Present Tense

• A redesign of The Irish Times

  February 25, 2008 @ 10:26 am | by Shane

  The paper’s changed this morning, both in its look and with the addition today of a new photographic supplement and an extra page of opinion and analysis.

  Any thoughts?
• Comments Feed
•  | 
• Share This
31 Comments »
1.
February 25, 2008
11:18 am
The end of civilisation as we know it.
Comment by 73man
2.
February 25, 2008
11:39 am
Are you now going to tell people’s ages when you write about them?
e.g - “Bertie Ahern (52) was under pressure last night as Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny (47) questioned his financial dealings…”
If not you’ve missed a trick there.
Comment by Twenty Major
3.
February 25, 2008
12:07 pm
I’d prefer if the Irish Times focused on improving existing content - articles often seem churned out and given little thought or time - rather than trying to beef up the newspaper and distract us with bells and whistles. For example, most of the special supplements that accompany the paper are a complete waste of paper, utter dross. I enjoyed the book review of “Flat Earth News” in Saturday’s paper. Whoever is moving and shaking in there should take notes.
Comment by Samurai
4.
February 25, 2008
12:38 pm
Berliner Format, eh? I like it, very a la mode as the French would say.
Comment by markg
5.
February 25, 2008
12:50 pm
While you’re updating everything maybe you could change the font for the text from times new roman to something more modern.
Comment by John Shelby
6.
February 25, 2008
1:09 pm
John - It is a new font. In fact, there are two, with the main one called ‘expresso’.
Comment by Shane
7.
February 25, 2008
1:28 pm
That’s not a berliner format is it? I though The Guardian was in Berliner format, which is still a good deal smaller than the current Irish Times.
I don’t like the new look Shane, I preferred the old format aesthetically. However, it still stands several leagues above the competitors in terms of quality.
Another page of opinion and analysis is a welcome addition. I also like the ‘he said/ she said’ articles; they’ve been there for a while now though.
Comment by Brock Landers
8.
February 25, 2008
2:14 pm
Any plans to revamp the online version?
Comment by Lianne
9.
February 25, 2008
3:14 pm
Two new fonts, should it not be doble expresso?? Now, where’s my coat…
Comment by Sean
10.
February 25, 2008
3:37 pm
Ditto what Samurai said. Nearly applauded when I read the flat earth thing. I was interested in the HSE anti-drugs campaign a few weeks ago and couldn’t believe the inane ‘taking the moral high ground’ bit the Times ran. Could do better. In any bloody font.
Comment by Brid
11.
February 25, 2008
3:46 pm
Three changes I’d like to see to the Irish Times:
1. Tabloid size. It’s the way forward.
2. Soccer match reports written by Irish Times reporters and not just lifted from the Guardian service. If I wanted to read the Guardian I’d buy it.
3. Website should be completely free, like the Guardian. They’ve a bloody cheek charging a subscription fee.
Comment by Neill
12.
February 25, 2008
4:45 pm
I find a lot of features and opinion pieces in Irish broadsheets tend to be a bit longwinded, like the writer is stretching him/herself to fill 2,000 words. Sometimes you can identify two or three distinct pieces tacked together as the one article to fill the space, or the journalist will pad out the column by recounting chronologically every detail about the subject matter. The Times isn’t the biggest culprit in this regard, but more flexibiity around article lenghts would be kinder to the readers and the writers.
I presume the addition of new supplements has nothing to do with giving readers more or even winning new readers but getting more money from advertisers. I expect them to be full of fluff. I am absolutely sick of the photography craze and am a bit dismayed that the Times has gone down this populist route with a photography supplement. Isn’t that what the Metro is for?
The extra page of comment makes sense but why aren’t these columns in blog format on the net where debate can follow? I mean no disrespect to the current Irish Times bloggers but they show the Times only pays lip service to new media. Music, overcharging and whatever your blog is about Shane are hardly the weighty agenda-setting issues the Times would consider itself to be primarily about.
Actually, the biggest change I’d like to see the Irish Times make is losing its deference to people in authority. Every missive from the Irish Bishops or every statement by Mary McAleese is not intrinsically newsworthy (IMO).
“3. Website should be completely free, like the Guardian. They’ve a bloody cheek charging a subscription fee.”
Why? I too would like lots of things to be free but don’t expect them to be so to suit my miserly temperament.
Comment by David Bowie
13.
February 25, 2008
5:18 pm
“3. Website should be completely free, like the Guardian. They’ve a bloody cheek charging a subscription fee.”
Why? I too would like lots of things to be free but don’t expect them to be so to suit my miserly temperament.
A happy medium between the two is surely possible!
Plus, if ireland.com does receive an overhauling, the new slogan could be “Broadsheets. Broadband. Broad minds.”…
Nearly as nausea-inducing a proposition, I suppose, as that photo of Paul McGuinness today! But not quite.
Finally, why do we, the readers, need Irish reporters for ENGLISH football matches??? What difference would it make? Indeed, do you really want ANOTHER Dion Fanning???
That WOULD beat the McGuinness photo hands down…
Comment by JD
14.
February 25, 2008
5:35 pm
ireland.com needs a “Max Gogarty Moment” to announce themselves into the Web 2.0 world.
Comment by Steve K
15.
February 25, 2008
6:41 pm
Very nice. An improvement on what was before.
Comment by John Shelby
16.
February 25, 2008
7:43 pm
No tabloid please. Ugly. Small paper for small minds. Don’t succumb to Independentitis. And no more ‘Special’ reports, think of the trees.
Comment by Finn
17.
February 25, 2008
9:05 pm
It bugs me when the Irish Times reproduces Guardian material such as the interview with AL Kennedy a few weeks ago.
Could someone not have gone to interview her in these days of cheap flights?
As Neill said, if I wanted to read the Guardian, I’d buy it.
Comment by Peeler
18.
February 25, 2008
11:02 pm
Was the redesign to stop us noticing that the price had gone up to €1.80 and €2.00 on a Saturday?
Comment by europhile
19.
February 26, 2008
10:47 am
Newspapers seem to think readers want bigger and brasher but what this reader wants is the occasional ‘moment’ such as those to be had reading Michael Harding on Fridays.
His is a quirky voice in a sea of increasingly glib blandness.
Comment by Anne
20.
February 26, 2008
11:27 am
Miserly temperament, ha ha! Thanks for that David Bowie, if indeed that is your real name. What I was getting at was if the Guardian (whose online content is generally superb) can give it away for free, why can’t the Times? What is their jusification for charging a subscription fee? What, indeed, is the point of paying to subscribe to an online news service when it can be got for free from multifarious other sources, such as the aforementioned Guardian? Anyone who subscribes to the Irish Times online must be a bit mad.
Comment by Neill
21.
February 26, 2008
2:02 pm
“if the Guardian (whose online content is generally superb) can give it away for free, why can’t the Times? What is their jusification for charging a subscription fee?”
I don’t know the exact business model the Guardian or the Times uses so I can’t answer that question. I do know that English tabloids were able to radically undercut their Irish counterparts pricewise in the Irish market in the Nineties due to having much larger print runs and economies of scale. I imagine something similar happens in this instance: the Guardian makes a lot more money from online advertising than the Irish Times due to its much bigger readership so it can dispense with subscription.
I don’t understand the attitude that since the internet exists everything should be free. People say its the “new business climate” but its really just being a tight-ass.
I’m sure the people who think paying to read a newspaper online is an insult would be the first ones up in arms about advertisers/greedy corporations influencing the editorial content. You can’t have it both ways: you pay for quality or every newspaper becomes the Metro or Herald AM.
Comment by David Bowie
22.
February 26, 2008
2:05 pm
The layout is better, but the new supplements are extravagantly dull.
Comments criticising IT for using Guardian articles are misplaced.
A small paper like the IT cannot possibly have correspondents everywhere. It makes sense to buy in articles, especially when the Guardian quality is so good. The amazing thing is that they don’t use more from the Guardian. They overlook some brilliant content, which would add considerably to the paper - and save me the trouble of buying the Guardian as well.
Comment by flippinheck
23.
February 26, 2008
2:30 pm
Shane, why, when the paper uses so much colour now, are the by-line pics in black and white?
Gervais Thornley looked much more moody than usual and Tom Humphries’ pic looked terrifying.
Comment by Ivor
24.
February 26, 2008
2:55 pm
“I don’t understand the attitude that since the internet exists everything should be free. People say its the “new business climate” but its really just being a tight-ass.”
—————————-
Yes but if I pay for the Irish Times every day why should I then have to pay again to read it online? Especially since, quite frankly, the online content is not actually particularly exciting and is basically the physical paper printed online. I take your point about advertising etc etc perhaps playing a part but that’s not going to make me happy about paying twice for the same content.
By the by I for one certainly don’t actually hold the attitude that everything on the internet should be free, and it’s rather a large assumption on your part to jump to that conclusion. For example I don’t illegally download music, at all, in fact I’m one of the few people I know that doesn’t.
That’s ‘miserly attitude’ and ‘tight ass’ you’ve thrown at me so far, how about dispensing with the insults?
Comment by Neill
25.
February 26, 2008
3:34 pm
“Yes but if I pay for the Irish Times every day why should I then have to pay again to read it online?”
I doubt if the Irish Times’ web hoster can tell if you’ve bought the paper that day or not. I think people who buy the paper and read it online are in the minority; its usually one or the other. Perhaps if you subscribed to get the paper delivered you’d get an online subscription free - I don’t know if that happens but it would make sense.
Comment by David Bowie
26.
February 26, 2008
7:09 pm
“Comments criticising IT for using Guardian articles are misplaced.”
I don’t think so. Most people buy the Irish Times for an IRISH perspective.
Agree the Guardian content is excellent but there’s no reason why the Irish Times could not be equally good if it got decent writers on board.
Comment by Nan
27.
February 27, 2008
8:27 pm
Oh goody, even more motoring shyte.
Comment by Skipper
28.
February 27, 2008
9:54 pm
Between ‘and whatever your blog is about Shane’ (my favourite comment of the week!) and ‘if it got decent writers’, are you sorry you asked yet?
Comment by Liz
29.
February 27, 2008
10:02 pm
Liz - Never. I don’t know what it’s about either, I was hoping someone would tell me.
Comment by Shane
30.
March 2, 2008
10:38 am
berliner format ftw
Comment by steve white
31.
March 3, 2008
12:55 pm
Oops, I meant to say more/additional decent writers on board!
Comment by Nan

Leave a comment

• Name (*)
  
• Mail (*) (will not be published)
  
• Website
  
• Comment
  
• Submit