TJ Simers slams rival paper

I didn't say it's what we need. I say it's become more of a force in newspapers in general lately. I'm in South Carolina. The two biggest papers (The State and The Post and Courier) have never really put an effort into a Page 2 (although the State sort of did). What happened the last few years? The Post and Courier makes more of an effort to put together a good Page 2, while The State hired a designer who's job is strictly to do the Page 2 in the metro and sports section (at least they advertised a job with those duties). The Orlando Sentinel hired a very, very, very talented designer, who's main job is to design Page 2. I'm not saying Page 2 is new; I'm saying other newspapers who lack the size of the LA Times or the Denver Post are trying it. Nowhere in my post did I say Page 2 is what we need. Nowhere did I say it was going to be journalism's saving grace.

You and I disagree on Simers. That's fine. You think he's a waste; I don't. I've always been told that it's harder to write funny than anything else. I think Simers is funny.

Frank, I really do respect you. You're obviously a veteran in this business, and probably somebody who has forgotten more about journalism than I'll ever know. But I got some really bad news for you. When people want to find out the breaking news, they're not picking up your newspaper. They're watching CNN. They're watching Fox News. They're watching ESPN. They're logging on the Internet. Granted Sports Illustrated has had circulation drops, but you know why SI has stayed in business? It entertains us. Not in a dancing monkeys or soap opera way. But the writing -- the writing -- keeps us engaged. The writing keeps us entertained. The writing keeps us involved. I'd much rather have T.J. Simers writing funny columns than telling me the third-string wide receiver has a pulled hamstring -- for two reasons. A.) I don't care. B.) If I did care about the third-string wide receiver, I'm not going to wait until Monday morning to read about it. I'm going to log onto any number of sports Web sites and read all about it.

 

So designing it better is the solution?

And it's "whose." But it doesn't matter because you're getting destroyed in this argument, unless you're trying to prove the futility of newspapers "reinventing" the same things over and over and over again.

 

How did I know Dyepack was going to enter the conversation with a crack on designing? Thanks for the edit, however. Of course, if you had enough attention span to reach the third paragraph of my three-paragraph response, you would have seen how I credited good, quality writing. But we don't expect Dyepack to have the attention span of a 4-year-old, thus we'll move on. He picks the one thing he thinks he disagrees with and then harps on it.

To answer your question, good design is part of the solution. Good writing is part of the solution. But the biggest factor you have to understand is there's no "real" solution. Newspapers aren't going to ever have the same impact they used to have. Cable TV and the Internet has put an end to that.

I'm not a big-time sports writer or sports editor at a major metro. In fact, I work at a 21-times-a-year prep sports publication. Before that, I was the news editor of a 15K circulation paper. Both have rising circulations. Both are seeing more hits on their Web site than ever before. And to be honest with you, it's not great design. It's not great writing. At the smaller newspaper scale, it's not about those things. It's about getting Tom and Jane Smith's name and picture in the paper. That's what sells at smaller newspapers.

At the bigger newspapers, I don't know. But if you think it's beat writers doing a good job covering State U's practice, you're mistaken. Because that's what we all have been trying. And it doesn't seem to be working.

If you think I'm getting destroyed in the argument that's fine. I was under the impression we were having a conversation about journalism. Point me to the scoreboard, please.

 

Dude, you had six or seven sentences in a row that were like: "The (fill in name of paper) hired a designer for its Page 2. The (another paper) has very, very, very good design on its Page 2."

You must be one of those visual folks who think because your writing can't hold anyone's interest, then no one else's can, either. Broken up many well-flowing stories with subheds lately?
After all, can't have more than a dollar bill-sized area of gray text!

 

And in the third graph, I talk about good writing. Can there not be good writing and good design in the same newspaper? My point was other newspapers had put resources into Page 2. Resources don't always have to be writers.

You must be one of those idiots who can't put together coherent thoughts. You're right though. I actually don't think any story should go without at least four subheads, a breakout box and a chart. In fact, if most of the writers would simply just type info boxes, we don't even need stories. It would make my pages look a lot better. (/sarcasm)

I've been a writer. I've been a designer. I've been an editor. I've been all three at the same time. Do I think I'm better at one more than the other? Sure. I realize the subject morphed from T.J. Simers into what newspapers need to do to get better. I had no idea it was going to morph into under-appreciated Dyepack ripping designers again. Perhaps I should have known better.

 

Sounds like you answered your own question. If newspapers aren't going to devote needed resources, and they choose to use them on design, then something is going to get shorted.

 

Sorry, you are misreading what I wrote. The kind of news Simers broke was unavailable anywhere else. Not in the competing newspapers. Not on TV. Not on the radio. And, I would bet you anything you want that if he were still doing it, he'd be beating the crap out of the Web sites, too. He owned his beat wherever he worked. That's what I mean. Not "breaking news" as in news as it happens, breaking news as in the reporter being the person who breaks it -- and no one else has it. Readers know that this is where they go to get the most in-the-know reporting. This is the answer to our problems, expertise and aggressive reporting. Not putting on a clown suit and writing trivial shit.

 

I don't even know what that means. So because a newspaper devotes resources to quality design, they're automatically shorting writing? Your logic makes no sense. There are plenty of newspapers who have both. You're like the guy who thinks the answer to solving the world's gas problems is to make more efficient cars. Sure, the gas supply won't run out so quick. But it's still going to run out.

I don't know what your problem is with designers, but judging from your lack of comprehension skills, I'd spend less time worrying about designers and more time trying to get a clue.

 

Well, if people are reading the stuff from the guy in the clown suit, there's room and call for both.

 

You're right, I did misread it. I've heard all the stories about Simers' ability to break stories, but I never read his stuff back when he was doing it, so it's hard for me to fathom the distinction you're trying to make. I guess the point I'm trying to make is newspapers have to be more like Wal-Mart. We need to have a little of everything (gamers, photos, well-design pages, aggressive reporting, enterprise and yes, even the trivial shit). I go to Wal-Mart for two reasons. The prices are better, and quite frankly, I can buy damn near whatever I need there. That's what I think we need to make newspapers. We need to make it a product that everybody can use. And I think the humor, or the "trivial shit," is part of that.

 

Could you have at least waited for me to finish typing before you make my point for me? That's all I'm saying.

 

Oops, sorry.