This morning's new tweaks, including a larger logo . . .
. . . vs. this earlier weekend edition cover from October . . .
. . . vs. issue No. 1 on Sept. 15, 1982, when the original logo started out bigger to begin with:
This large .pdf of today's front shows a below-the-fold note to readers saying: "Starting today, you may notice a few changes in USA Today. We've expanded the size of the newspaper's logo on Page 1, added white space and improved organization, among other changes. We hope this creates an easier-to-read, more engaging newspaper. We welcome your comments at letters@usatoday.com."
Got a Gannett front page to recommend? Find it in the Newseum's page one database, then post a link in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.
. . . vs. this earlier weekend edition cover from October . . .
. . . vs. issue No. 1 on Sept. 15, 1982, when the original logo started out bigger to begin with:
This large .pdf of today's front shows a below-the-fold note to readers saying: "Starting today, you may notice a few changes in USA Today. We've expanded the size of the newspaper's logo on Page 1, added white space and improved organization, among other changes. We hope this creates an easier-to-read, more engaging newspaper. We welcome your comments at letters@usatoday.com."
Got a Gannett front page to recommend? Find it in the Newseum's page one database, then post a link in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.
[Images top, middle: Newseum; bottom, Charles Apple]
Top piece isn't as busy, visually, as the bottom.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, they'll both start fires, line birdcages and wrap fish, well enough.
I am not sophisticated enough to tell the difference. And I used to work there!
ReplyDeleteAnother bid to let stupid people feel important by letting them play with the design.
ReplyDeleteCan't believe many readers will even notice the "tweaks."
ReplyDeleteIt's improved content that would draw their attention, but that isn't likely to happen.
Yawn....
ReplyDeleteI read today's Bush cover story interview about Reagan twice, and have several questions:
ReplyDelete1. Did USAT promise the Bush/Reagan P.R. apparatus that no one would be quoted in the story other than Bush and Reagan?
2. Is USAT trying to get Reagan declared a saint?
Don't mean to be hurtful to the handful of people left whose job it is to keep trying. But as content and revenue continue to diminish, this amounts to lipstick on a pig.
ReplyDeleteWhy?
ReplyDeleteI cannot believe they put all this effort into making such minimalist changes when coverage is noticeably declining and the paper no longer bothers with breaking news. It doesn't make one iota of a difference to change the layout when the content still sucks.
ReplyDeleteJust the picture of Reagan is enough to keep him from picking up a copy!
ReplyDeleteI mean, Bush's recollections of the Gipper are top of the front-page fold?
Give me a break! How about some news?
We have his son recently saying his father suffered from Alzheimers in the later days of his administration. So why wasn't Bush asked about this, since he saw him close and personal. This story is much, much too puff and no substance.
ReplyDeletePuff and no substance is USA Today's specialty.
ReplyDeleteAnother excuse to get less text on the front page ... except, of course, for the umpteenth economy story that no one will read.
ReplyDeleteIt's way easier to read now the logo's bigger.
ReplyDeleteBigger logo just makes an already too small a paper look smaller yet. And I think the "racing stripes" at the bottom and top made it look cooler. Now it's just another blob of blue ink. Why do these papers do everything EXCEPT what it takes to sell more papers?
ReplyDeleteToday -- Day 3 of the new look -- I'm liking it more and more, because the top no longer appears so jumbled. Befire, there were days when the front looked like it had been designed by four different people who didn't see each other's work until the paper came off the press.
ReplyDeleteGannett tweaked the USA Today emblem to make it look widescreen, like a current-model TV.
ReplyDelete