hey, just for you, here it is:

"Redesigns are not an answer to the problems besetting American journalism. They're one way of anchoring our newspapers with the readership we have," said Steven Smith, executive editor of The Spokesman-Review in Washington, which hopes to unveil its redesign in February.

"You've got to redesign to stay in the game, but you're not going to win the game no matter how good [the redesign] is," he said.

And, for the record, I think he's exactly right.

And that's why you (at least I assume it's you; there's no byline) bash the CJR writer for having the unmitigated gall to criticize the Sun's redesign.

Just keep painting yourself into a corner, Mark. I've said for some time that one day, the readers would see through the con artistry of the design-based approach. It's starting to happen. All the CJR writer is doing is reporting what the readers think. That's all.

Maybe you guys should wake up before it's too late. You've already ruined one major metro. Try to spare the rest of the nation.

Just passing through, following a del.icio.us link to this post. ("Newsdesigner.com: Newspapers In Crisis")

Our deputy business editor said, "I have seen the future and it is Craigslist."

How does that fit in this pissing match?

Reading anything by Robert Knilands -- to me -- is like listening to talk radio. It's amusing, but ultimately bereft of any constructive information. I suppose I've had my guilty pleasure for the day, then.

Maybe -- but my station is about to add comments from listeners.

I warned you guys that you were alienating readers. You didn't listen.

OK. This little four-year-long charade needs to stop right now.

Robert Knilands, drop the name-calling. Drop the preschool-like crying because you're not getting your way. And be a journalist for once in your life.

Explain yourself. Don't call me a name. Don't tell us all how you feel about design. You think it's stupid. WE ALL GET THAT.

"... the con-artistry of the design-based approach."

Explain that, please.
Who is being conned?
How are they being conned?
What is the design-based approach of which you speak?
What approach would you like to see?
Why will this approach work?

"I warned you guys that you were alienating readers."

When did you warn "us guys?"
How were we alienating readers?

All I've ever seen is you going out of your way to call designers "dipshits" and the like. I've waited four years for you to elaborate on WHY I'm a dipshit.

I've waited four years for you to tell me HOW YOU KNOW I'm a dipshit.

You sure make a lot of points without explaining them. You sure tell me how horrible of a journalist I am without telling me how you know I'm a horrible journalist.

I can only assume that you treat your readers the same way.

I can only assume that you as a copy editor let "facts" pass you without checking them.

I can only assume you send a story along to readers without bothering to ask "how do you know that?" about every supposed fact in the story.

I can only assume you are as bad of a copy editor as you are a debater.

Now, in a professional way, using facts and actually explaining yourself for the first time in your life, prove me wrong.

I'm making an assumption. That's a thing a good copy editor like yourself should be able to rebut without ever once resorting to calling me a name, or bashing on anyone.

If you're the editor you claim to be, you'll prove me wrong and you won't have to act like a first-grader in the process.

Josh: Robert is a troll and people ignore him in the hope that he'll go away. He doesn't because inevitably somebody gets fed up with his crap and reads him the riot act, which is exactly what he wants.

Even a troll may have a point now and then, but he's still a troll.

Josh:

Your rant was on course until you launched into the notion that I refuse to check facts. That's quite ludicrous. In fact, the lack of time to check facts is one of the main reasons I oppose the badly flawed design-based approach.

But go ahead and assume that. After all, I can't "prove" anything. But just off the top of my head, I recall holding a story for hours because the reporter assumed erroneously that three people had been charged with murder. Or how about the time a lengthy story referred to an arm surgery but never bothered to say which arm? Or the numerous flawed headlines submitted by faux artiste charlatan design dolts that had to be corrected? Someone has to do that, you know.

I realize that in the world of the design dolt, it's OK to submit cliched headlines like "The eyes have it" whenever in doubt. Some of us aspire to better, though. You may want to try it sometime.