So, when is that Orlando re-design coming out?

Yes, the world waits breathlessly for that.

What I meant to say is, I could care less about the Orlando redesign, but because I understand that the world does not start and stop at the drop of my will, and because I pride myself on being open-minded, I understand that some people ARE interested in that redesign. And I totally respect their right to that, without handing down any kind of judgment as if I've been empowered to do so.

Great -- a clone. Of course, I would never say "could care less." The correct phrasing is "couldn't care less."

Looks like you've found Newsdesigner, Robert. And you're right, it's "couldn't care less." Otherwise, you could care less, which means you DO care. Seems like a couple of sizeable Florida papers have struggled with redesigns the last few years....

What I want to know is this -- what's up with Atlanta? Has it become the new Florida? They've brought on some new design and graphics firepower lately, and it appears to me that they haven't stopped adding on yet. Whoa, nelly.

Subtraction by addition. It's a concept.

From DeKalb to Crescent City, Sycamore to Thawville, the soft, soothing voice of HAWK-AM, playing all the hits, all night.

Proudly brought to us by IlliniSportStats.com. Remember, statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.

Stay tuned for live coverage of Ron Zook's Tuesday presser after the Robby Kay Design-Bashing Power Hour.

I'm glad to see that my radio simile for the musing of the wordhawk has caught on. Notice that I did not refer to it as a metaphor; K-Nil surely would have pointed out the difference had I done so.

Yeah, Atlanta has been looking different lately. AJC, however, needs a new Web site. The present one is, to put it simply, crap.

The Oregonian, as always, is looking awesome, Mark.

And we all know that how a newspaper looks is far more important than what it contains. Those readers just line up by the thousands to post front pages on their walls, you know.

Let me translate Wordhawk's recent posts for everybody:

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

Dude, give it up.

Ernie: You've been out of ammo for two years. Time to reload, dude.

Designers are a self-absorbed lot, aren't they? No different, I suppose, than the many hack "writers" (quotes are mine, suggesting that these folks are merely reporters and being writerly is a different thing altogether) who pass themselves off as newspaper journalists. Sure makes you sorry for the profession at all. I suppose readers, those people who everyone holds up in argument, would shudder to know that so much energy is expended on a chasm they could not care less about. Carry on the back and forth. It has no real meaning.

Ah, it's the old "the writers are just as bad" response.

Nobody ever said there are no bad writers out there. And that they are not pervasive. Whether it's poorly edited copy from the south suburbs of Chicago or repetitive "If the Spartans win their last 10 games, they'll win the Big Ten!" drivel from the Detroit AP bureau, the hacks are everywhere.

None of that, though, changes the fact that most designers are con artists who cling to a lie that what they do attracts readers. It doesn't.

There is no counterargument to this. There is no proof to contradict it. Bringing up ridiculous alternative arguments such as "We CAN'T have 250 inches of gray type" means nothing.

I can't believe it. The Great Robert Knilands once again has descended from the heavens to impart upon us lowly designers the gospel according to Wordhawk.

You know what I'll never understand Robbie, is why you bother yourself with peons like us. Why aren't you out among the other gods changing our reckless ways? Why aren't you fixing the mistakes that we make?

And, for the love of gods, why do you care so much about this topic?

You've answered your own question. If it ever would have been possible to focus on editing without dealing with the constant anchor of the design-based approach, I'd never have picked up this sword.

But it wasn't. So I fight.

Yeah, but you're fighting these battles based on nothing more than a theory that all news rooms are running away from editing. Which, too bad for you, isn't the way things work at a lot of papers.

You come onto npd.com and bash us for talking about pretty design. D'ya ever think that it's because we spend the rest of our day talking about other stuff?

Honestly, what you've got to say isn't bad in theory. I fight with the pretty-makes-better approach myself at times. But unless you move past assumptions and badgering, no one will take you seriously.

That's the confusing part of your argument. It's based in solid theory and you ruin it with childish behavior.

shame.

"D'ya ever think that it's because we spend the rest of our day talking about other stuff?"

No, I never think that because I know it's not true.

I once watched a design dolt spend hours on making a cannon fire a cannonball across a flag at the top of a page. Did it look good? Yes. Was it a good use of time? Absolutely not.

I also watched a couple of design dolts spend hours on deadline comparing PFADs. Meanwhile, stories piled up in the queue to be edited. Somehow I doubt these got much more than a cursory look. Yet this is accepted in newsrooms that have gotten away from editing in favor of rule lines and skyboxes.

Spare me the bullshit, gooch. Designers don't edit. I've seen it happen. And they're allowed to get away with it. It's why newsrooms need to redefine their approach and then fire designers and hire editors. They'd be a lot better off.

and who is it that defines what an editor is? You? Each paper? The person applying?

If we have to debate what an editor is, then we have big problems.

I will tell you what an editor is not: some weenie hiding in his office doing critiques after the paper comes out. Too many pseudoeditors of presentation fall into this category.

And too often, this is what comes with the design-based approach. No ideas at the start, when they matter. No good contributions. Instead, we get cliche headlines, Monday morning quarterbacking and critiques.

it's funny how what you say is the major complaint among designers. My official title is copy editor. I often write front page headlines and edit local copy while also designing pages that have real thought behind them. When I have to "dress something up" it's a bad day. When the content dictates my presentation, it's a good one. I can't design without a headline. I can't do it without reading the stories. An editor is more than someone who reads or tweeks copy. I edit my work, and even others work, on a daily basis. You have this disdain for designers, do you feel the same about photographers? Some of my most impactful, reader-friendly work has come because of strong photography and strong reporting. I believe my role is secondary to the content. Many others in my position feel the same way. I can't believe I'm even bothering to respond given that you're going to come back with some crack about "alternative logic" or "picassos-for-a-day" but I just can't sit idly by and have you denegrate my role as a journalist. In the same way that you can't sit idly by and watch the role of copy editors be reduced. If you think for one minute that I don't care about the quality of reporting or editing that comes across the desk, you're sorely mistaken. I just wish we could be sorely mistaken about your belief that designers are "dolts" who have no place in this line of work.

It's actually "ridiculous alternative logic", or RAL for short. Designers use it when they say: "We can't have 200 inches about the white rhino, so we need to redesign and have cutouts. Lots of cutouts."

But back to your point: So what if you read some stories, write some headlines and "edit" some copy? Is it being done well? Because in a lot of cases, I know that it's not.

On top of that, I see most jobs eroding into designer/"copy editor" positions, where no copy gets edited. (There are plenty of pointless after-the-fact critiques, though.)

Well, Nicole. Gooch, et al, good for you for advancing the argument peacefully and civilly. But, as you can see, it did absolutely no good. It will never do any good, cause this leaping gnome of visual impairment doesn't want it to do any good. He regales in our discomfort and will never come to terms with anything we say, suggest argue, offer or imply. Ignoring him is best and we should continue to do so. It is like stirring up a nest of fire ants. If you had left them alone, they'd still be there, but they wouldn't be stinging you.