Here's something you might be interested in.
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Why doesn't The New York Times go tabloid?
Hey:
Does size really matter? I think it does. The long ones always flop over unless you hold them up just right. I prefer the shorter ones because you can hold them up straight easily and they don't take up so much room on the kitchen table. I'm talking about newspapers. Why are all the "reputable" daily papers so big? The so-called "tabloid" size makes so much more sense. In New York, there were actually instructions on how to read The New York Times on the subway. You had to fold it a certain way so it would not get in the way of the person next to you who was reading the much easier handling tabloid-size but much less respected Daily News. Why is the smaller size not in greater use?
— Pondering the Papers, not in New York any more
The Subway Fold is one of those big-city skills most people do reflexively, like walking 50 blocks without making eye contact. So why does The New York Times insist on making your life so difficult by retaining the broadsheet format? A lot of it is in your observation about the Daily News; somehow "tabloid" equals "lightweight ," although much more fun to read. At least you're sure you won't get brain freeze from a critical analysis of foreign policy by some ex-State Department geek. But you will get every detail about that quadruple homicide in Ecuador. With pictures. The word tabloid itself has plenty of negative connotations.
The other thing about tabloids is, they're printed and bound in one lump; a broadsheet can have as many sections as you want. National news, local news, sports, lifestyle/entertainment, automotive, real estate — each section can cater to its own advertisers and create its own image if it's not forced to share a staple binding with the others.
Anyway, try to imagine how it would look if The New York Times suddenly went tab. Half their cred goes out the window. Besides, if you have to work a little harder for your news, maybe you appreciate it more.
Here's something you might be interested in.
Why doesn't The New York Times go tabloid?
Why doesn't The New York Times go tabloid?
Hey:
Does size really matter? I think it does. The long ones always flop over unless you hold them up just right. I prefer the shorter ones because you can hold them up straight easily and they don't take up so much room on the kitchen table. I'm talking about newspapers. Why are all the "reputable" daily papers so big? The so-called "tabloid" size makes so much more sense. In New York, there were actually instructions on how to read The New York Times on the subway. You had to fold it a certain way so it would not get in the way of the person next to you who was reading the much easier handling tabloid-size but much less respected Daily News. Why is the smaller size not in greater use?
— Pondering the Papers, not in New York any more
The Subway Fold is one of those big-city skills most people do reflexively, like walking 50 blocks without making eye contact. So why does The New York Times insist on making your life so difficult by retaining the broadsheet format? A lot of it is in your observation about the Daily News; somehow "tabloid" equals "lightweight ," although much more fun to read. At least you're sure you won't get brain freeze from a critical analysis of foreign policy by some ex-State Department geek. But you will get every detail about that quadruple homicide in Ecuador. With pictures. The word tabloid itself has plenty of negative connotations.
The other thing about tabloids is, they're printed and bound in one lump; a broadsheet can have as many sections as you want. National news, local news, sports, lifestyle/entertainment, automotive, real estate — each section can cater to its own advertisers and create its own image if it's not forced to share a staple binding with the others.
Anyway, try to imagine how it would look if The New York Times suddenly went tab. Half their cred goes out the window. Besides, if you have to work a little harder for your news, maybe you appreciate it more.
Comments