Wow, look at all the countries siding with Hezbollah.

Say what you will about the politics. American newspapers would have more readers if we presented a point of view like this. I think this is gutsy and terrrific.

check out this independent cover:

http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00170/p1-220706_170748a.jpg

the only american "media outlet" to make the comparison (that i could find) and call out bullshit on a regular basis was... the daily show.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/07/war_on_terrorbl.html

Smart, smart concept. Sophisticated. Says it all. If more publications wanted to be this gutsy through visual communication I wonder if we'd be losing so many readers. Congrats.

Smart, smart concept. Sophisticated. Says it all. Congrats.

As a concept it's very interesting and dramatic. A+ Design.

But taking a complex issue like this and boiling it down to a bunch of pretty flags is insulting and stupid. Great design, awful journalism.

hmmm,
boiling down a complex issue to something that tells a story in a simple and concise way is "awful journalism". Best of luck with that point of view.

Did you read the text or just look at the "pretty" image? The question wasn't who hates Israel and loves Hizbollah but who backs an immediate ceasefire. Do you have information that makes the page's statement untruthful? If so, share. If not, then this "A+" design asks what is, in fact, a very simple question and answers it truthfully, effectively and dramatically. Good journalism in anyone's book.

Good design. But what makes this so "gutsy?"

Woops. Hit "Post" too soon.

Using the same comparison of flags to flags, I would love to see someone do one side that reads: "Countries that can serve on the U.N. Security Council" (everyone except 1 nation); and on the other side: "Countries that cannot serve on the U.N. Security Council" (which would be one -- Israel).

Or better yet: Terrorist-supporting countries that can serve on the Security Council on one side, and Israel on the other.

That would be good, responsible journalism.

I think it's gutsy for a cover because it challenges the normal way of communicating a complex story in a very simple clean and decisive way. It also takes a point of view, which can be seen as very risky. Those are the things I like about it. As a reader, I expect the inside pages to take the storytelling further with words, explanatory journalism, more graphics, photographs, etc. That said, the words on the cover are direct and powerful in conjunction with the equally powerful visual concept. It's interesting. I think readers like - and need - interesting.

Just asking: If the story is not an analysis or commentary, can we consider it good journalism if it "takes a point of view?" Isn't the point of a hard news story to be objective, to not show bias or favoritism? And if so, why celebrate something, such as this cover, when it violates this?

"At least 362 Lebanese, many of them civilians, and 37 Israelis - about half of them civilians - have been killed since the violence erupted 13 days ago."
------------------ bbc.co.uk

let's try this again, josh. If you really want politics to enter the fray, look at the numbers above. If you really want to talk journalism, READ THE HEADLINE. A simple question, a simple answer -- simply illustrated. a whole bunch of countries for an immediate ceasefire -- three against. what democracy did you grow up in? many for, three against.
Even if I agreed that this was a point of view rather than a factual answer to a question, isn't one of the aims of journalism to defend the defenceless and to speak for the voiceless? If I were to infer a point of view from the page it would be that this isn't a sop to the cowardly terrorists who are firing rockets into Israel -- it is a defence of civilians (remember when that word meant something?) who are dying at the hand of Israeli fighter pilots and their precision-guided bombs. Why is this happening when most of the international community is against it?
The Indy's front page asks that question elegantly. There are shades of grey to the answer certainly, but for somebody to take offence to a page that criticises the Israeli response when the numbers of casualties are so skewed in their favour smacks of you bringing your political bias to the page rather than looking at what is actually in front of you.
Await your response on today's Indy (Monday July 24). Does the image of a bloodstained child holding his mother's hand after being hit by an Israeli air strike also carry a bias/point of view?

Wow. I really hit a nerve. I didn't intend to turn this into a political debate. But ... OK, where to start ...

First, you said, "A simple question, a simple answer -- simply illustrated. a whole bunch of countries for an immediate ceasefire -- three against." A simple enough statement. At its base level, the design achieves this.

Then, you followed with this question, "What democracy did you grow up in? many for, three against." Whoa! When did the world become a democracy? Countries are sovereign entities, my friend -- whether they be democratic, Communist, or any other type.

I'm not certain what country you are from, so you might/might not understand my next point. I am American. There are many, many countries in this world that do not like my country and would love to see us wiped from the face of the earth. Does your same "global democratic" view hold sway? If 100 countries want America to perish, and three or four want us to exist, does that mean the majority rule?

Going back to an earlier post of mine, let's, in your words,"defend the defenceless and ... speak for the voiceless." Israel is not allowed to have a voice on the U.N. Security Council. It is the only nation in the world that is denied this position. Nations against Israel, such as Syria, are allowed to serve and have a vote on said body. Israel is constantly threatened and assaulted by her neighbors (both verbally and literally). When you have "cowardly terrorists," in your own words, who hide behind the innocent, there is little an army can do -- either put up with the rocket attacks, appeal to an impotent U.N. for help or do the best you can to root out the cowards and minimize civilian casualties.

Now, as far as using the journalist's creed to speak out against the Israelis? That's weak. Have you been using the same creed to defend the innocent Israelis who have been killed in suicide bombings, or are you of the opinion that Israel has no right to the land they occupy and therefore are not defenseless?

And finally, you said, "Does the image of a bloodstained child holding his mother's hand after being hit by an Israeli air strike also carry a bias/point of view?"

It is very tragic to see such a thing, but my answer: Yes, it can.

You agree the design achieves what it sets out to do -- illustrates very effectively that many countries are for a ceasefire, three are against. Beyond that, I think you did set out to make this a political discussion -- there's nothing wrong with that -- why be disingenuous about it?

you took a clear bias from the word go -- "Terrorist-supporting countries that can serve on the Security Council on one side, and Israel on the other. That would be good, responsible journalism."

and, yet, again in your own words: "Isn't the point of a hard news story to be objective, to not show bias or favoritism?"

well, I think you're mistaken on both counts, but let's move on.

As for using the same creed to defend Israelis killed in suicide bombings, of course I do -- it's deplorable. But, as you point out, "countries are soverign entities, my friend" and Israel has invaded one, a sovereign country with a democratically-elected government, in a reprisal for three of its soldiers being kidnapped. By any stretch of the imagination that is a huge news story and deserving of more coverage. That's not a bias -- that's news values.

I don't think anti-Israeli bias is any more acceptable than pro-Israeli bias. But Israel is voiceless and defenceless???. Grow up Josh. If Israel gave up its nuclear weapons and its US-provided fighter jets and precision (ish) bombs you could maybe get away with calling them defenceless. As for a voice on the Security Council, if they started abiding by UN resolutions, I could take your calls for them to have a voice on it a little more seriously. Yes, the Indy took a point of view -- that a looming 'humanitarian' disaster is a bad thing. As news bias goes, it beats Fox News.

And finally, the image of the bloodstained child is a visual record of an event that actually happened. It is a representation of reality -- not perfect but pretty close. It in itself does not carry a bias -- the decision to carry the pic may, but I think given the story and the image, and by how many papers carried it it was worthy of page one.

I think you're right, Josh, anything can carry a bias, but usually you'll find it doesn't have to -- people bring their own.

First of all, I like the design. I think it demonstrates a fact -- who supports a ceasefire, and who doesn't -- in a clear and easy-to-understand way.

Is it taking a side, showing bias? About as much as reading the names of the American casualties of the Iraq war dead is biased. (Some say yes, some say no, depending on their particular worldview.) But it's a BRITISH PAPER, and they ARE allowed to take sides, which is frowned upon in American journalism.

From the ethics codes of the Press Complaints Commission, kinda like the British SPJ:
The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

See? They're free to be partisan -- and I consider this pretty restrained compared to other UK tabloids I've seen. So while it's an approach American journalists might not take, and while Mr. NewsDesigner is American, this is obviously, from the range of comments I've seen here, a very international forum.

So please, let's make this about the design, and not the politics behind it, OK?

This isn't biased so much as showing a great point in a clear, concise way. I'm all for approaches like this -- yes, sometimes white space can stand for "being left out in the wilderness."

"one might ask where the Hezbollah flag is"

The Hezbollah flag is flying aside the United Nations flag.

Compelling graphic, but intellectually vacant and far too typical of journalistic and designer groupthink. There's nothing "gutsy" or "sophisticated" about it. It's a clever talking point -- simplistic and dishonest.

The designer did not research the historical context, relationships, and true nature of the current conflict. By ignoring such information, THE GRPAHIC CONCEALS FAR MORE THAN IT REVEALS.

I wish more of my fellow graphic designers would jump start the other side of their brain.

Excellent as an opinion piece, great as graphic art, sucky as "journalism."

It's also 'great' as the biased, knee-jerk leftist advocacy journalism for which this paper is well-known.

I stand with what the first poster said. "Wow, look at all the countries siding with Hezbollah." and I'd add "..and apparently agree with starting a war with a goal of slaughtering Israeli civilians, none of whom had invaded Lebanon."

Do readers really care that Angola, Cuba, Georgia, Finland and Zimbabwe oppose Israel's attempt to stop missles from reining down on them from their northern border? Perhaps the Independent's readers find that compelling, and I guess that's all that mattered.

Designer groupthink -- I love that.

You Americans are funny - are you really trying to tell me that Americans consider their journalism to be 'objective' and 'unbiased'?

I would argue that Mr. Jackson's apparent argument that you either have to bomb or be bombed to solve a conflict is proof of just how skewed American media is.

Also - the Hezbollah flag is not there because Hezbollah is not a nation, and the Lebanese civilians being killed are not 'Hezbolleans'.