steven.vu

The Independent relaunch; a party ‘free from party political ties’ and ‘free from proprietorial influence’

I love newspapers. Personally I read the Guardian, not because of any political leanings, but more for the format. I can’t get enough of the Berliner format and their Egyptian slab serif font, aptly named, “Guardian,” which was designed by non other than Christian Schwartz.

When the Independent have their typographic wet dreams on the front page, I sometimes flit over to them. I’m easy like that.

Things have gotten slightly more difficult with the Independent relaunch though. They’ve included a “Viewspaper,” for opinionated commentary and an ironicly named sombre font called “sun.” They’ve also gone all Web 2.0 on us, with a bloody twitter page, facebook fan page, iPhone app and Chrome extension. Isn’t RSS enough?

People are pretty split over the new design. It’s pretty similar to what happaned with the Guardian in 2005.

At the time, the Independent had this to say:

It is the masthead that grates most of all. Gone is the Garamond (which was intended to signal stylish features) and the Helvetica (hard news) and in their place is a blue and white logo in a font dubbed “Guardian Egyptian”. Hillman says the new look reminds him of “cheap newspapers and freebies”. – Why the new Berliner gives me the blues

The Guardian, this time round, seemed to pat Indy on the back. How nice. Michael Crozier, who redesigned the Indy a few of times, in 1986, 1993 and 1998 wasn’t as pleased:

In the redesigned, re-configured, paper news seems once again to have taken a backwards step – it’s comment and opinion all the way with the new 20-page pull-out Viewspaper section.

Time will tell whether it was a wise move.

My parents actually read the Daily Mail, which strikes some as odd – seeing as they’re immigrants – but the answers pretty obvious. It straddles the middle ground between the bare bosoms of the sun and the terse dense script of any sensible paper. It’s all about the 8 words per line average you see.

The relaunch ties in neatly with the Murdoch’s bitching and whining that they backed the wrong horse. The Kill Klegg campaign wasn’t working and after the Independent accused them of rigging the election, team Murdoch apparently stormed into the Independent and had a row. The rows were over these excellent viral adverts. They should buy some space on the TV and plaster billboards with them.

Intelligence Squared – Future of news | Why did I pay £25 to go to the event, knowing I could stream it live?

I went to a discussion hosted by Intelligence Squared called the future of news.

And that, so they tell us, is the end of the news. We won’t be buying newspapers any more to learn what’s happening in the world because we can get that information at no cost on the net, and without having to trek to the newsagent. We won’t be hearing from serious journalists any more: how can they earn a living if any old blogger can lift their expensively-crafted articles and post them on his own site?
–Future of news

Speakers: Matthew Parris, Turi Munthe, Claire Enders, Jacob Weisberg, David Elstein, A A Gill, Andrew Neil, Sir Simon Jenkins

I’ve never really been to an event of this sort, but am interested in media and thought it’d be worthwhile. The problem with it all was that there was no debate. Each speaker came to the podium and rambled about what they thought of media and where it was going. They should have just got Charlie Brooker to read out his article “The most dangerous drug isn’t meow meow. It isn’t even alcohol,” over the phone.

I was hoping the event would reveal the answer to why I paid £25 to go to the event, knowing full well that I could stream it live at home.

On serious journalism

The speakers didn’t appeal to me. If all of them had a blog would I read them? Maybe a couple. Columnists and journalists were once chosen based on a couple of stories and a nod of the head from the editor. Columnists would write and as long as the editor was happy, it was published and they were paid. The crux is, no one actually knew whether the public ever bothered to read what they wrote.

With the internet, that’s no longer the case. There’s instant feedback. Your readers will tell you. Take a long hard look at this article by the Telegraph, “Facebook ‘linked to rise in syphilis‘,” as its ilk will be extinct.

If that’s an example of serious journalism, then they’re right. It’ll die out.

Bloggers started writing for free, for passion. They wrote because they felt a compulsion.

Writing is a form of therapy; sometimes I wonder how all those, who do not write, compose, or paint can manage to escape the madness, the melancholia, the panic fear, which is inherent in a human condition
–Graham Greene

After years of writing as a hobby, they had enough visitors and made some money off advertising. They made a lot of money. Suddenly, they took it seriously, quit their day job and wrote their blog full time.

Newspapers are dying, journalists aren’t[sic]. Whether a writer writes as a blogger or for a large newspaper doesn’t dictate the quality, it’s whether they’re getting paid or not. Serious journalism can exist without newspapers. What we need are editorial standards and that’ll happen as the internet matures. The Huffington Post and Slate are sites with their own newsrooms. They aren’t the pinnacle of editorial standards, but they’re getting there and I’m sure many will follow suit.

I do agree with much of the panelists that crowd sourced media doesn’t have much of a future. The quality of Newsvine, Demotix and NowPublic just leave too much to be desired. They need an editor and to be paid.

Can old media become new?

The real question is whether old print media can morph into new media, or whether a new company will arise, unencumbered by all that legacy. To understand the state of newspapers, you have to understand what happened with other forms of media. Let’s take music.

Music
With the advent of the internet, music could be shared quickly and easily. Why go to the shop when you can just download it? There were no convenient legal option. The music companies were slow to react and give their offering. They were encumbered by legacy. Your options were:

• Napster
• The shop

A few years down the line and new legal options have appeared. The below scenarios are now open to me as a consumer of music.

• Pirate it, the most convenient of which allows me to go into a shop and find a CD I like, whip out my phone and take a snap of the bar code. By the time I get home, the CD will be on my computer.
• Spotify, I search for the song I want and press play. It’ll play instantly. Every few songs, an advert plays.
• Itunes.

So what does a 23 year old like me prefer to do? I personally use Spotify.

The music industry were in a quandary a couple of years ago. They were forced to adapt and they did, but truth be told all the innovation was brought by the start ups. Whether The Guardian, The New York Times et al live can live in the new world, depends on if they’re willing to make drastic changes. How can they though? They’ve still got bad investments, pensions, large expensive offices and foreign desks.

In the next ten years I personally see new companies starting up and filling the void. They’ll select their journalists from bloggers with a proven readership and have them all telecommute. As they mature they’ll have the same rigour as our current stalwarts.