PressEthic

The Times has been undergoing some changes lately. Subscribers might have noticed the enormous section in yesterday's paper dedicated to reminding readers of the substantial pedigrees of its most notable reporters and columnists, all of which lead to the section's bottom line - "These Times Demand the Times."

Special advertising section (and the slew of questions that it brings up) aside, the New York Observer published a piece today about a redesign that the Times is instituting, "to emphasize the difference between objective and subjective journalism."

Straight news will remain, well, straight: laid out in justified columns, with even margins on the left and right. Stories that have been colored by analysis, commentary or authorial whimsy will all receive the layout previously reserved for columns: a straight left margin and a ragged right one.

These technical changes are accompanied by a "Readers' Guide" that actually goes through and annotates the "special forms" of reporting that occur in the Times. How is a "Memo" different from a "Journal" which is different from a "Review"? For those who have a hard time distinguishing between the articles in the paper, this handy-dandy guide makes it very clear which is which.

Gawker.com offers their own take on the new redesign:

Because the paper thinks you're dumber than a bag of bananas, they've included a helpful Reader's Guide to explain what things like "editorials" and "articles" are.

In a different course, we discussed the Times' ad campaign and how, if they're attempting to increase readership, that particularly technique didn't seem terribly effective (there were only two minorities pictured and almost no reporters/columnists under the age of 40). The ad certainly seemed geared toward a demographic that is white, older, upper middle class and probably already subscribing to the Times. We questioned the thinking behind a campaign that didn't seem to appeal to a younger, more diverse group of readers.

Is the new redesign and readers' guide perhaps an attempt by the Times to appeal to this market? To translate the nuances of the paper for readers less familiar with its style? (Possibly to "dumb down" the paper for those who are less newspaper-savvy?) Or is it simply an attempt to differentiate between fact and opinion, between objectivity and subjectivity? Times design director Tom Bodkin explained to the Observer

“It sort of grew out the concern that we hear from some readers that feel that our coverage isn’t necessarily objective...Our sense is that they may get confused as to what stories are meant to have an individual voice, and which ones are straight news stories.”

It will be interesting to see whether this redesign does, in fact, make the Times more "reader-friendly," thus increasing readership, or whether it will be largely overlooked by both current and potential subscribers.