Newsdesigner.com | A Narrower Times in 2008*

A Narrower Times in 2008*

8:58 AM, July 18, 2006

In a move it’s been considering for a while, The New York Times will be narrowing its width and launching an “extensive” redesign in 2008. The newspaper will switch to a 48-inch web from the current 54 inches, meaning each page will be 1½ inches narrower. To compensate for the loss of space, editor Bill Keller says they’ll increase the number of pages, edit tighter and use more digests “or other abbreviated forms.” About the design, Keller says:

You cannot just take the current front page and squeeze it. We need to think hard about changing the look in ways that preserve the visual power, the urgency and the dignity of The New York Times. [Design Director] Tom Bodkin is already at work, along with several other senior editors, on a thorough examination of the A-book. He will now look for a redesign that we can execute in two stages — some changes we may introduce earlier, and then a new look to suit the narrower format when the page size changes in 2008.

The Times will also close a printing plant and shed 250 production-related jobs. The changes will save the company about $42 million a year.

Update: Stephen Colbert says: “We did it! That’s an inch and a half less of state secrets revealed every day!” Here’s the video:

>Times to Reduce Page Size and Close a Plant in 2008 [The New York Times]

Comments

Heads up: After you hit "post" things may be slow and you may get an error. Most likely, your comment did post. Apologies. I'm looking for a fix.

A quote about the shrinkage from a Times staffer in the New york Observer: “It’s an insult to the people doing substance here,” the staffer said.

Because longer always means better, right?

What's the use if you can only write 95 inches of 'substance' instead of your usual 100?

Posted by: Dave at July 19, 2006 10:01 AM

Love the video. Thanks!

Posted by: Rich at July 19, 2006 3:22 PM

"Blah, blah, blah, America's fault. Blah, blah, blah, Hillary Clinton." Awesome.

Posted by: tball at July 19, 2006 3:59 PM

Yeah, the quote from the gutsy anonymous Times guy saying it's an insult to people "doing substance" is a hoot.

Doesn't he know that:
a) If you're from the Times, you don't "do substance." You "execute a thoroughly reported and closely edited substantial first draft of history."
b) He sounds like a total heel. Just another out-of-touch, self-important, everything-I-spin-is-gold opera-donatin' heel.

If anyone has a copy, see Stephen Colbert on this year's Daily Show calendar, July 18: "Your comments evoke a skepticism in me that I choose to convey smugly."

Posted by: Chris at July 19, 2006 8:12 PM

just the width?

Posted by: Alex at July 20, 2006 8:15 AM

"...in ways that preserve the visual power, the urgency and the dignity of The New York Times."

This confuses me. The NYT? Dignity? Visual power? Since when?

Posted by: Stephen A. at July 20, 2006 8:32 PM

segmenting televising hip?constituted freaks,Benedictine

Posted by: at April 15, 2009 8:34 PM

funk?unskilled surveyor intimacy exceeded boisterously,

Posted by: at April 30, 2009 7:44 PM

Blenheim.complimentary ready cruising somnolent impaired petroleum determinant

Posted by: at May 21, 2009 5:55 PM