posted
There seems to be a disturbing trend in the newspaper industry. Highly-respected, well-established newspapers like The Times of London are converting to tabloid format.
Now, I have always despised tabloids, being inextricably linked in my mind to amoney/sex/scandal, sensationalist style of reporting. Also, they just tend to be uglier. Recently, I wrote a letter to the editor of LeDroit (the only french-language newspaper in the Ottawa region, founded in 1913; it switched to tabloid format back in 1988.) I shared with him my opinion that the format of their newspaper did not adequately reflect the quality of their content. To my great surprise, he answered me personally to explain at great lengths why disagreed with me.
He cited the example of The Times, and referred to several international conferences he had attended with seem to indicate that tabloids are the future of newspapers. The reasons he gave were mainly that it is easier to read, cheaper to produce, and more ecological, and that the tabloid format is becoming more and more linked with respectability, quality and reliability. He also hinted that I would be seeing many more high-profile newspapers converting to tabloid format in 2006 and 2007.
Naturally, I am appalled. Apart from the esthetic distaste I have for tabloids, the main reason I see that they are easier to read, cheaper to produce and more ecological is simply that they have less content. They usually hold much less in-depth reporting and analysis simply because there is less paper to print it on. And his hints about the future were disturbing. I would not like it one bit if the New York Times or the Globe And Mail suddenly became tabloids.
Anyone agree or disagree with me?
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that Tabloid is the future. I am indifferent about it mainly because I don't read the paper for news.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tabloid sized newspapers are so much easier to read on the train. That's one of the reasons why they sell so well. But I do agree that since the London Times changed over to tabloid they have less detailed reports. I only buy the Times now on Sundays when they still print broadsheet editions.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, I avoid reading broadsheet papers simply because they're too awkward to work with. Too much folding. I'd be happy to have a tabloid style paper. More than likely, the biggest change will be the number and size of pictures in papers.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree, and would point at Newsday, of Long Island, New York, as an example of a tabloid not lacking in journalistic virtues. Honestly, I don't see why there would be a relationship between the content of a newspaper and the size of paper it was printed on. I tend to avoid broadsheets simply because I find them to be awkward to read, not for content-based reasons.
posted
I also find broadsheet papers a pain to read. Give me the content of a traditional broadsheet in a tabloid format and I'm very happy. Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am amazed at how New Yorkers can fold a Tabloid OR BROADSHEET with a single hand while reading on the train. The readability of the paper has less to do with the format of the paper and more to do with the arrangement of articles in columns, rather than across the page and spanning pages.
I've done some work for Newsday, and the pressmen read the paper while they're not loading the presses. It's interesting that they do the one-handed flip-and-fold even when they're not on the train. Habit I guess.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
