Did I miss Letters to the Editor? Or is it now 'Threads'? Make that "Thread'.
4
I am not going to spend my Sunday morning doing triage through a densepack of glossy marketing. I'm one step closer, sadly, to ending my lifelong commitment to the NYT.
38
Regarding the relaunch --- Meh. Two suggestions ... 1. Recognize the considerable contribution of the advertising sales staff to making this the longest NYT Mag ever. 2. Find at least one Ethicist panelist who can distinguish between polite behavior and ethical behavior. TNX Cliff.
18
Love the new magazine, and smiled to see the tandem theme between "First Words" and "Poem" in this first issue: "Stay" and "Abide". Whether a quiet intention or not, a clever bit of editing. Best of luck, change is good.
2
Although I expected to be slightly thrown off by the new design of the Magazine (I don't adjust well to change) I had no idea that I would be completely blown away--in a bad way. I'm a 45-year-old English teacher who has read the Sunday Times obsessively for the past 25 years. Even in the days when my three children's hectic schedules prevented me from relaxing for hours and reading every section of the paper, I was able to grab the magazine, fold it into my bag and read it while sitting at a baseball game or on a carpool line. This new version was so offensive and off-putting to me that the only article I was able to push myself to read was the Lives section. I can't imagine why you would limit this section to a reporter's retelling of events when the former Lives columns were some of the most insightful, beautifully written pieces. I was in mourning yesterday for the elegant, accessible, intelligent magazine that I had come to love so deeply.
41
Considering all the self-conscious pre-sell last week and the over-the-top concept assault this week, I expected worse.
Not as bad as the previous revamp.
Not worth all the hoopla.
Maybe you should focus on news?
Not as bad as the previous revamp.
Not worth all the hoopla.
Maybe you should focus on news?
7
Bravo well done! Design and content. Embrace change.
I salute the team.
I salute the team.
NYT Sunday Magazine meets WIRED.
Congrats on the ad pages.
Congrats on the ad pages.
1
Puzzles are improved -- more readable and better paper so my pen doesn't stick. Yay!
As for everything else ... let's just say I got my money's worth with the puzzles.
As for everything else ... let's just say I got my money's worth with the puzzles.
3
I'm sure it will be very nice. I just hope nobody lost their jobs in the process.
The 500+ comments so far have mostly stolen my thunder as to how unnecessary this grand effort was, but I'll add more. This redesign had to have cost tens of thousands, whereas it has been apparent for some time that all the copy editors are gone from the core product, so the money might have been better spent to bring the newspaper back to its former famous standards. Meanwhile I'll remind the publisher what some critic said a few years back--that nobody would actually pay for just the Magazine section.
20
For the first time ever, this long term NY Times subscriber was bored by the magazine. It used to be the highlight of my news week, settling down on Sunday with the Times, and I would save the magazine for last. I hope this is a work in progress, and not the final result or I'll consider canceling my subscription. For fluff I can always go to the Internet.
24
WHAT New York Times Magazine? I cannot comment on the content because my newspaper was delivered with out the much vaunted new Magazine section. When I telephoned the Times the lady I spoke to said she had already had multiple calls complaining of non-delivery of the magazine (this at 9:30am or so). The promised replacement magazine was not delivered either. Needless to say this does not make me happy about big promises of content NOT delivered. And of course the moderator will not post this, or similar comments complaining of non-delivery.
The New York Times company should be cringing. The editor writes a cheerful editorial "you’ll be seeing more of us outside the bundle that lands on your doorstep on weekend mornings". But circulation instead fails to deliver - literally. I want the magazine *delivered with my newspaper* as, no doubt do the others who were also telephoning in unusual numbers to complain of non-delivery.
The New York Times company should be cringing. The editor writes a cheerful editorial "you’ll be seeing more of us outside the bundle that lands on your doorstep on weekend mornings". But circulation instead fails to deliver - literally. I want the magazine *delivered with my newspaper* as, no doubt do the others who were also telephoning in unusual numbers to complain of non-delivery.
3
Thanks, NYTimes for redeeming yourselves for this long-time reader. The first Sunday of this year I was informed bluntly that the regional distributor had discontinued making the Sunday Times available for sale in my local grocery store. This infuriated me, as one favorite indulgence on languid afternoons is wading through each section, especially relishing articles in the magazine.
So -- imagine my surprise to not only see that decision reversed, and sitting down to peruse the newly re-designed issue today. As a graphic designer and educator I frequently hold up your publication as a shining example of clean, contemporary page design. I especially like the "slab serif" typeface you've adopted for most headlines and sub-heads. One concern though: what happened to the "Who Made That?" piece?
So -- imagine my surprise to not only see that decision reversed, and sitting down to peruse the newly re-designed issue today. As a graphic designer and educator I frequently hold up your publication as a shining example of clean, contemporary page design. I especially like the "slab serif" typeface you've adopted for most headlines and sub-heads. One concern though: what happened to the "Who Made That?" piece?
1
When I read about the changes that were coming to the magazine I was excited. And then I actually got it today and was able to see it and hold it. That's when excitement quickly turned into disappointment. The magazine is the main reason I continue to subscribe.
Countless people have already complained about the number of ads, and some have even broken down the numbers. Almost half the magazine is now ads. I think I could live with that, but it seems like they're now putting more emphasis on the ads, and the content is just secondary. The full page ads are always on the right page, and the content is on the left page. The right page is what people see first when turning the page. If you're like me and are used to reading the paper folded over, not spread out, it makes it even more difficult to read. The added weight doesn't help either. The old magazine was something I could easily roll up, stuff in purse, and read when I had to wait someplace for just a few minutes. That's not happening anymore.
This quote from an article in The Washington Post about Chuck Klosterman leaving The Ethicist column sums up what's wrong with the magazine.
"The trick, says magazine Editor-in-Chief Jake Silverstein was to “stop thinking about it as a print franchise….We simply set out to create an ‘Ethicists’ podcast and then work backwards into print.”"
If they've decided to not think of it as a print franchise anymore, I guess I can stop too. I'll be canceling my subscription tomorrow.
Countless people have already complained about the number of ads, and some have even broken down the numbers. Almost half the magazine is now ads. I think I could live with that, but it seems like they're now putting more emphasis on the ads, and the content is just secondary. The full page ads are always on the right page, and the content is on the left page. The right page is what people see first when turning the page. If you're like me and are used to reading the paper folded over, not spread out, it makes it even more difficult to read. The added weight doesn't help either. The old magazine was something I could easily roll up, stuff in purse, and read when I had to wait someplace for just a few minutes. That's not happening anymore.
This quote from an article in The Washington Post about Chuck Klosterman leaving The Ethicist column sums up what's wrong with the magazine.
"The trick, says magazine Editor-in-Chief Jake Silverstein was to “stop thinking about it as a print franchise….We simply set out to create an ‘Ethicists’ podcast and then work backwards into print.”"
If they've decided to not think of it as a print franchise anymore, I guess I can stop too. I'll be canceling my subscription tomorrow.
24
Several covers, many more advertisements, and YES, I come to the table of contents on page 34. This was more of a catalog than literary experience. The Ethicist reminded me of those local newscasts where several anchors sit and basically talk to each other. Not very entertaining or enjoyable for the viewer. I subscribe to the print version for a reason and that is not to go to other platforms to complete a story. Lest you think me a luddite I am writing this on my tablet. You have erred badly with this redesign.
27
Hahaha. Where's my Sunday Magazine? The rest of the paper was delivered, but not the much-ballyhooed Magazine. A call to Customer "Service" elicited the response that there was a "production problem", and that "no one" got a Magazine. A manifestly false statement, judging by the comments shown. It appears that, with the Times, "Service" is a slogan.
1
Impossible to read, with the excess of ads and many short pieces. Hoping it does not look this way next week.
15
This so called "relaunch" could only have been fueled by advertising dollars -- in fact the entire vehicle was designed to the advertiser's specs. It is impossible to imagine that this new format was not developed under close advertiser supervision. Bottom line, I find the format makes for very difficult reading -- the reader's eyes being constantly blinded by classic "in-your-face" ads. Perhaps I am being "old fashioned" in this regard. But, then perhaps 50 years of uninterrupted (pleasurable) reading of the Sunday Times makes me so...
14
Too early to form opinion(s) on the whole, but so far your Ethicist panel seems a poor idea, encouraging one-upping but not much thoughtful discourse, in the column or with comments from readers.
16
If you still had the Meh List, the new magazine would be on it. Maybe soon, once you are finished trying to impress us all with the conceptual brilliance of what you've done, you will get back to providing content that someone might want to read.
16
I like it. I hated your last format. It was such a blatant effort to be hip and cool, but the result was a mish mash of layout, fonts, bleh. In this issue loved the ads for the high-end residences, too. May you continue to draw them in.
My one concern is about the paper quality. Beautiful stock, but since few Sunday magazines get saved (I would imagine), this lovely paper will just be junked or recycled. Save the trees. Use a lesser stock. We don't need it to appreciate the content.
My one concern is about the paper quality. Beautiful stock, but since few Sunday magazines get saved (I would imagine), this lovely paper will just be junked or recycled. Save the trees. Use a lesser stock. We don't need it to appreciate the content.
2
It is completely understandable that some issues of a periodical would have more pages of ads than others, but attempting to adopt such sly and manipulative devices as hiding the table of contents 34 pages into the magazine, and failing to clearly number the pages, all in the same place on each page, so that the reader is forced to peruse ads searching for it, and then the continuations of articles, smacks of such haute-sly slick mags as Vanity Fair. Give busy readers their time on Sunday, and let your advertisers take their own chances on having their ads used to line the birdcage or used to light the fireplace as I do. Tables of contents are on page 3. Page numbers belong on the lower outside corners.
16
Less is more.
3
Hate the fact its now over 50% ads, but don't expect there's much to be done about that
1
I'm a digital only subscriber but I bought today's print edition just to see what all the fuss was about. I'm glad I did because now I'm finally convinced that a printed magazine is a dinosaur.
It was beautiful to look at and to hold, a piece of art. But it was very difficult to navigate through 218 page turns. When I tried to go back to read an article, I got lost in a jungle of ads.
I finally gave up on the print version and read the magazine on my computer. It was great.
It was beautiful to look at and to hold, a piece of art. But it was very difficult to navigate through 218 page turns. When I tried to go back to read an article, I got lost in a jungle of ads.
I finally gave up on the print version and read the magazine on my computer. It was great.
2
There seems to be no "there" there. How about a list of contents for non-tablet users. You know, most people who READ the NYT are not using tablets. Scrolling so much to find NOTHING stinks. Did the magazine really only have a handful of articles? That's all I found.
4
I hope I don't have to wade through so many ads each week. The table of contents was on page 34--Much too far in. This reminded me of all those ad-ridden special publications on travel, style, that hit my recycle bin without being read. The article text type face is fine to my 78 year-old eyes, but the heavy headlines like the ones on the web page are really, really, really, ugly. I did like the improvement in the readability of the numbers and letter in the acrostic. Who did the beta test on this? The content, however worthy. is buried in the ads. I haven't even found anything in it but the puzzles at the back. It is too heavy to hold in one's lap.
4
Please reduce my subscription charges by the pro-rated amount of the NYTimes Magazine. I pay for the NEWSpaper, not the ads.
5
For having to plow through a half dozen or so different cover variations, the least you could have done to amend for all that extraneous garbage, is have added a half a dozen crossword puzzles or something that I might have found worthwhile and enjoyed doing. At least there would have been some consistency that way.
Sorry, but for all your hard work redesigning pages of ads to seem to appear as if it may contain something worth reading by calling it Times Magazine, save yours and the readers time next time and just give it ONE cover calling it NYT's Ad Blitz.
For all the ad revenue this must have generated for you, I'd expect you'd be paying me to have to read this thing, not the other way around.
Sorry, but for all your hard work redesigning pages of ads to seem to appear as if it may contain something worth reading by calling it Times Magazine, save yours and the readers time next time and just give it ONE cover calling it NYT's Ad Blitz.
For all the ad revenue this must have generated for you, I'd expect you'd be paying me to have to read this thing, not the other way around.
7
I had a gleeful yawp once, but then I drowned it in the bathtub.
1
The redesign seems like a desperation move. Newspapers often announce with big fanfare that they've redesigned their websites or their print editions. It never improves circulation and rarely makes the website easier or better. The net result is usually more layoffs. The problem is not the redesign, but the fanfare. Sure, do a redesign and include a small editor's note. But let's stop with the hype. I still miss the cartoons in the Sunday Review, by the way.
3
I hate it!! Bulging with ads, large print and gimmicky typeface. Reminds one of e mail in uppercase - SHOUTING. Plowing thru all of that to read articles one hoped would be worth the trouble, to find they were not. It seems like a bunch of overachievers got together to outdo each other while the boss was away, and incorporated all their bad ideas, the worst of which is to assault the senses. To me there is enough noisy stimulation, so there goes my longtime subscription.
11
Thanks for telling me that this is supposed to be the magazine. I thought it was just an glossy, ad-insert.
Page 30 before reaching the Editor's Letter. Page 51 to get to an actual article. I didn't didn't care for Chuck Klostermann as The Ethicist, but I much prefer him to a transcript of a podcast. No I'm not going to listen to the podcast either.
Every other page of the new magazine is an ad. And they're all on the right page, meaning the actual content of the magazine is on the left side, which is just harder and less comfortable to read.
The whole magazine is less comfortable to read overall. It's just too thick, but not with content, with endless ads. You took everything I hate from the Style magazine, and put it into the one reason I still subscribe to the physical paper. When you took out the one page magazine, which had been my favorite part, I thought of canceling then. Tomorrow morning, first thing I'm doing, is calling to cancel. You guys ruined what had been a good thing. Bye.
Page 30 before reaching the Editor's Letter. Page 51 to get to an actual article. I didn't didn't care for Chuck Klostermann as The Ethicist, but I much prefer him to a transcript of a podcast. No I'm not going to listen to the podcast either.
Every other page of the new magazine is an ad. And they're all on the right page, meaning the actual content of the magazine is on the left side, which is just harder and less comfortable to read.
The whole magazine is less comfortable to read overall. It's just too thick, but not with content, with endless ads. You took everything I hate from the Style magazine, and put it into the one reason I still subscribe to the physical paper. When you took out the one page magazine, which had been my favorite part, I thought of canceling then. Tomorrow morning, first thing I'm doing, is calling to cancel. You guys ruined what had been a good thing. Bye.
13
I can hear the NYT sales reps promising: "Just like Vanity Fair." And that pitch, so far, seems to be working. Graydon Carter, though, owns the VF editorial franchise. A pale imitation on glossier newsprint won't work.
2
i buy the print version every sunday & this week in particular i it was great to view the newly designed magazine in all its glory (after i tore out the myriad of ad pages).
i'm happy you kept the "talk" feature (but does it have to remain as the last page??) - but don't think it's fair for me to judge the magazine on the whole it until i have seen a few issues.
i do have 1 comment i believe is fair to make at this time.....
while my generation (baby boomers), while probably your largest age group of readers, was way under represented in the pages. we're not in your staff photo, written content, (other then in other countries), nor advertising - not even in the pubescent photo of fleetwood mac.
while i very aware of your strategy to bring new readers in, wouldn't a nice mix of the various generations - better serve both the magazine & it's readers?
i'm happy you kept the "talk" feature (but does it have to remain as the last page??) - but don't think it's fair for me to judge the magazine on the whole it until i have seen a few issues.
i do have 1 comment i believe is fair to make at this time.....
while my generation (baby boomers), while probably your largest age group of readers, was way under represented in the pages. we're not in your staff photo, written content, (other then in other countries), nor advertising - not even in the pubescent photo of fleetwood mac.
while i very aware of your strategy to bring new readers in, wouldn't a nice mix of the various generations - better serve both the magazine & it's readers?
2
I can't believe this is still open. Well, I'll be having Crow for Supper tonight, and the rest of this week, and I've only been wrong about 5,249 times this year. Dang, we're still in February.
Let me be a gracious moron ---A magnificent job to those who performed this alteration with style and grace ... and only a smattering of ads for things I will never be able to afford.
Can I say ... WELL DONE!
Let me be a gracious moron ---A magnificent job to those who performed this alteration with style and grace ... and only a smattering of ads for things I will never be able to afford.
Can I say ... WELL DONE!
Way too many ads! Way too heavy - I'll have to cart it a couple of blocks to recycle. The Lives essay (my favorite part of the Sunday NY Times) was buried in the middle. Please bring back the old format!
6
A perfect example of new isn't always better. I shouldn't have wade through, for a beginning, 34 pages of ads before getting to the Table of Contents. You're proud of the increased volume of ads as I'm sure you need the revenue to sustain your paper but this is a huge turn off for me. I'm curious as to how many readers actually looked at it today and were impressed about how much more advertising they could consume. I have a very busy life and often don't get to the Magazine each week but I carefully save them in order to read on airplanes. That no longer will be able to occur because they would fill my carry-on. The typeface might be "modern" but the whole thing seems cluttered. Our lives are so filled today with assaults to the senses everywhere we go and this feels like just one more. Sad. I probably will continue to subscribe but will cast the magazine in the recycle bin before, rather than after, reading.
9
51 year old with disposable income. A scientist.
I used to live in NJ. Then Philly. The St Louis, then Denver. Now in Ft Collins CO. And I have always subscribed to home delivery of the New York Times, "all the news that's fit to print." And I've had to defend myself around others who think this paper is too liberal and writing for the middle class or lower.
Well, after looking at todays MAGAZINE, I am sort of astounded. It's like going thru Vogue or Vanity Fair--the number of 1%er ads before I reach anything substantive. The Ritz Carlton, Cadillac,One West End (with studios that start at 1.3 million dollars.)
I live in a nice place in Colorado and I like to read important things. And I loved the graphic design and typography of the MAGAZINE, thru all its generations. But this "ad stuffing" has to go.
I used to live in NJ. Then Philly. The St Louis, then Denver. Now in Ft Collins CO. And I have always subscribed to home delivery of the New York Times, "all the news that's fit to print." And I've had to defend myself around others who think this paper is too liberal and writing for the middle class or lower.
Well, after looking at todays MAGAZINE, I am sort of astounded. It's like going thru Vogue or Vanity Fair--the number of 1%er ads before I reach anything substantive. The Ritz Carlton, Cadillac,One West End (with studios that start at 1.3 million dollars.)
I live in a nice place in Colorado and I like to read important things. And I loved the graphic design and typography of the MAGAZINE, thru all its generations. But this "ad stuffing" has to go.
11
I could open any font catalog and find fonts that look just like the ones you're raving about. Big deal. And why is the new title 'modern'? Just because you changed the spacing of the letters? Really?
There are too many ads. They dwarf the content. If you want to rave about content you need to show it off.
There are too many ads. They dwarf the content. If you want to rave about content you need to show it off.
5
Sigh. I'll admit that I clearly stand on the wrong side of the generational divide that has led the inestimable Times to reduce itself to this demographically-challenged group of "editors." However, I have deep misgivings that this "relaunch" of the Magazine portends the Times' pursuit of the entertainmentification of news (a la CNN and Fox "News") and its abandonment of actual journalism.
I find much that troubles me here, but two things stand out. First, the author's casual mixing of singular and plural first-person leaves the reader confused about whether this is supposed to be an expression of personal experience or a statement of a corporate editorial position. This sloppiness and lack of clarity is anything but reassuring.
More troubling is the singularly self-congratulatory, self-absorbed tone that permeates this piece. I see numerous descriptions of what "we" are doing and what "we" think but there is almost nothing about what benefit readers might derive from all this or how readers' experiences have contributed to these changes. Instead, it feels as though this writer (and the other editors) haven't yet realized that just because "we" are doing something the rest of the world must be fascinated. The inherent inauthenticity of this shows in the proclamation that "we" are being "both subversive and sincere." Those who possess either of these qualities reveal them in their actions; those who have to tell us they possess them almost certainly don't.
I find much that troubles me here, but two things stand out. First, the author's casual mixing of singular and plural first-person leaves the reader confused about whether this is supposed to be an expression of personal experience or a statement of a corporate editorial position. This sloppiness and lack of clarity is anything but reassuring.
More troubling is the singularly self-congratulatory, self-absorbed tone that permeates this piece. I see numerous descriptions of what "we" are doing and what "we" think but there is almost nothing about what benefit readers might derive from all this or how readers' experiences have contributed to these changes. Instead, it feels as though this writer (and the other editors) haven't yet realized that just because "we" are doing something the rest of the world must be fascinated. The inherent inauthenticity of this shows in the proclamation that "we" are being "both subversive and sincere." Those who possess either of these qualities reveal them in their actions; those who have to tell us they possess them almost certainly don't.
14
Sadly,I must say I'm disappointed in most of the "new" features... layout and new type faces harder to read...way too much advertising & hard to tell what was ads and what was "real" content. I do like the new puzzles, though.
1
Wow. That is one homogenous group. (I believe it might be troubling when an Iowan has to point out lack of diversity to a New York group.) Did you guys by chance watch Newsroom this season? Might want to check it out.
5
"The Ethicists" is a disappointment. I don't mind the re-design of the Magazine - or flipping through the high number of ads, but reading "The Ethicists" today was painful...Too many sarcastic responses, tangential and even, condescending. And a "Panel" of three is confusing at best. I used to love to read the offered question and "think" about my own reply or ask others what they would recommend before reading Klosterman's take. This was fun, challenging, educational and insightful...he was thoughtful, articulate and very often, spot on and rarely if ever, sarcastic...Sorry, but I'd recommend re-naming this column to, "The Panel" - then, it would be more readable...
6
That old technology called "page numbers" has apparently has been lost at the Magazine. It is bad enough to have to hunt for the last two or three columns of an article (in an age of "electric computers", as Bill Nye calls them, with software that is already undoubtedly used for lay-out) without having any evidence of where to start looking. Better yet, just use that software to keep all parts of an article contiguous!! I'm sure there's a high school student somewhere who could help.
7
I can't tell if there is anything of substance between all the advertisements.
9
Flipping through advertisement after advertisement, I felt like I had a copy of Vogue in my hands, and not the formerly venerable NYT magazine.
8
As I went through the redesigned Magazine page by page, I found the new fonts and page designs clean and user-friendly. My only concern after that first perusal was your use of light-weight section headlines (e.g., pages 62 and 92). They're inconsistent with the other section heads and seem more like callouts, causing me to go back a page to see if I had missed the start of the article. Even using just a drop cap of the heavier font used everywhere else would more clearly indicate the line's function and importance. A redesign is a daunting undertaking, but you have successfully rendered a hybrid of the familiar and the new.
Please don't let this happen to the Book Review!
12
Considering the moving of more quality content to the web, the editors admit, "We're late to this party" (pg. 46 of the mag). But what they've really missed, I think, is that the pendulum is already swinging back towards print. I for one am burned out with constant computer, phone and tablet reading. I want to sit down with a cup of coffee and a quality publication and savor the physical moments. As it is with this new format, I can barely find the articles or photographs buried in amongst the 1%-er ads. Hopefully the Times will regain focus and realize that their print version truly is the place for excellence, and shouldn't be ruined by thinking of it simply as on ramp to the web.
8
Judging from the comments, I'd say the readers are about 98 percent opposed to the redesign, 95 percent if I were being generous. Will this matter? I doubt it, just as it didn't with the website and comment redesigns. I can just see the staff sitting in their post-mortem, justifying all the changes and saying, "They really hate it." "Yeah, we expected that, but they'll get used to it. This will all blow over in a week."
8
Running scared.
1
If the recent re-design of Bloomberg.com is any guide, these changes are all about showcasing style to cover the abysmal decrease in cogent content. Please prove me wrong. BTW you could also ban any article based on name calling. That is not journalism.
4
I remember Gore Vidal referring to the Magazine as "a Lingerie Journal."
Once upon a time The Ethicist column was a wonderfully authoritative answer on inquiries that actually required an understanding of ethics to dispense. The first of the new version appears to be more of a breezy, 'who can outsnark who' discussion among people one would be reluctant to ask for advice. As for the rest of the new magazine, the NYT appears to have fallen for the all too common idea that covering what is already popular on line serves some greater purpose. Maybe you can do a story on why that makes sense.
6
As a long-time magazine reader, here are four of my thoughts on new magazine:
A) Remove the gloss paper and go to a matte; the gloss is too shiny to read under certain lights. Perhaps print like the book review?
B) Too many thoughts on the Ethicist section. I prefer the one well thought out reasoned response.
C) Why make titles so small on articles?
4) Get rid of all the advertisements or put them in the back.
I'll continue to read the NYT Magazine.
A) Remove the gloss paper and go to a matte; the gloss is too shiny to read under certain lights. Perhaps print like the book review?
B) Too many thoughts on the Ethicist section. I prefer the one well thought out reasoned response.
C) Why make titles so small on articles?
4) Get rid of all the advertisements or put them in the back.
I'll continue to read the NYT Magazine.
So disappointing. Trying to find the features I have enjoyed over the years, I found myself flipping through 34 pages of advertisements just to find the table of contents. Sad.
5
What a shame that you never once considered the word "Sustainable" when designing the new magazine. It's 2015, for Pete's sake. How about printing it on recycled paper, or eliminating the ads for gas-guzzling SUVs?
1
After having seen the print edition, it's more clear what's happened here. The magazine has been re-designed and repurposed along the lines of the Style Magazine as a vehicle for advertisers, with some content thrown in here and there to keep up appearances. This is perfectly understandable. What's distressing is the mendacity with which they redesign has been promoted, as stemming from some sort of intrinsic motivations. Especially from a publication that purports to respect the intelligence of its readers. "The issue also happens to be the largest in the magazine's 119-year history." Indeed, it is pretty thick.
8
And after all the hoopla, the magazine was left out of my copy of the Sunday paper, so I don't even get to see it.
2
At some point, the wheel to the car must be turned over to a younger driver. At some point, younger people have to be given a chance to do what they can and show what they can do. But...
Since newspaper style books INSIST that every unknown Joe or Mary must have an age attached to his or her name in order to be quoted about something that has no relationship to that person's age, DON'T BE SHY, Times people: tell us your ages. For everyone.
PLEASE, also, give us the average age of the editorial and design staff working on the new NY Times mag. It is not that this is truly important, but it would be interesting and, besides, if people who work for newspapers and digital editions of same insist they can have our ages, give us yours. This will give all of us an indication of your intentions (the description of same sounds pretty good).
Doug Terry
http://terryreport.com
Since newspaper style books INSIST that every unknown Joe or Mary must have an age attached to his or her name in order to be quoted about something that has no relationship to that person's age, DON'T BE SHY, Times people: tell us your ages. For everyone.
PLEASE, also, give us the average age of the editorial and design staff working on the new NY Times mag. It is not that this is truly important, but it would be interesting and, besides, if people who work for newspapers and digital editions of same insist they can have our ages, give us yours. This will give all of us an indication of your intentions (the description of same sounds pretty good).
Doug Terry
http://terryreport.com
4
My first reaction is some of the changes in the new magazine I like, and some I don't. But I am willing to withhold final judgment for a month or so before deciding whether to my mind the overall balance of writing, visuals and media formats is an improvement. (As a business owner myself, it's easy for me to empathize with what it takes to plan and announce the reimagining of a tradition like The New York Times Magazine.)
However, one change I have been yearning for is not even mentioned -- simple usability enhancements for the online/digital versions, such as the search function. I am one of your long-time readers who considers reading your print version (on Sundays) to be a pleasure. I also use the online versions daily to share articles with friends, or to save for reference or revisiting. Sometimes I cannot find the digital versions of specific print articles online. For example, the article titled "Beyond the Page" in a section marked "Our Little Corner of the World" on p. 46 of the 2.22.15 magazine is nowhere online. Why? I would also love to see it made easier to save articles directly to Evernote, my preferred electronic notebook. (FYI, the Wall Street Journal has implemented this functionality beautifully.)
Whatever the final judgment of your readers about today's changes, I thank you for the efforts at continuous improvement.
However, one change I have been yearning for is not even mentioned -- simple usability enhancements for the online/digital versions, such as the search function. I am one of your long-time readers who considers reading your print version (on Sundays) to be a pleasure. I also use the online versions daily to share articles with friends, or to save for reference or revisiting. Sometimes I cannot find the digital versions of specific print articles online. For example, the article titled "Beyond the Page" in a section marked "Our Little Corner of the World" on p. 46 of the 2.22.15 magazine is nowhere online. Why? I would also love to see it made easier to save articles directly to Evernote, my preferred electronic notebook. (FYI, the Wall Street Journal has implemented this functionality beautifully.)
Whatever the final judgment of your readers about today's changes, I thank you for the efforts at continuous improvement.
1
On a scale of four stars to none, I give the new version a "Poor." Many, many reasons, but here are some:
(1) The Table of Contents starts on page 34 and ends on page 40 and is interspersed with advertisements and meaningless illustrations;
(2) the TOC should be on pages 3-4
(3) the primary font is too small;
(4) "The Ethicists" headline is "Can I Ask My Neighbors . . . ;" surely it should be "May I Ask . . . ;"
(5) Using four eithicists produced no advice, just general blah-blah-blah; see Philip Galanes' column in you-know-what-and-where;
(6) Why focus solely on contemporary poetry? There is more universal truth, expressed brilliantly, in one staza of Byron's "Don Juan" than in almost any contemporary blank verse.
In summary, the NYT Magazine is indistinguishble from many other glossy magazines, with the same advertsiements, the ame Proustian questionnaire, and the same "topical" advertisements and articles. A mountain groans in labor, and a mouse is brouight forth.
(1) The Table of Contents starts on page 34 and ends on page 40 and is interspersed with advertisements and meaningless illustrations;
(2) the TOC should be on pages 3-4
(3) the primary font is too small;
(4) "The Ethicists" headline is "Can I Ask My Neighbors . . . ;" surely it should be "May I Ask . . . ;"
(5) Using four eithicists produced no advice, just general blah-blah-blah; see Philip Galanes' column in you-know-what-and-where;
(6) Why focus solely on contemporary poetry? There is more universal truth, expressed brilliantly, in one staza of Byron's "Don Juan" than in almost any contemporary blank verse.
In summary, the NYT Magazine is indistinguishble from many other glossy magazines, with the same advertsiements, the ame Proustian questionnaire, and the same "topical" advertisements and articles. A mountain groans in labor, and a mouse is brouight forth.
4
I don't begrudge the Magazine for including more advertising…the Times needs all the revenue it can get. Critics can't have that both ways. But as for the Mag's latest iteration, the patient may still be alive, but is definitely in the ICU. I lose confidence in the Times when I see this Helen Gurley Brown-esque superficial fluff-stuff.
7
Dear Editors
I can't stop you from removing all that was informative and thought-provoking about The Ethicist column, which my husband and I used to read aloud to each other every week. Therefore, I'll just encourage you to rename it The Opinionators as poorly crafted opinion was all that we found in this week's edition.
Thank you for your consideration,
Christine
I can't stop you from removing all that was informative and thought-provoking about The Ethicist column, which my husband and I used to read aloud to each other every week. Therefore, I'll just encourage you to rename it The Opinionators as poorly crafted opinion was all that we found in this week's edition.
Thank you for your consideration,
Christine
11
Bring back the format from the early 2000s!!
6
Oh, the negativity and all the readers screaming around here. Don't touch my crossword! Bring back Bill Safire! And please, please, don't try to open my mind!
Come on NYT,34 pages of commercials before even the contents page ???
8
Did you change the paper on which the mag is printed?
1
The Magazine sounds wonderful, but unfortunately, our print copy was never delivered. The rest of the paper arrived sans Magazine. :(
1
First thing I did was go through & rip out all the ad supplements do I could get my hands around this behemoth. (OK - I realize that's where the money is). Then I did the crossword. Yayy! At least that's still
there and basically the only reason I have daily home delivery. Hate the new Ethicist column with its inane chitchat. So at least leave the print readers in peace & stop trying to push us into tweets, podcasts, online crosswords etc.
there and basically the only reason I have daily home delivery. Hate the new Ethicist column with its inane chitchat. So at least leave the print readers in peace & stop trying to push us into tweets, podcasts, online crosswords etc.
3
I tried to read the magazine this morning, but the stink from the huge volume of ads with colored ink made it impossible to breath, let alone concentrate on any writing. Has the Times decided to position itself as primarily a delivery system between advertisers and the wealthiest among us? I am completely disgusted.
8
I did notice a single African American male or female among all those photos and the many individuals about the team responsible for the "new" magazine. Is that reassuring ?
3
Table of Contents. p.34.
That says it all.
That says it all.
9
The worst part of the magazine section seems to have just gotten much more difficult with the new format. When the magazine article on the occupy movement in Hong Kong said the article continued on page 178 it took me 5 minutes to find page 178 because there are so few page numbers on the magazine pages! And then after I finish page 178 I need to jump to page 192 - again with very few page numbers for reference! My biggest takeaway was how frustrated I was reading the articles this week. Hey editors if you are going to cut your articles up into all different parts of the magazine can't you please number all of the pages?
7
To the Editorial Staff:
Just whom did you test market your new format on? Having read through all of the comments- I find the comments almost uniformly aligned in their legitimate and thoughtful criticisms. The New York Times wasn't "late to the party" in developing an online presence. You have missed that party altogether and now must host an entirely new event. To continue the analogy- your new magazine format is as embarrassing as parents (or grandparents) crashing a frat house party. The NY Times is an elegant, erudite and still relevant institution and should conduct itself accordingly- the New Magazine section with all it's links, podcasts and drivel is as embarrassing as grandma in a mini skirt. Please remember those of us who are your habitual audience- my well informed children already have multiple other sources from which they get their news and aren't switching over any time soon. I like to read lengthy, thoughtful and well researched articles in print on a Sunday morning- I can get sound bytes from my Facebook feed.
Just whom did you test market your new format on? Having read through all of the comments- I find the comments almost uniformly aligned in their legitimate and thoughtful criticisms. The New York Times wasn't "late to the party" in developing an online presence. You have missed that party altogether and now must host an entirely new event. To continue the analogy- your new magazine format is as embarrassing as parents (or grandparents) crashing a frat house party. The NY Times is an elegant, erudite and still relevant institution and should conduct itself accordingly- the New Magazine section with all it's links, podcasts and drivel is as embarrassing as grandma in a mini skirt. Please remember those of us who are your habitual audience- my well informed children already have multiple other sources from which they get their news and aren't switching over any time soon. I like to read lengthy, thoughtful and well researched articles in print on a Sunday morning- I can get sound bytes from my Facebook feed.
16
What a frustration! I can't find the stories for the ads in this new design. This remake seems to be all about bringing in ad revenues and not about enhancing the reader's experience. You've taken the joy out of my Sunday morning reading. Go back!
5
There are so few page numbers that finding the continuation of an article is maddening.
5
That picture of you staff shows exactly the problems with your "new" magazine: white millenials. This magazine is actually read by people a lot older and more experianced then your staff. You should stop trying to convert a magazine to a podcast,etc.
6
The only thing I noticed - it reeks of ink/chemical smell so strong I had to put it on the other side of the room to air out. It gave me a head ache - that's new.
7
Your ad for NYT Mag says, "Think Again." Good advice. You should take it.
11
I really find the new format for the Sunday Magazine to be frenetic and off-putting. Between what seems like a pathetic plea to appeal to everyone on every subject and the airline-like features of things like your Premier subscription material, I am nearly ready to give up your publication entirely.
6
Now that the Magazine has been redesigned as a glitzy catalogue of things I can't afford and don't want anyway, interspersed with lots of self-congratulation, I guess it's time to bid farewell to my home delivery subscription. I mean, why put out a magazine with four different covers, anyway?
10
Firstly a "back to basics" comment- the Sunday NYT, especially with the magazine, gives me the most value for any comparable $6 purchases I make in typical week. So if it takes lots of ads to do this, so be it!
Secondly, a couple of comments on the reading experience. Page numbering was inconsistent such as Russian TV article being continued onto a page that is not numbered. Also I like reading the mag content in print and it bugs me when I have read an article in NYT. com on a Friday only to find it was a magazine article but not labeled as such.
Secondly, a couple of comments on the reading experience. Page numbering was inconsistent such as Russian TV article being continued onto a page that is not numbered. Also I like reading the mag content in print and it bugs me when I have read an article in NYT. com on a Friday only to find it was a magazine article but not labeled as such.
3
Congratulations! I love it! Elegant in design and content. A triumph.
2
With an inaugural redesign it's not uncommon to have advertisers drawn to something that is fresh and new. I'm quite certain this ad/edit ratio will be short lived, much to the chagrin of the mag's publisher. A clear and troubling problem, however, is a lack of understanding of what drives today's modern-day reader. It's certainly not long form, self indulgent copy. Who has the time or inclination to waddle through this mass? Where are the legitimate human interest stories? You upgrade the paper stock, so where are the arresting photographs and engaging visuals? It's too hard to read and navigate. It all just seems like way too much work. This sadly is a huge backward step for the NYT and yet another data point suggesting management is out of touch w/ today's readers.
17
As I sat down this morning to read today's newly reformatted New York Times Magazine, I was struck by its large size. Also surprising was that I had to thumb through 30 pages of ads to come to the first page of content. This piqued my curiosity as to how the new magazine compared to its previous incarnation. I dug out last week's issue and this is what I found: last week there were 54 pages including 6 full-page ads--that's 6 pages of content for every page of ads. This week there are 218 pages with 110 full-pages ads, adding up to 1.98 content pages for every full-page ad, a three-fold increase. With regard to the increased weight, my research uncovered these statistics: the previous issue weighed 93g versus this week's 420g. After removing this week's full page ads, the magazine weighed 50% less at 211g. (Making this calculation was made difficult by the fact that nearly every page on the interior of the magazine consisted of content on one side and an ad on the other.) I also noted the increased weight of the paper now being used: last week's paper weighed 1.72g per sheet compared with 1.93g in the new issue.
Now that I have satisfied my curiosity regarding the changed girth of this week's magazine, I think I will have another cup of coffee and (hopefully) enjoy reading it.
Now that I have satisfied my curiosity regarding the changed girth of this week's magazine, I think I will have another cup of coffee and (hopefully) enjoy reading it.
8
I was looking forward to reading the new magazine with my coffee this morning. When I got about 30 pages in the smell of cologne became overpowering. I looked for those little tear sheets that advertise perfume, but not finding any to discard I discovered the whole magazine was saturated. I have breathing difficulties due to COPD, so I had to toss the magazine into the recycle bin.
12
Who knew that over-night I'd switch to reading the NYT Mag on my iPad! Previously, the print version has been my constant companion and favorite reading material, at home, around town in my tote, on airplanes to countries near and far. I'm grieving. The new material may be great, but I WILL NOT wade through the ads to find out.
19
Thumbs down. From the self-indulgent introduction to the "new" format, to the ridiculous number of pages devoted to ads for stuff that caters to the 1%, to the gimmicky typeface...disappointing. Had to wade through way too many pages of ads to even get to the table of contents... And truth be told, I couldn't tell, sometimes, what was stories and what was ads. One positive thing to say...like the addition of more kinds of puzzles.
28
I too really liked the new puzzles. I also liked the poetry. It's too bad that they're both so hard to find with all the ads. But perhaps they just think of that as a new puzzle. A scavenger hunt for content.
2
If you can get all these people to pay millions to advertise in your magazine I bet you could get some, fewer, to pay even more. That way you'd still have the income but you wouldn't have this news-gutting ad-to-content ratio that is turning away the very audience you and your advertisers need.
12
The self-serving justifications for the "relaunch" are really just a mask for its real motivation -- cramming substantially more advertisements into the Magazine for additional revenues. Not in and of itself wrong; just reality -- which I will tolerate if additional revenues fund investigative and thoughtful reporting of the type you can't find in other papers.
8
The magazine is back. After weeks — months? — of scanning it, then tossing it in the recycling bin, the 2.22.15 issue consumed almost five hours, only interrupted by brief breaks to buy five books mentioned in Rosie Schaap's "Drink" or to email other article links. The global section was a first-rate human perspective on international, and even technology, topics. Well done. Welcome back.
1
Ugh. Just ugh. The Times just doesn't get it: the reason a lot of people, and this includes the advertiser-coveted 18-40-year-old demographic, have turned away from mainstream print media is not graphics, podcasts, tweets and "interactive" gimmickry; it's the paucity of hard-hitting, in-depth investigative reporting--you know, journalism it's called. Maybe if the Times Magazine had more of a passion for truth, justice and true democracy and less for "hipness" it could win back some of those disaffected readers.
22
I couldn't find anything but the favelas article actually worth reading in this "new" hipster magazine. If there was a Letters section I couldn't find it. It was like trying to find actual writing in Vogue or Vanity Fair. Way too much time wasted turning over page after page in futile hope....
1
Lots of complaints about too many adds are in already, but it is a business and adds mean money. However, you do need to think about how you turn off readers. My first look at the print edition left me horrified. Did I really have to go through all that junk to get to something real? It is a much better magazine on line. As for the material, the new ethicist is awful and many of the articles are not really interesting. Sometimes new versions have teething trouble, so you deserve a few tries before I discard the magazine without bothering to open it.
Burt
Burt
7
I read some of the magazine, but I don't see an improvement. It looked like a powerful ad magnet.
10
As someone who has written for both newspapers and magazines, I believe newspaper writing is the purest form of journalism and in particular "The New York Times." From past writers including Alden Whitman, Russell Baker and Judy Klemesrud to current staff including Robert D. McFadden and Sam Roberts, I have truly admired their clean and vivid styles, rich with information and unfettered by pretense or awkward transitions. Similarly, there have been outstanding magazine pieces. This makeover, however, is hugely disappointing. The only story, tight and lyrical, that l found satisfying was on Photography: A True Picture of Black Skin.
9
I looked forward to the redesign I really did. My thoughts, wall of text. Way to dense. Non inviting. You need to air it out. Vertical text, just say no...
2
Page after page of advertisements targeting the very very wealthy, the very wealthy, and a few for the merely wealthy gets tiring.
12
It's almost possible to find a few articles among the ads, ads and more ads. The magazine's transformation into a frothy fashion spread is almost complete. What's next -- fragrance samples and coupons?
8
Does the new NYT Magazine believe in stealing the words of great Americans without attribution, and packaging them if invented and owned by a corporation? The entire second page of the magazine is a giant quote, "it is not the critic who counts...etc." one of Theodore Roosevelt's most powerful series of lines. But you will not find his name anywhere. Instead, you will find a "c" encircled bug with the name Cadillac -- as if Cadillac created and now owns and can protect the use of this quote. Really?
9
While I agree that Roosevelt needs to be given credit, is it the fault of the NYTs, or is it the fault of Cadillac that created the ad? Should the Times have insisted that Cadillac include credit? I seem to remember another quote by Theodore Roosevelt. "I predict that in the future, corporations will use my words to help push their products, but they will fail to give me proper credit. That thought really pisses me off, and I encourage everyone to boycott Cadillac because of it." He was a wise man.
The quote is also being used in a television ad, also without credit.
The quote is also being used in a television ad, also without credit.
2
I think that this redesign missed a huge opportunity. I don't understand the extensive attention paid to changing the iconic font - instead of inventing new ways to engage the reader. I treasure my Sunday morning read, but there is something truly uninspiring about this issue. Of all publications I expect the NYT to have a strong voice. With this edition, there's too much apologizing and rationalizing and far too little provocative thinking.
8
if (age >= 40){
printf("I do not like this article.\n");
}
else if (age < 40){
printf("I like this article.\n");
}
printf("I do not like this article.\n");
}
else if (age < 40){
printf("I like this article.\n");
}
1
I'm in my 20s and I am disappointed in the changes made to the NYT Magazine.
2
Surveys show the most read column in any magazine is the Letters to the Editor. Reading a compilation of thoughtful responses from all over is often an excellent debunking mechanism. Yet the overhauled NYTimes Magazine has seen fit to eliminate their Letters page. This week's Editor's Column proclaiming the glories of the redesigned Magazine doesn't mention this omission, but it's a sign -- the media prefers to circle the wagons and talk among themselves. Common sense observations from the hoi polloi are eliminated to make room for The Media Talking to Itself.
12
On page 48 there's something called 'The Thread", which I guess is supposed to be the new Letters to the Editor, which they had previously called "Reply All". Unfortunately, it doesn't published letters or comments about articles, without any editorializing. It is instead a column, written by somebody, no byline is given, that sums up the reactions to a previous story, with a few comments from readers sprinkled in. It's bad.
Perhaps, if enough people complain about it, they'll give us the letters page back. Which seems unlikely. The better plan might be to find a high priced, luxury brand, to buy a full paged ad, that will print the letters and comments.
Perhaps, if enough people complain about it, they'll give us the letters page back. Which seems unlikely. The better plan might be to find a high priced, luxury brand, to buy a full paged ad, that will print the letters and comments.
1
The new headline typeface looks like an old-timey western. Google "Wanted: Dead or Alive", and you get almost the exact same look from the opening credits screen grab (minus Steve McQueen of course, which improves the look immensely).
You are "pleased to report" more ads than ever? 26 pages of them before even getting to the table of contents, and then layered between every story. Umm, no, thanks. Looks like the magazine will be joining those thick, shiny, vapid "T" and fashion supplements that hit the recycling bin right out of the bag. It was sparse enough before, but if I have search through hundreds of pages to find one marginally engaging scrap of actual thought, I'm done. You blew it.
11
Table of Contents - page 34.
This fact, all by itself tells us that this mag is NOT designed for the reader/user. Not sure who it is designed for...but I have to flip thru 34 page to find out what's in it...??? REALLY???
This fact, all by itself tells us that this mag is NOT designed for the reader/user. Not sure who it is designed for...but I have to flip thru 34 page to find out what's in it...??? REALLY???
13
I had a good look at the new magazine. Mostly, it seems like a way to deliver lots more advertising to your readers.
7
This new magazine was designed for journalists. In the process, you forgot your readers;-)
6
I wonder if it was even designed for journalists. Trying to read it today, it seemed like it was designed more for advertisers.
5
The words that come to MY mind are: ads, lots of ads. 30 pages in (by NYT's count) before the first content, which is the editor's letter describing the new format. No mention of the ads, though...
20
Actually, they did mention the ads - with pride, as there are more of them than in any NYT Magazine since 2007. I turned every page, but found no more articles worth reading than previously - and it was a lot more work for me.
1
Sorry Team. My first reaction -- TOO MANY ADS.
Second reaction … Where's the beef ? Can not READ THE TYPEFACE..
Although you are all congratulating yourselves on transforming this
always interesting magazine.. You blew it big time.
It's no longer interesting .. no longer readable. My eyes are not 25 years old. thank you for changing something that never needed fixing in the first place. Good on you ! Not .
Second reaction … Where's the beef ? Can not READ THE TYPEFACE..
Although you are all congratulating yourselves on transforming this
always interesting magazine.. You blew it big time.
It's no longer interesting .. no longer readable. My eyes are not 25 years old. thank you for changing something that never needed fixing in the first place. Good on you ! Not .
25
The magazine didn't arrive with my paper this morning, however there was some overstuffed advertising publication instead. I thought it might have been the magazine but after a flipping through the first dozen or so pages of ads, I decided it couldn't possibly be.
I hope your advertisers are happy now.
I hope your advertisers are happy now.
29
I was bored with the "look" and content within 5 minutes. Much too serous looking. The type is set too tight and lines are too close and then you add long and endless text flowing in each column....doesn't make me want to read.
The stories are so serious and the overall look to them, their composition, the color and photos are not at all exciting. Not what I'm looking to and read on Sunday morning or the rest of the day.
The new paper is too slippery. Much too hard to turn pages. Which is done much more often as you now break the flow of a story among an endless insert of ad pages.
Thanks for all the hard work. Sadly you lost a reader who loves the Sunday magazine.
The stories are so serious and the overall look to them, their composition, the color and photos are not at all exciting. Not what I'm looking to and read on Sunday morning or the rest of the day.
The new paper is too slippery. Much too hard to turn pages. Which is done much more often as you now break the flow of a story among an endless insert of ad pages.
Thanks for all the hard work. Sadly you lost a reader who loves the Sunday magazine.
8
I started reading the NY Times magazine in the 70s, initially drawn to ads for expensive summer camps I knew I would never be able to attend. Griping about the ads is old news. There has always been a discomfiting juxtaposition in the Times between swanky ads and articles about impoverished, desperate people. But the ads make the paper possible. I have no problem with them if they keep the Times going so its writers can keep opening our eyes and minds to a world of troubles many choose to ignore. I like the new magazine. Here’s why: clean and uncluttered design; a masthead!; renewed attention to photography, including the new “On” column devoted to the subject; First Words, a well-written essay that considers the nuance of language is always welcome; a weekly Poem!; Global articles were interesting and wide-ranging; old favorites are still here: Crossword Puzzle, of course; Diagnosis; Eat; Talk; and then Lives and The Ethicist, each with a new spin—I’ll give them a try. And as for those ads, they are a weekly lesson in cultural anthropology.
2
Cindy, are you hired to paraphrase the "introductory' blah that the magazine staff is giving to readers? Your comment follows a similar format and has a familiar echo.
I fully understand that ads make a paper possible. Readers, and the people that buy the paper, also matter. It seems like the redesign, has changed the focus away from the reader experience in order to better serve their advertisers. I didn't see a clean and uncluttered design. I found the magazine much harder to read, and it came down to one simple thing. Instead of putting the content on the right page, they've decided to put all the ads there. Content now seems secondary. The ads are front and center. This switch also makes the magazine harder to read.
I think the new poetry column disappointed me the most. When I had read earlier that they would now be publishing a new poem every week, I got really excited. Then I tried to find it. Given the placement of the new column, squeezed between the continuation of one story, and the spine, in a space that's smaller than the photo of a martini on page 84, it seems like the poetry column is very low on their list of priorities.
As far as the new spin on The Ethicist, or Ethicists now, I think this quote from The Washington Post sums it up. " " The trick, says magazine Editor-in-Chief Jake Silverstein was to “stop thinking about it as a print franchise….We simply set out to create an ‘Ethicists’ podcast and then work backwards into print.”' How can you stop thinking of the magazine as a print franchise, when that's what it is?
I think the new poetry column disappointed me the most. When I had read earlier that they would now be publishing a new poem every week, I got really excited. Then I tried to find it. Given the placement of the new column, squeezed between the continuation of one story, and the spine, in a space that's smaller than the photo of a martini on page 84, it seems like the poetry column is very low on their list of priorities.
As far as the new spin on The Ethicist, or Ethicists now, I think this quote from The Washington Post sums it up. " " The trick, says magazine Editor-in-Chief Jake Silverstein was to “stop thinking about it as a print franchise….We simply set out to create an ‘Ethicists’ podcast and then work backwards into print.”' How can you stop thinking of the magazine as a print franchise, when that's what it is?
The magazine has been reduced to a segregation of people from purpose. It is now worth no more than two hundred pages of advertising. For what valued purpose would we pay for that ?
11
I am a home delivery subscriber: I opened my magazine and here are my thoughts: too big, pages felt oddly greasy in my hands, any sense of style totally destroyed by disruptive plethora of ads, not worth finding the articles. I put it down in disgust,its worthless.
BTW I have a MFA in design, I don't know how much longer I will have a subscription to New York Times
BTW I have a MFA in design, I don't know how much longer I will have a subscription to New York Times
17
Every Sunday morning I sort my NY Times into a read pile and a Meh pile, with the Meh pile going straight to the recycle bin. Today's NYT Magazine, with "more pages of advertising than in any issue since October 2007"!, for the first time went into the Meh pile. There may be some new features, new authors and a new format, but I'm not going to wade through the ads to find out.
21
No question that you are trying to demonstrate that long form print articles will continue even as you move into more digital platforms. Except most of the articles in the magazine are too long and all over the place. More specifically, I understand you want to broaden the LIVES column by doing interviews with people who may not be capable of writing their own stories. But you have diluted the essence of LIVES, deeply personal and moving. This interview was flat. The interview with
the director of "Selma" was also uninspired, unlike other interviews I have read or watched. Nothing new or original. Ethicist is more accessible now and will be a good interactive exercise. However, the questions seemed to be more about "etiquette" than "ethics." I am glad there is no more "Meh" or the short takes that ran on the same page. Still, the new layout is unwieldy and the print is too small. The whole issue is uncomfortably bulky.
the director of "Selma" was also uninspired, unlike other interviews I have read or watched. Nothing new or original. Ethicist is more accessible now and will be a good interactive exercise. However, the questions seemed to be more about "etiquette" than "ethics." I am glad there is no more "Meh" or the short takes that ran on the same page. Still, the new layout is unwieldy and the print is too small. The whole issue is uncomfortably bulky.
8
These Ethics contributers are probably better qualified to do etiquette over ethics. I read just enough to get a "duh" quality.
I agree with what many others have written about the loss of two of my favorite articles each week. It's terrific that the Magazine was able to attract so much new advertising, but it shouldn't be at the expense of the magazine’s best parts, which so many readers have long loved. The strong, in-depth writing of the old Ethicist cannot be replaced by an edited transcript of a conversation. I got partway through the snarky back-and-forth of today's column and gave up. I always cared about the perspectives and opinions of the thoughtful people chosen to write the Ethicist. The current crew has lost my attention already. Maybe if they had the time to develop their ideas through writing and revising them, they would be more interesting. As for Lives, that was the second article I read each week, after Modern Love. Why not continue to combine "as-told-to" accounts with beautiful crafted columns so that there are still a few well-written articles to enjoy each week?
I started reading the Sunday Times when I was in my 20s, and part of what drew me was the depth, sophistication, and good writing. I have seen the magazine re-made a number of times, but this time, it’s far more of a down-grade than a reimagining. And it's making me re-think the weekly expense (which just went up 50% for me, although I see that others in the region are paying less).
I started reading the Sunday Times when I was in my 20s, and part of what drew me was the depth, sophistication, and good writing. I have seen the magazine re-made a number of times, but this time, it’s far more of a down-grade than a reimagining. And it's making me re-think the weekly expense (which just went up 50% for me, although I see that others in the region are paying less).
8
As a member of the pre-baby-boom generation (exactly what ARE we called?) with arthritic hands and less than acute eyesight, I am extremely sad about the introduction of this newly designed print product. It weighs at least twice as much as the old one, making it difficult for me to hold and read while drinking my morning coffee. Sorting out the real content from the ads requires my brain to assume Google-like properties. When I find the real content, I discover that I need a stronger pair of reading glasses to actually read it. I only get the Times once a week, I look forward to its arrival, and I am in the habit of reading the Magazine first, but I expect that I will stop doing that and may very well end up dropping my print subscription entirely. Save the trees!
9
'As a member of the pre-baby-boom generation (exactly what ARE we called?)'
If I recall the opening lines of the first cut on Van Morrison's album Hard Nose the Highway:
'We were the War Children, nineteen forty-five ...'
If I recall the opening lines of the first cut on Van Morrison's album Hard Nose the Highway:
'We were the War Children, nineteen forty-five ...'
The Silent Generation.
The 80 pages (in a generous count) of content shuffled into 120 pages of advertisement was a definite turn off. (In spite of the editor's cluelessness on sharing with us how pleased he was about it. Really?)
However, in my case, the truly unforgivable affront by this incompetent bunch was to completely ruin the ethicist column, by replacing Chuck Klosterman's well-reasoned, intelligent and thought-provoking analyses with the messy podcast of three people yapping without any sense of direction. If you want to keep this inane gossipy column, at least change the name. It had nothing to do with ethics.
Leave in as much nonsense as you want to make more money but please bring Mr. Klosterman back (and maybe have him comment on the ethics behind the launch of the new magazine).
However, in my case, the truly unforgivable affront by this incompetent bunch was to completely ruin the ethicist column, by replacing Chuck Klosterman's well-reasoned, intelligent and thought-provoking analyses with the messy podcast of three people yapping without any sense of direction. If you want to keep this inane gossipy column, at least change the name. It had nothing to do with ethics.
Leave in as much nonsense as you want to make more money but please bring Mr. Klosterman back (and maybe have him comment on the ethics behind the launch of the new magazine).
15
I admire and respect the thought and vision that has been evident in the relaunch of the Sunday Magazine which I have been reading for twenty years. Yes indeed, appearance and multiplatforming will appeal to a new generation of readers. However Mr Silverstein's comment on the content of the Magazine is unambiguous and incorrect. Content is the very reason for the existence of the Sunday Magazine. I cannot imagine any other reason. And for the last five years especially the quality of the content has suffered. Before that I would read several pieces each week in the Magazine which interested and informed me. Now several weeks will pass before encountering anything that gets my attention. One recent change that I do especially appreciate is the ease in navigating to the Magazine. Before it took six mouse clicks. (Yes, I countered them). Now one click does it.
3
What's up with the smell of cologne in the magazine? For a moment, I thought I was reading Cosmopolitan. I had to step outside for some fresh air.
4
Ok, with breathless anticipation (fueled by your woohoo, we're aweseome online intro and email this week), I looked forward to holding the new magazine in my hands. I'm as digitally savvy as the next portlandian, but I like holding paper in my hands. (Fuels the old-school timber economy, you see.)
A question: did your new paper stock not make it to the printer out here on the west coast? I dug into my recycle bin to find last week's paper and I can't tell the difference between last week's flimsy slippery pages and the inside pages of the Hello, World edition.
So I'm sticking to the superficial with no comments on the writing and editing yet. I've a few hundred other comments to wade through that are apparently taking this opportunity to take you to task for that. But I still return to the NYT since it is still better than most of what passes for journalism these days.
A question: did your new paper stock not make it to the printer out here on the west coast? I dug into my recycle bin to find last week's paper and I can't tell the difference between last week's flimsy slippery pages and the inside pages of the Hello, World edition.
So I'm sticking to the superficial with no comments on the writing and editing yet. I've a few hundred other comments to wade through that are apparently taking this opportunity to take you to task for that. But I still return to the NYT since it is still better than most of what passes for journalism these days.
1
Apparently all Sunday editions delivered to the Bangor, Maine region did not even include the new version of the Magazine this Sunday, February 22. Production problems, I am told. Everyone who requests a copy of the missing magazine should be mailed a copy when available.
I have been a NYT reader for over 40 years and still remember buying my first Sunday NYT and wondering where the funnies were - HA. I can also remembering parceling out the Sunday NYT in a group house in Ocean Beach and since this was the height of the Vietnam war, 3 guys and 8 girls. You got to know who would want what section - since most had degrees from very good eastern schools - the sports section was least desired.
I like the new logo - having been in the marketing department of the world's most famous brand - it is all about readability and you folks hit the mark.
I am looking forward to this new venture for the NYT and per usual you will hit a grand slam - good to see some things that continue their winning streak.
I like the new logo - having been in the marketing department of the world's most famous brand - it is all about readability and you folks hit the mark.
I am looking forward to this new venture for the NYT and per usual you will hit a grand slam - good to see some things that continue their winning streak.
The NYT is driving me completely bonkers with its sheer volume of first rate online content! There's not enough time in the day. I'm addicted and you're ruining my life.
2
The print edition is in hand. I notice that page one is on page 99, where the main articles begin. I've never been a fan of magazines that do that, not least because you can't find the index, which in this case begins on page 34. Crazy making. But I found at least one article I want to read. That's a positive.
1
Too many Ads! Too many ads for upscale products and real estate that
no one out of the 1% could possibly afford! Yes, I take the print edition, and
I don't need a magazine the size of Vogue to tote around. Can't even imagine trying to navigate the online edition. The purpose of the magazine should be
to provide a platform for the amusing, to provoke thought about curious or unusual events, theories, and people, and broaden our awareness and knowledge of places most of us are never likely to see. Too much, too much!
no one out of the 1% could possibly afford! Yes, I take the print edition, and
I don't need a magazine the size of Vogue to tote around. Can't even imagine trying to navigate the online edition. The purpose of the magazine should be
to provide a platform for the amusing, to provoke thought about curious or unusual events, theories, and people, and broaden our awareness and knowledge of places most of us are never likely to see. Too much, too much!
6
One more time: way too much!
1
Hello:
So with your new design I have to turn 30 pages before getting to content then the next 10 or so pages are about the magazine I am reading. En Serio! I looked for the new content and originality that was discussed, yet couldn't find much. A panel for ethicists, not terribly original and so uninteresting. perhaps I will grow to like it but it now reminds me of Vogue or those other light weight magazines I buy when I'm traveling. I am a 13 year Sunday print edition subscriber. I have no interest in interacting with NYT on twitter.
So with your new design I have to turn 30 pages before getting to content then the next 10 or so pages are about the magazine I am reading. En Serio! I looked for the new content and originality that was discussed, yet couldn't find much. A panel for ethicists, not terribly original and so uninteresting. perhaps I will grow to like it but it now reminds me of Vogue or those other light weight magazines I buy when I'm traveling. I am a 13 year Sunday print edition subscriber. I have no interest in interacting with NYT on twitter.
8
Your changes to "The Ethicist" were unethical. The new "edited" conversation is unreadable. If I wanted to hear that kind of meaningless drivel, I can talk to my neighbors. This was a HUGE loss.
14
Thanks for the gift of time. The new magazine is unreadable. You have destroyed a gem. My copy goes straight to the recycle can next week.
16
I'm afraid traditional heritage stands in the way of (a) global community which thrives on sense, science and creativity, a.k.a. culture.
Providing a wider (inter)national public a shiny and improved platform remains a rather primitive concept abused ever since human kind started writing history to thump on while calling it a life.
What about the state of the planet? new and improved, but wait there is more; look over there!
Providing a wider (inter)national public a shiny and improved platform remains a rather primitive concept abused ever since human kind started writing history to thump on while calling it a life.
What about the state of the planet? new and improved, but wait there is more; look over there!
1
Too many critics jump in here before they've seen the magazine! I don't care in the slightest that you already don't like something that is almost wholely imagined in your own mind.
I've just read half the real print magazine and appreciate it immensely. Staying Power deserves a place in Great American Essays.
Dear Internet commenting addicts: Stop writing your own self aggrandizing rubbish, read the magazine's content (I don't mind that word at all, Mr. Silverstein), and you will find it's quality to be compelling.
I've just read half the real print magazine and appreciate it immensely. Staying Power deserves a place in Great American Essays.
Dear Internet commenting addicts: Stop writing your own self aggrandizing rubbish, read the magazine's content (I don't mind that word at all, Mr. Silverstein), and you will find it's quality to be compelling.
2
The new Ethicist disappointed. I was looking forward to a variety of opinions but felt the comments lacked depth and gravitas, not to mention humor. Where have you gone, Randy Cohen?
8
Depth, gravitas and humor are so last century
4
You're in the business of communication. Give us readers a break!
Floating a small bold "T" half an inch from the rest of the opening word ("The" on page 156) or running a quote in big black type on its side in illegible capitals (see page 104) is just plain distracting.
We should not have to fight your design in order to read your articles.
Floating a small bold "T" half an inch from the rest of the opening word ("The" on page 156) or running a quote in big black type on its side in illegible capitals (see page 104) is just plain distracting.
We should not have to fight your design in order to read your articles.
5
Um, looking over these comments and replies:
Does anyone else have a problem with the NYT magazine staffers - the folks in the photo - replying as 'verified commenters' (green checkbox), instead of with the Gothic "t" logo signaling a staff reply, as editors customarily use in the rest of the paper when they participate in comment strings?
I can't be expected to remember all your names, and interspersing your replies as 'verifieds' to praise yourselves and your work is not all that different from a merchant getting his friends to post positive reviews on Yelp or Amazon.
Does anyone else have a problem with the NYT magazine staffers - the folks in the photo - replying as 'verified commenters' (green checkbox), instead of with the Gothic "t" logo signaling a staff reply, as editors customarily use in the rest of the paper when they participate in comment strings?
I can't be expected to remember all your names, and interspersing your replies as 'verifieds' to praise yourselves and your work is not all that different from a merchant getting his friends to post positive reviews on Yelp or Amazon.
6
Another giant step toward the The Closing of the American Mind as Allan Bloom, wrote, chided and warned us in 1987 -- that we are failing our democracy, not to mention narrowing our minds and impoverishing our souls.
As some of the other commentators have made clear, the millennials won't be attracted. Sadly, instead of finding a better way to "lead" its readership, the NYT is trying to guess how and follow some new and shifting mark (and /or to boost revenue).
As some of the other commentators have made clear, the millennials won't be attracted. Sadly, instead of finding a better way to "lead" its readership, the NYT is trying to guess how and follow some new and shifting mark (and /or to boost revenue).
5
I actually enjoy reading the NYT digitally, on an iPad, most of the time, but I loved being able to take the printed copy of the magazine along with me for those times I needed to read without my iPad, while waiting for something or other. I've just looked through the first printed rendition of the new magazine -- the print is too small, the content is too cluttered, and the magazine is WAY TOO HEAVY to carry around comfortably. Darn.
7
Please, PLEASE provide complete transcripts of all podcasts (e.g. "The Ethicists"). You seem to be on a video kick--but many of us don't have time to watch them. (2) If you go the way of other magazines (like Smithsonian) where the line between content and ad is so blurred that it takes time to figure out which is which, I'm outta there. Watching with concern.
4
Good news: the NYT Magazine has a new design. Bad news: the NYT Magazine has a new design.
My take as a long-time Times reader and fan: it's really hard to appreciate all the new content and features because the layout is incoherent. And while I'm happy to see all the advertising support, that just adds to the cluttered and disorganized presentation.
The new typefaces don't help either.
My take as a long-time Times reader and fan: it's really hard to appreciate all the new content and features because the layout is incoherent. And while I'm happy to see all the advertising support, that just adds to the cluttered and disorganized presentation.
The new typefaces don't help either.
7
Little new to add. Just want to agree with virtually all of the negative comments. Way too cute. Way too many ads. Very disappointing. And diversity in your photo of top staff? - One more thing - the Table of Contents on page 34??? Give us a break. At least print the page of the TofC on the front cover. If future issues have so much advertising to wade through to find what's in them, I will stop looking altogether.
9
I'm no stuff purist or have a hankering for the old version but when I read all this hype for the "new magazine", I kept an open mind. This has got to be one of the shallowest productions the NYT has put out in a long time. All I see is an excuse to put more meaningless ads in more pages and a dumbing down of content in the name of being edgy/cool/whatever it is you are trying so hard to be.
12
Please change the headline font. Very difficult to read.
1
I still do the puzzles in hard copy and I subscribe in large part to get the magazine for that. Hallelujah! The new acrostic font actually distinguishes between Q and O even with my contacts in. Thank you, thank you!
Will stay tuned to see if otherwise Magazine declines, but I do agree all the ads for luxury goods make for queasy reading for non-millionaires.
Will stay tuned to see if otherwise Magazine declines, but I do agree all the ads for luxury goods make for queasy reading for non-millionaires.
2
How illuminating it is about your new model that the "First Words" column appears on page 51 of the magazine after an onslaught of advertising aimed at people who make more in a year than I'll make in the next ten. The NYT Magazine, which has long been one of my favorite parts of the Sunday Paper, has become as bloated and self-serving as the quarterly "style" guides. It has much the same substance - the new columns are without worth and depth. What is worthwhile, the long-form articles than make the magazine worth reading, is hidden beneath a barrage of elitist advertising. It's a waste of my time to be flipping through all of that advertising, not to mention a waste of paper and environmental degradation. I pay a monthly subscription fee for this newspaper, so I don't understand why half of the content I am getting is advertising. This editorial's gleeful pride in having more pages of advertising than ever before is utterly shameful and myopic. Clearly, you don't understand your readers at all. Whoever is responsible for this travesty needs to fix it very quickly or be removed from their position.
15
Subscription fees cover only a portion of a newspaper's costs. Advertising is the most important revenue source.
Bravo. Couldn't have said it better myself.
I received the "reimagined" print version of the NYT magazine on Saturday. How disappointing to muddle through 100+ pages of advertising in search of relevant reading.
I always looked forward to each Sunday magazine as informative, playful and concise. Unfortunately now the "reimagined" Sunday printed version comes across as just another piece of glossy, colorful, recyclable advertising junk.
Hopefully the magazine print staff will realize their readers frustration with the advertising overload and imagine the print magazine as the concise literary depiction it once was.
I always looked forward to each Sunday magazine as informative, playful and concise. Unfortunately now the "reimagined" Sunday printed version comes across as just another piece of glossy, colorful, recyclable advertising junk.
Hopefully the magazine print staff will realize their readers frustration with the advertising overload and imagine the print magazine as the concise literary depiction it once was.
8
Some of these comments are interesting. As for the size, I really doubt we are going to have 220 pages week to week. This week's issue looks like "Key" the real estate magazine made up the bulk of the advertising.
One disappointment, I had, was that "The Strip", the short story and the serial story were not brought back. While fiction, they gave the magazine another dimension, back when they were published. Though, adding a weekly poem is nice. I never really liked the "One Page Magazine" , so that is not missed.
One disappointment, I had, was that "The Strip", the short story and the serial story were not brought back. While fiction, they gave the magazine another dimension, back when they were published. Though, adding a weekly poem is nice. I never really liked the "One Page Magazine" , so that is not missed.
2
I've just read The Ethicist section of the new magazine and I have one word: banal. What in the world was wrong with the old version. Change for the sake of trendy change is not good.
12
I completely agree. I don't want to read a transcript of a conversation.
Awful:
BLOOM: Wow. I think that is a high bar of ethical behavior. I'm really interested to see what Kenji has to say about it."
Zzzzzzz.
Awful:
BLOOM: Wow. I think that is a high bar of ethical behavior. I'm really interested to see what Kenji has to say about it."
Zzzzzzz.
Just pulled my Sunday Times out of a snowbank to see the new Magazine. Absolutely love it. The jam-packed pages, fresh layout, and range of topics - (loved reading about "Sherlock" and shipping) were a great way to start the day (even have the energy to shovel out the driveway). Thanks.
Sudden modifications to iconic things provoke some degree of user anger at the changes and inevitably require some tweaking (hopefully some readers' voices out here will be heard), but if I wanted what it appears that the _New York Times Magazine_ is becoming, I could just read (online or off) the already gussied-up and dumbed-down _Time_ magazine.
Change may be necessary for the bottom line, but change is not necessarily good. I suppose the glass half full way to look at this is, without these changes, our favorite icons founder and disappear. But if what remains is at best a shadow of the original, was it worth it? Depends upon whom you ask: users, shareholders, or advertisers. Tough game, keeping those three all happy.
Change may be necessary for the bottom line, but change is not necessarily good. I suppose the glass half full way to look at this is, without these changes, our favorite icons founder and disappear. But if what remains is at best a shadow of the original, was it worth it? Depends upon whom you ask: users, shareholders, or advertisers. Tough game, keeping those three all happy.
1
Will someone explain to me why the print edition of the new Sunday Magazine has four different covers. Alright, alright, it is supposed to be global, but really, this just too much and too silly. Looks like to me the Sunday Magazine has gone the way of the Sunday Metro and Sunday Review sections -- filled with lots of silly stuff that really belongs on one of those TV shows that talk about the latest escapades of movie stars.
10
Uh, more space for Cadillac ads, I'm guessing?
I agree that there is much of interest in the new magazine, however, if you look at the demographic of your readers you would NOT have made the type font so small, nor done so much in the gray screened type face. The tight packed, dense script is uninviting both for older readers, and younger who tend to scan. Go up at least two picas, please, and improve your caption notes.
2
I was glad to find this piece, appearing on page 30 of the print edition, and finally the table of contents on page 34. Because after being confronted with page after page after page after page of glossy, in-your-face luxury advertising. I had almost despaired of finding any content at all.
Even with these guides, picking out the content from all the intervening ads isn't easy. It's like trying to watch a favorite program on cable TV, when it's interrupted every 7 minutes by 3 or 4 minutes of commercials.
Oh, and just in case we didn't get enough advertising in, a particularly nice touch was adding multi-page "special advertising supplements" on luxury real estate in Florida, California, Utah and Nevada.
Gee, I'm.... overwhelmed at this new Magazine. Thanks for keeping the crossword, anyhow.
Even with these guides, picking out the content from all the intervening ads isn't easy. It's like trying to watch a favorite program on cable TV, when it's interrupted every 7 minutes by 3 or 4 minutes of commercials.
Oh, and just in case we didn't get enough advertising in, a particularly nice touch was adding multi-page "special advertising supplements" on luxury real estate in Florida, California, Utah and Nevada.
Gee, I'm.... overwhelmed at this new Magazine. Thanks for keeping the crossword, anyhow.
5
Whoa. There's some damn fine writing here. After bypassing several imbedded links, I finally succumbed to curiosity and clicked on the amazing essay by Teju Cole. I was hooked. I could not care less about typography niggling. I'm coming back for the writing. Congratulations and keep it going.
I pulled out my magazine this morning from between the paper's sections and sat down to have a look. It's one big ad vehicle with a little news sprinkled in. Your letter here confirms my observation and seems oddly boastful about it. Disappointing.
8
A wonderful, welcome redesign. A broader range of pieces that are more engaging, on pages that are more readable and less cluttered. The Table of Contents is clear once again, the articles are distinct from the ads once again, and no pages attempt to simulate a computer screen. In all the best ways it reminds me of the NYT Magazine of old. I loved it immediately.
Just finished a quick flip through of the new magazine. Overall, a job well done. I thought the use of type, white space and creative page layouts helped make this issue. Hopefully you will also be able to maintain the ad volume -- I find creative ads an integral part of the reading experience. Looking forward to future issues.
I was excited to hear of the new and improved magazine and had plans to go pick it up today. I live 8 miles away to the closest place that sells it in the country. The reality is I read my Times online now- and even online I often fail to remember to click over to the magazine. I will check it out at the library this week.
I used to work in the NYT magazine art dept=way back when and know the hard work that goes into putting it out every week. This was before and just into computers. It was an exciting job also a stressful one and the repetitiveness of it all takes it toll. Though they have access to the best writers, artists, and photographers the magazine somehow lost it's footing in the interest dept- except for the crossword. I hope they pull it off--if they do I might even subscribe to the paper again!
I used to work in the NYT magazine art dept=way back when and know the hard work that goes into putting it out every week. This was before and just into computers. It was an exciting job also a stressful one and the repetitiveness of it all takes it toll. Though they have access to the best writers, artists, and photographers the magazine somehow lost it's footing in the interest dept- except for the crossword. I hope they pull it off--if they do I might even subscribe to the paper again!
1
After trying to clamber through the advertisements to find the writing, found the puzzles, tore them out, tossed the rest, washed my hands of black ink and read the articles on my IPad.
4
Teju Cole's essay, "A True Picture of Back Skin", is one of the most thoughtful and interesting essays on photography I've read in a while. I look forward to reading more of his work. Thank you.
I so loved all the globe ideas presented for the front cover. Such creativity out there! How could one choose just one! Thanks for all your efforts.
1
As it has been mentioned in other comments, the new typeface is just way too condensed. It's as if the editors wanted to write longer headlines and the designers didn't want to get into too much trouble and then ended up with this awkward compromise as a solution. As a designer myself I do understand the thrill of being involved in a redesign but, honestly, sometimes it feels like a vanity project from an incoming editor who wants to make his mark. (When was the last time the magazine was revamped? Four years ago? ) So you'll be redesigning the magazine every time a new editor in chief arrives?
If you really want to "bring the online reading experience closer to the print magazine" save yourself some money and try uploading the entire magazine as it's published like T Magazine does. Don't forget the legacy of your product. But most importantly: don't forget your core audience. Millennials won't be lured with splashy graphics or podcasts. You'll only end up alienating your loyal readers.
If you really want to "bring the online reading experience closer to the print magazine" save yourself some money and try uploading the entire magazine as it's published like T Magazine does. Don't forget the legacy of your product. But most importantly: don't forget your core audience. Millennials won't be lured with splashy graphics or podcasts. You'll only end up alienating your loyal readers.
4
The only thing my husband and I read from the Magazine is the Ethicist. I never thought I would say this, but I miss Randy Cohen. As I see it, the point of the column wasn't to provide multiple perspectives, but to provide us with one possible answer to the question and let the readers enter into debate themselves. What mattered wasn't the Ethicist's opinion; it was our response to it, be it online or face-to-face. With the new format, which has already received overwhelmingly negative reviews, you have taken the participatory element out of column. Now it's just reading the transcript of a conversation (and a boring one at that).
14
I'm disappointed of course when your comments' section labelled "all" didn't include my carefully thought out response re total lack of diversity of your staff. I guess that's the role of the editors as long as they qualify the title as "not all". I am most interested in the discussion of the role of the magazine in people's lives- that the magazine both kept the cherished old- the puzzles or whatever is new; the role of the magazine as a starting point for the weekend is clear. When I started with the magazine in the late forties it was because my elders had all poured through the articles and ultimately the puzzles. I associate the magazine with different times of my life from the first exposure as a child, to the ride on the subways to the Music and Art, to the slopes of Riverside Park and Columbia and the lawns of Central Park and now some 70 years later the quiet beach time in Southern California appreciating the consistent tactile quality of the magazine as I do the crossword puzzle in ink with a bit of pride and pleasure with the familiar. Yes, most important please respect and maintain the feel of the magazine, the subtle colors in fashion and the expectation fulfilled of the puzzles.
I'm one more voice of dissent. I see a staff of white, mostly 30-40 yr olds and I know what's coming. Small font sizes, 'multimedia production', story length being cut, trendy topics and a lack of seasoned perspective. What's next, eliminating the rotogravure press for digital printing instead? The headline typeface is not readable, especially at small sizes. Chunky block serifs don't belong in size settings below that of the online experience. A thinner version would work better. I agree with others about features you've converted to podcasts, with 3 voices all competing like a game show. Lives was a strong page, it needed no change-except apparently for 10 staffers at the Times.
If this publication begins to smell the way NPR's shift in young announcers and reporters with chirpy, annoying vocal tones and E! style requirements, you'll lose us. It will be swift and complete.
If this publication begins to smell the way NPR's shift in young announcers and reporters with chirpy, annoying vocal tones and E! style requirements, you'll lose us. It will be swift and complete.
9
It is very disappointing to see so many ads intrude in the experience of reading a magazine that I have enjoyed every Sunday for the past years.
Quoting the editor's letter in the PRINT VERSION, "You will also find, I am pleased to say, in this Sunday’s print edition, more pages of advertising than in any issue since October 2007": I am wondering why is the NYT so pleased to serve more ads than ever to their subscribers?
Please note that the online version of the same article has omitted the "I am pleased to say" part of the same sentence, which I rather telling, considering the immediacy of the medium.
Utterly disappointing to see such attitudes take over a newspaper/magazine that I love.
Quoting the editor's letter in the PRINT VERSION, "You will also find, I am pleased to say, in this Sunday’s print edition, more pages of advertising than in any issue since October 2007": I am wondering why is the NYT so pleased to serve more ads than ever to their subscribers?
Please note that the online version of the same article has omitted the "I am pleased to say" part of the same sentence, which I rather telling, considering the immediacy of the medium.
Utterly disappointing to see such attitudes take over a newspaper/magazine that I love.
9
When Maureen Dowd disappeared for weeks last Autumn, it was written that a new home was being prepared for her this February in the "new" The New Times Magazine. In reading this Editor's Letter it appears that the new Magazine is going to be the primary location for many, if not all, columnists, op-ed writers, reporters, and generally anyone pursuing journalism in any form in The New York Times. It would appear that we are present at the creation of The Second Coming! Write on!
1
Will the October Culture Festival scheme be a facsimile of The New Yorker Festival also held each October? Is October going to become the month of cultural overload in New York?
1
Now that you've ruined The Ethicist, the only thing still worthwhile in the magazine is the puzzles, and the paper you're using is almost impossible to write on with a pencil. What a mess.
3
R.I.P. Lives, The Ethisists (and before that, the One Page Magazine). I always looked forward to these. Here's hoping some of the changes to come will be as delightful.
Give us readers a break! You're in the business of communication.
Floating a small bold "T" half an inch from the rest of the opening word ("The" on page 156) or running a quote in big black type on its side in illegible capitals (see page 104) is just plain stupid.
We readers should not have to fight your design in order to read your articles.
Floating a small bold "T" half an inch from the rest of the opening word ("The" on page 156) or running a quote in big black type on its side in illegible capitals (see page 104) is just plain stupid.
We readers should not have to fight your design in order to read your articles.
7
I dislike the new magazine format & the amount of ads, which are hard to tell from the articles. It reminds me of T or whatever you call that fashion rag which I immediately throw out as soon as it's delivered. The new magazine looks like another version of T, conspicuous consumption for the one percenters. Subscription likely to be cancelled.
11
Yes, yes, yes. My thoughts exactly: copy cat T magazine
1
Having read the paper and the inimitable magazine for 50 years, I concur that it was time for a revamp ... Nice work!! Thank the Lord you retained Mark Bittman...probably 65% of the reason I buy the Sunday Times!...Good job!
I'm sorry. Although the higher quality paper stock is a 'nice to have' you lost me at the heft and the ten times the number of ads than usual. I won't open this doorstop. I don't want to 'browse' a ton of advertising to read the stories. I'll just read it online thank you very much. I'm afraid that what you've done here is simply ruin a mainstay of my weekends for 40+ years. I am completely stupefied as to how ANYONE can see this as an improvement.
8
nice work! from a delivered weekend view (not just online… not that theres anything wrong with that- stolen Seinfeld line.) D.
I hope you're not going to continue to make us page through thirty four pages of advertising before finding the Table of Contents. I felt like throwing the magazine aside before even seeing what it contained.
7
Great. I can't wait to read the magazine!
In a similar vein, the Times just announced a change of Page One meetings to a more digital, ephemeral focus. While I understand the need to accommodate preferences of mobile digital readers, I would caution against diluting the Times "brand" by chasing the "others", the momentary, and the ephemeral, which largely destroyed CNN, and by confusing editorial and commercial content, which destroyed Mad Magazine. The latter is already happening, as most tech columns are functionally ads rather than analytic journalism.
Especially disturbing in this "Editor's Letter" is the statement, "the internet... is the most vital engine of culture today." I'm not sure if it's more scarey or more depressing to think they really believe this. The internet may be the most prodigious dispersal agent for virtual forms of some culture, but that's about it, other than acting as an engine for video games and isolated experience. If they think listening to the Schubert Cello Quintet, watching Casablanca, or viewing a Rodin sculpture on a computer bears any resemblance to doing those things "off line" as a collective experience, they are not merely mistaken, they are living under an illusion that impoverishes their own lives.
It is becoming more difficult to cut the Times lots of slack as it increases its fluff content to attract readers who interest the advertisers of expensive products, even though I well understand that my subscription alone does not pay the cost of the serious journalism I want.
Especially disturbing in this "Editor's Letter" is the statement, "the internet... is the most vital engine of culture today." I'm not sure if it's more scarey or more depressing to think they really believe this. The internet may be the most prodigious dispersal agent for virtual forms of some culture, but that's about it, other than acting as an engine for video games and isolated experience. If they think listening to the Schubert Cello Quintet, watching Casablanca, or viewing a Rodin sculpture on a computer bears any resemblance to doing those things "off line" as a collective experience, they are not merely mistaken, they are living under an illusion that impoverishes their own lives.
It is becoming more difficult to cut the Times lots of slack as it increases its fluff content to attract readers who interest the advertisers of expensive products, even though I well understand that my subscription alone does not pay the cost of the serious journalism I want.
7
The NY Times is attempting to become more fluent in the ways of digital journalism? You wouldn't know this from looking at the accompanying slide show. Nobody in these photos is looking at big monitors, or multiple PC screens. It's all paper process and in-person meetings.
Having said that, I don't really care how the sausage is made as long as it's tasty when I bite into it. So far, the magazine sausage tastes about the same to me as it did two years ago. Good content is more important than how it is displayed. I'd read a David Carr article on an old, orange-and-black, 1980s, 10-inch, PC monitor, and still be happy afterwards.
1
This redesign is awful. The type face stinks and the blur between editorial and advertizing is worse than ever. How many pages of slick ads must we plow through to find the table of contents. Send your staff back to school and start over.
10
The Meh list was interesting for about 3 weeks.
What's Mario drinking fun for 1 week.
Whoever's idea they were should be fired.
I live Lives, that one page gem at the end of the magazine
Whoever thought of that should be in charge of the magazine
My two cents.
What's Mario drinking fun for 1 week.
Whoever's idea they were should be fired.
I live Lives, that one page gem at the end of the magazine
Whoever thought of that should be in charge of the magazine
My two cents.
'You will also find, in this Sunday’s print edition, more pages of advertising than in any issue since October 2007.' Really? Is this bragging or bravadio? Where is mention of The Strip by McFadde, easily the best feature of the current publication, off-putting the column on celebrity-of-the-week habits on the same page. Where are the cartoons that were there not long ago on the same page and disappeared without a word. Good luck with the new format, and the advance warning, as the first commenter confirms, yours is the only paper worth reading any more. Change for change's sake and proclamations as the first sentence in this paragraph though smacks of / desperation.
4
One major thing I noticed is the magazine has a feel of "T". Feel in the pages and the amount advertising that goes with it. I found very few places where an article spanned two pages.
OK. I also remember, The New York Times Magazine going back to when I was growing up in the 1960s. The Magazine, like the newspaper, was full of advertising. In those days, inserts were a rarity and advertising was part of the newspaper proper. A trip though The New York Times archives provides examples of the magazine 50 years ago.
So, in a way, the magazine returned a bit back to its roots; advertising wise. I did enjoy the articles I read. I always enjoyed The New York Times for its verboseness. One change, I would make, is rotate the writes in the ethic columns; the blog format may be cute, but I'd rather have a question and one answer.
The new puzzles will add a bit of enjoyment, as well. More distractions fro s Sunday of reading.
Overall, I like the change. I understand the need fro advertising. It is a necessary evil to bring us a quality magazine every week. And that's the key, I would rather have all the advertising to have the quality. The New York Times remains one of the few US newspapers which provides an internally produced, weekly magazine. In the est of the country, your Sunday magazine is "Parade". Fro the detractors writing here, please see this weeks gossip issue.
Good work and I hope the magazine continues to be printed fro another 119 years.
OK. I also remember, The New York Times Magazine going back to when I was growing up in the 1960s. The Magazine, like the newspaper, was full of advertising. In those days, inserts were a rarity and advertising was part of the newspaper proper. A trip though The New York Times archives provides examples of the magazine 50 years ago.
So, in a way, the magazine returned a bit back to its roots; advertising wise. I did enjoy the articles I read. I always enjoyed The New York Times for its verboseness. One change, I would make, is rotate the writes in the ethic columns; the blog format may be cute, but I'd rather have a question and one answer.
The new puzzles will add a bit of enjoyment, as well. More distractions fro s Sunday of reading.
Overall, I like the change. I understand the need fro advertising. It is a necessary evil to bring us a quality magazine every week. And that's the key, I would rather have all the advertising to have the quality. The New York Times remains one of the few US newspapers which provides an internally produced, weekly magazine. In the est of the country, your Sunday magazine is "Parade". Fro the detractors writing here, please see this weeks gossip issue.
Good work and I hope the magazine continues to be printed fro another 119 years.
1
Tip: the part that is interesting is the part that is not about you. /tip
5
You took a good thing and made it a commercial nightmare. It's cumbersome, too heavy to sit on my lap when I do the puzzle, and not at all a pleasure to read. I tore out all the ads, tossed them in the trash. Next week I'll just remove the puzzles and toss the rest.
8
The much-anticipated Global Issue arrived on schedule this morning.
Bravo!
Finally, after a long dry spell, a magazine worthy of the Times! Beautifully designed and illustrated, with layout and typefaces that are easy on the eye, and the substantial and wide-ranging, um, content that we expect of The Newspaper of Record. And: Diagnosis! And: the Crossword! And: Lives (still engaging as ever, even if "as told to")! AND: Advertising -- lots of it! (To the commenter who decried the ads: Don't. If editorial content is the lifeblood of a magazine, ads are the arteries that enable the blood -- and the magazine -- to circulate. A fat magazine is a healthy magazine.)
What a relief! I look forward to many more issues of the reinvigorated NYT Magazine!
(This comment ghost-written by Tom Wolfe -- yes!)
Bravo!
Finally, after a long dry spell, a magazine worthy of the Times! Beautifully designed and illustrated, with layout and typefaces that are easy on the eye, and the substantial and wide-ranging, um, content that we expect of The Newspaper of Record. And: Diagnosis! And: the Crossword! And: Lives (still engaging as ever, even if "as told to")! AND: Advertising -- lots of it! (To the commenter who decried the ads: Don't. If editorial content is the lifeblood of a magazine, ads are the arteries that enable the blood -- and the magazine -- to circulate. A fat magazine is a healthy magazine.)
What a relief! I look forward to many more issues of the reinvigorated NYT Magazine!
(This comment ghost-written by Tom Wolfe -- yes!)
Feb. 21, 2015
Quality in form and substance The New York Times - standard of excellenct - for a new generation that 's great. Having a half century of enjoying The N Y T Magazine is having ideas, images, content, advancing cultural excellence that just makes time bright and smart.
jja Manhattan, N. Y.
Quality in form and substance The New York Times - standard of excellenct - for a new generation that 's great. Having a half century of enjoying The N Y T Magazine is having ideas, images, content, advancing cultural excellence that just makes time bright and smart.
jja Manhattan, N. Y.
1
Let us not forget Mr Silverstein's piece in last week's issue bidding farewell to the old magazine. Each former feature was saluted as a cherished treat for the reader as he consigned it to oblivion. Why did they have to go? It was time to move on.
If Mr Silverstein and his troupe can keep up this level of drollness, the new magazine will indeed be a thing to cherish.
If Mr Silverstein and his troupe can keep up this level of drollness, the new magazine will indeed be a thing to cherish.
2
I sent in a comment on Mr Anderson's recommendation. It has not been passed on and will probably be held until no one is reading this issue of the magazine. Here is how it went, more or less, how I felt on reading this piece of trivia. (It is the equivalent of sending the restaurant critic to review The Red Lobster. I had not read this bright and cheerful warning on how you were planning to stupefy the magazine until today.)
"The New York Times magazine continues it downward slide into Internet senescence.. When its readers arrive, high on fantasies of news, the spider hits it with a sticky blob of web, then devours them."
New York Times Magazine, R.I.P..
"The New York Times magazine continues it downward slide into Internet senescence.. When its readers arrive, high on fantasies of news, the spider hits it with a sticky blob of web, then devours them."
New York Times Magazine, R.I.P..
7
This isn't going to make a subscriber out of me, much less a news-stand purchaser. Price still too high for what it buys.
Meanwhile, right off the bat, five people in the photograph and six names in the cutline?
Not to disparage Ms. Trethewey, whose work I admire, but why not someone from around here?
And, most important, why not choose poems from submissions, instead of from published or forthcoming books?
Meanwhile, right off the bat, five people in the photograph and six names in the cutline?
Not to disparage Ms. Trethewey, whose work I admire, but why not someone from around here?
And, most important, why not choose poems from submissions, instead of from published or forthcoming books?
2
'Meanwhile, right off the bat, five people in the photograph and six names in the cutline?'
There are six people in the picture, not five. The 'missing' one is 'Joanna Milter (deputy photo editor, at computer)' and that's the top of her head in the centre, just edging over the top of the monitor like a 'Kilroy was here' graffito that was left half-drawn when the MPs came by. (OK, kiddies, Google *that* cultural touchstone.) Perhaps her not-quite-presence could have been more clearly described in the caption.
There are six people in the picture, not five. The 'missing' one is 'Joanna Milter (deputy photo editor, at computer)' and that's the top of her head in the centre, just edging over the top of the monitor like a 'Kilroy was here' graffito that was left half-drawn when the MPs came by. (OK, kiddies, Google *that* cultural touchstone.) Perhaps her not-quite-presence could have been more clearly described in the caption.
This "imnprovement" in the Magazine is a travesty. Thirty-six pages of ads before we get to the content, and then more and more ads all through, culminating in even more at the end. I could hardly find the articles and didn't want to read them...too tired flipping ad pages. This is a disaster. And the heavier paper is no help--unwieldy to hold, particularly at this no. of pages.
7
Without ads there will be no magazine at all in the future. I gladly accept the 'trade-off' if that's what you want to call it.
I applaud the changes and I'm impressed with the redesign. Bold ambitious, lively and very engaging. I am appalled, however, at what has been done to the Ethicist column. Thus feature was always filled with wise and well thought-out advice, carefully considered and often beautifully written. To replace it with three talking heads spewing hot air, mixed with off-point speculation, can only be considered a complete drop in quality and value. I'm offended by the insulting tone in which the victim was blamed in the first letter and in the second the writer was called a knucklehead -- this is an incredible travesty. I couldn't read it to the end. Please fix this column or get rid of it. As it is, it's worthless.
6
Teju Cole's article on photography is splendid. It was at once validating and inspiring.
Sorry guys, some of these 'improvements' are not necessary. The new fonts you chose are, for the most part, less readable than the ones being replaced. Case in point: the article headings look cramped compared to past issues.
4
Just a thought but could you find room for a column that goes back and looks at old stories and what happened to the people after the media lost interest? Like what happened to the whistle blower or shooting victim, did the insurance company ever pay up, or did the marriage last? And what did they learn from the experience? (I was a whistle blower back before there was a (dirty?) word for it and I'd tell any future ones not to do it.)
2
Gail also had the magazine’s logo redrawn by the typographer Matthew Carter. It is a similar treatment, of course, but as you can see, the new logo is more modern, more graciously spaced.
I actually laughed out loud at this. Matthew Carter of course is an eminence of typography worthy of the plaudits he's received in his lifetime, but please, the adjustments are minor. Yes, I can see the changes to the lowercase "a", "z" - the flatter "e" - but the eyes roll at your self-satisfaction.
I actually laughed out loud at this. Matthew Carter of course is an eminence of typography worthy of the plaudits he's received in his lifetime, but please, the adjustments are minor. Yes, I can see the changes to the lowercase "a", "z" - the flatter "e" - but the eyes roll at your self-satisfaction.
7
I've read the Times for 50 years, since I was 12. Now I only look at my online subscription.
Absolutely nothing in this article interested me. I can't believe how excited you got about a slight change in the type face.
For me, the biggest problem is the articles in the magazine are all far too long and I get bored before I finish reading. A standard Times news article is twice as long as any other news article. The Magazine's articles are ten times as long. So at most I read two pages and give up and at worst, don't even start.
This is a classic "talking to myself." where you see small changes as gigantic. And they are not.
Absolutely nothing in this article interested me. I can't believe how excited you got about a slight change in the type face.
For me, the biggest problem is the articles in the magazine are all far too long and I get bored before I finish reading. A standard Times news article is twice as long as any other news article. The Magazine's articles are ten times as long. So at most I read two pages and give up and at worst, don't even start.
This is a classic "talking to myself." where you see small changes as gigantic. And they are not.
The changes to the Lives column are very disappointing. I, like many readers, looked forward to these personal stories each week – many of which were very well-written. More importantly, however, was the role that Lives played in motivating millions of writers and would-be writers to put pen to paper and reach for that holy grail of amateur journalism – getting one’s essay published in the New York Times. Sadly, this column is now just another reporter’s creation…and one less reason to subscribe to the Times. Please reconsider.
4
Now that I have seen the print edition I am flabbergasted, and not in a good way. Full page ads are being run throughout the entire magazine. There is only one feature story not broken up by an ad. I can't believe you have eliminated the time-honored "editorial well" as the core of the magazine. The article fails to even mention this momentous change. I've been a daily reader for decades, and I wish you financial success, but all I can say about this uninterrupted advertising is "How could you?"
Maybe the magazine will work better on our computer screens. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the new print design.
Maybe the magazine will work better on our computer screens. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the new print design.
4
Just opened the new printed edition of The New York Times Magazine, possibly for the last time. I will not read a magazine in which I have to page through pages of ads to get to the table of contents.
I read The Times almost exclusively online anyway, but every now and then I will read the paper version of the Book Review or the Magazine.
I remember reading a few years ago that The Times would stop printing by 2015 and go fully digital. They need to improve their Android app, and make some other changes to the mobile web site.
However they publish, I wish them luck.
I read The Times almost exclusively online anyway, but every now and then I will read the paper version of the Book Review or the Magazine.
I remember reading a few years ago that The Times would stop printing by 2015 and go fully digital. They need to improve their Android app, and make some other changes to the mobile web site.
However they publish, I wish them luck.
1
What happened to the Crossword Puzzle? I hope you didn't take it out!! That's the first thing I do when I open The Sunday Times.
I sort of like the behind the scenes look at what they do.
Just received the home delivery copy. Clearly a new format brought in tons of full color, two-page ad spreads. I suppose that's a good thing. Liked the roundtable ethics section. Glad the medical mystery section is still there. Still like the ample use of white space in the articles. What gives with the print though? First time in many years after reading the magazine that my hands were full of printer's ink! New look, but retro old school printing?
Unless they bring back "The One-Minute Magazine," I confess my interest is limited.
1
I have just finished reading the new magazine. Here are initial responses from a 40+-year-long subscriber:
1- You repeated a mistake you made in a re-design of several years ago: Instead of a vertical rectangle, the page is nearly square, making it very difficult to hold. Also, the heavier paper is nice, but why does it have to be so slippery? It feels like it was designed by a person who doesn't read on paper anymore. Unless you are sitting at a table with the magazine flat in front of you (who reads like that?), it is very difficult to hold the pages up and position the text without effort, making the reading experience uncomfortable and subtly anxiety-producing.It is impossible to hold and read with one hand. Even the daily paper can be folded into columns and read more easily than this design.
2-Where is the table of contents? Will I have to search for it or will it always be on page 34?( It used to be reliably on page 11.) Also, why do all 3 pages of contents look the same, so I have to leaf backwards to see if I'm at the beginning?
3-I do not like The Ethicist's opinions from 3 sources. In most cases, ethical behavior should not be a matter of debate--and I don't want to read about 3 people squabbling over it.
Hope you keep these suggestions in mind for the next re-design.
Barbara Lloyd
1- You repeated a mistake you made in a re-design of several years ago: Instead of a vertical rectangle, the page is nearly square, making it very difficult to hold. Also, the heavier paper is nice, but why does it have to be so slippery? It feels like it was designed by a person who doesn't read on paper anymore. Unless you are sitting at a table with the magazine flat in front of you (who reads like that?), it is very difficult to hold the pages up and position the text without effort, making the reading experience uncomfortable and subtly anxiety-producing.It is impossible to hold and read with one hand. Even the daily paper can be folded into columns and read more easily than this design.
2-Where is the table of contents? Will I have to search for it or will it always be on page 34?( It used to be reliably on page 11.) Also, why do all 3 pages of contents look the same, so I have to leaf backwards to see if I'm at the beginning?
3-I do not like The Ethicist's opinions from 3 sources. In most cases, ethical behavior should not be a matter of debate--and I don't want to read about 3 people squabbling over it.
Hope you keep these suggestions in mind for the next re-design.
Barbara Lloyd
5
Is this a parody? Am I reading The Onion? How could this article have been written with a straight face? Extending the "z", putting a loop on the lower case "a", and wow, that groundbreaking letter spacing. If all this took longer than 30 minutes to do in inDesign and Illustrator, then it took too long. Oh right, it's not really the technical part that's difficult, any designer knows that... it's those groundbreaking concepts... and hours and hours of meetings over months and months to discuss the changes in excruciating detail. I see a Jimmy Fallon parody in your future. Hopefully the script will be lifted verbatim from the article and will include this line: "Not a single letter in this relaunch issue has ever seen the light of day." People will be falling off their couches in hysterics.
9
It is truly wonderful to see such attention to design details in today's world of 'just do it' and rush it.
Thanks for this new generation of a classic and important publication !
Thanks for this new generation of a classic and important publication !
I was pretty curious to receive it this morning and have a look. I started thumbing through but my fingers got tired leafing through the seemingly billion ads that preface any content. I'm sure it's in there, somewhere. I'll take another look after a nap.
3
This is like New Coke. Let's only hope that the editors get the message that Coca Cola ultimately did.
I'm bummed. I'm in your target demographic (or what I am assuming is your marketed target demographic) - young (early 30s), highly educated, urban (but living outside of NYC), and with disposable income.
I always viewed the NYT Magazine as one of the last bastions of solid, good, "old school" journalism. It was reliable. It had substantive. It covered important issues too complicated to reduce to a 140-word tweet or a 90-second TV spot. It supported long-form journalism that would never make it into the Grey Lady's regular pages.
It seems (sounds? reads?) like that is now missing. In a hurry to implement ideas 'designed' to appeal to a younger, hipper, demographic, you've lost your core identity and what was so great about it.
I don't want to read a 'podcast' (re: the Ethicist). I don't want to read fluffy conversational pieces that don't carry weight. I read the NYT Magazine because I want to be challenged.
I'm bummed. I'm in your target demographic (or what I am assuming is your marketed target demographic) - young (early 30s), highly educated, urban (but living outside of NYC), and with disposable income.
I always viewed the NYT Magazine as one of the last bastions of solid, good, "old school" journalism. It was reliable. It had substantive. It covered important issues too complicated to reduce to a 140-word tweet or a 90-second TV spot. It supported long-form journalism that would never make it into the Grey Lady's regular pages.
It seems (sounds? reads?) like that is now missing. In a hurry to implement ideas 'designed' to appeal to a younger, hipper, demographic, you've lost your core identity and what was so great about it.
I don't want to read a 'podcast' (re: the Ethicist). I don't want to read fluffy conversational pieces that don't carry weight. I read the NYT Magazine because I want to be challenged.
12
Relaunching a weekly magazine with a bloated, special issue subverts the entire effort by forcing readers to literally heft a ad-studded issue that in no way will resemble forthcoming examples. In the end the money people trumped the designers.
4
The comments suggest that most readers' concern isn't content, it's substance.
4
The move to tabloid journalism tossing aside words in an article for pictures that merely take up space.
An ethicist column that is no better than reading the rants of an "expert" blogger (or in the case of the "improved" column, the rants of three bloggers).
An article in which the New York Times paid someone to lie on a bed in a luxury hotel room and watch Russian television, an activity which apparently would have not been "glamorous" or "newsworthy" enough if it were done in a researcher's basement media center.
Headline typefaces that distract due to their unnatural look.
All of which shows the New York Times is no better than the rest of media today when it throws under the bus its thoughtful and intelligent readers so as to pander to the Twitter set who cannot think beyond 140 character at any one sitting.
An ethicist column that is no better than reading the rants of an "expert" blogger (or in the case of the "improved" column, the rants of three bloggers).
An article in which the New York Times paid someone to lie on a bed in a luxury hotel room and watch Russian television, an activity which apparently would have not been "glamorous" or "newsworthy" enough if it were done in a researcher's basement media center.
Headline typefaces that distract due to their unnatural look.
All of which shows the New York Times is no better than the rest of media today when it throws under the bus its thoughtful and intelligent readers so as to pander to the Twitter set who cannot think beyond 140 character at any one sitting.
6
Two words, in a parenthetical, but these are the real point of the entire exercise:
"more advertising."
"more advertising."
6
Totally agree. The first bit of content appears on page 40. The rest is scattered among the full-page ads targeted squarely to an affluent audience.
Why is no background provides on the ethicists? What are their backgrounds? Will NYT use the same ones every time? Why a panel?
1
Oh, I see. Why didn't you say so? You're trying to eliminate the print version of the Times by making it unappealing to the people who like to read the print version. I could certainly save money badly needed money by canceling my Sundays-only print subscription and switching to digital only. Sundays won't be the same. But tradition is so overrated.
7
My reaction to your article praising the blond newscaster (not to denigrate blonds - some of my best friends are blonds - but on Fox it's hard to tell which is which) who is supposed to be attracting New York Times readers was "Huh?" I always enjoy the essay on the last page and the weekly interview. I hope you will continue to include them.
2
Its not so much an issue of "age" its an issue of intent
I don't care all so much about what the magazine "looks like" (although that may be vaguely appealing) but I care alot if it becomes lightweight and vapid. I never thought of he NYTimes as "breezy"; but its like the gray old lady is turning into a technicolor preteen. Please maintain editorial standards, not just turning it into a look book!
I don't care all so much about what the magazine "looks like" (although that may be vaguely appealing) but I care alot if it becomes lightweight and vapid. I never thought of he NYTimes as "breezy"; but its like the gray old lady is turning into a technicolor preteen. Please maintain editorial standards, not just turning it into a look book!
8
"You’ll be able to find us on the daily web, in your earbuds during your morning commute, on social media and onstage."
That means that I, and all my friends, who have better things to do than tweet and addict ourselves to so-called social media, are now beyond the Pale.
Thanks a lot.
That means that I, and all my friends, who have better things to do than tweet and addict ourselves to so-called social media, are now beyond the Pale.
Thanks a lot.
13
Generally I couldn’t care less about these changes—they’re not improvements, but they’re not awful either. The Editor’s Letter describing all the changes made my eyes roll. Can you really be taking yourselves so seriously? But there is one change that is infuriating and inexcusable—the magazine is printed on WAY heavier paper and has many more pages than usual, so the whole thing is heavy and cumbersome to carry around. Also, there is no indication that it is printed on recycled paper. If it’s not, then my feelings about the Times cannot be uttered publicly. If it is, then it’s outrageous that the editors did not mention that in their letter, considering they make a point of describing the new paper. These days it’s simply unconscionable to destroy trees to print something like this magazine, and if the editors can occupy space touting the new typeface, which is fine but neither innovative nor impressive, surely they could have found space to mention something that actually matters.
10
And another thing about the paper--it's very hard to write on it in pencil, and it's more shiny, so doing the crossword is much less enjoyable.
I have been willing to cut the Times lots of slack as it increased its fluff content to attract readers who interest the advertisers of expensive products, as I well understand that my subscription alone does not pay the cost of the serious journalism I want.
But, continuing in this vein, the Times today announced a change of Page One meetings to a more digital, ephemeral focus. While I understand the need to accommodate preferences of mobile digital readers, I would caution against diluting the Times' "brand" by chasing the "others", the momentary, and the ephemeral, which largely destroyed CNN, and by confusing editorial and commercial content, which destroyed Mad Magazine. The latter is already happening, as most tech columns are functionally ads rather than analytic journalism.
Especially disturbing in this "Editor's Letter" is the statement, "the internet... is the most vital engine of culture today." I'm not sure if it's more scarey or more depressing to think they really believe this. The internet may be the most prodigious dispersal agent for virtual forms of some culture, but that's about it, other than acting as an engine for video games and isolated experience. If they think listening to the Schubert Cello Quintet, watching Casablanca, or viewing a Rodin sculpture on a computer bears any resemblance to doing those things "off line" as a collective experience, they are not merely mistaken, they are living under an illusion that impoverishes their own lives.
But, continuing in this vein, the Times today announced a change of Page One meetings to a more digital, ephemeral focus. While I understand the need to accommodate preferences of mobile digital readers, I would caution against diluting the Times' "brand" by chasing the "others", the momentary, and the ephemeral, which largely destroyed CNN, and by confusing editorial and commercial content, which destroyed Mad Magazine. The latter is already happening, as most tech columns are functionally ads rather than analytic journalism.
Especially disturbing in this "Editor's Letter" is the statement, "the internet... is the most vital engine of culture today." I'm not sure if it's more scarey or more depressing to think they really believe this. The internet may be the most prodigious dispersal agent for virtual forms of some culture, but that's about it, other than acting as an engine for video games and isolated experience. If they think listening to the Schubert Cello Quintet, watching Casablanca, or viewing a Rodin sculpture on a computer bears any resemblance to doing those things "off line" as a collective experience, they are not merely mistaken, they are living under an illusion that impoverishes their own lives.
6
H ate it. Hate every single thing you've done. It is less readable. One Piece of evidence that Darwin is wrong. It is not evolution; it is devolution.
8
I still love reading the paper version of the New York Times, but beginning today I will only read the Magazine online: The new format is just an excuse to include more advertising. It is, frankly, difficult to find the articles wedged between all of the full page glossy advertisements. How sad.
7
I assume that only this initial "new" magazine will have four covers. That's a lot of trees wasted. I also felt that I had fallen into the world of the "1000 Best things for the Super Rich." Ads for apartments that are $5000 a month and more, ads for high end automobiles, expensive vacations, co-ops run by the Ritz-Carlton organization, Wall St. firms wanting to take care of your wealth . . . . There is no end to the number of things geared to BIG MONEY.
The articles? Not even geared to big brains or thinking brains or maybe to any brains at all and the typeface may be clean but it is small, perhaps anticipating that no one will actually be reading the articles. Very, very disappointed. I only hope going into the future that a bigger effort will go into the content and not the ads.
Finally, really, should anyone be interested in whether those who watch "Sherlock" are imagining a romantic relationship between him and Dr. Watson? Most of us reading the magazine are primarily interested in what is happening in the real world, not in what is happening in the imaginations of TV watchers of a fictional character! Perhaps covering Giuliani is what passes for news on FOX but you can do better than the pandering to the lowest common denominator of reality TV. Some of us can still identify and distinguish baloney from steak.
The articles? Not even geared to big brains or thinking brains or maybe to any brains at all and the typeface may be clean but it is small, perhaps anticipating that no one will actually be reading the articles. Very, very disappointed. I only hope going into the future that a bigger effort will go into the content and not the ads.
Finally, really, should anyone be interested in whether those who watch "Sherlock" are imagining a romantic relationship between him and Dr. Watson? Most of us reading the magazine are primarily interested in what is happening in the real world, not in what is happening in the imaginations of TV watchers of a fictional character! Perhaps covering Giuliani is what passes for news on FOX but you can do better than the pandering to the lowest common denominator of reality TV. Some of us can still identify and distinguish baloney from steak.
12
$5,000/ month rent in NYC or many major cities is not big money, but your point about the market this magazine advertises to is well taken. I miss the old format.
All I know about the NYTimes is that it has changed in an important way that I hope will be carried over into everything you do. The change I see is greater social engagement, a clearer awareness of the personal as political. What I would like to see more of in everything the Times puts out into the world is further enhanced coverage of:
-the prison and justice system
-police tactics and relations between the police and the rest of us
-the failed drug war, how to stop and reverse it, and how to deal fairly with marijuana and other drugs as compared with alcohol and tobacco
-gay and gender issues
-racial injustice and its human costs
-what the mayor, governor, and other elected officials are doing to make life more bearable for everyone in this city and state
Other readers may have their own wish lists compiled from topics you have and have not yet made yours, such as greater coverage of feminist issues. The rest of your expanded agenda may result from your pursuit of relevance but these are some things that make the Times relevant for me.
-the prison and justice system
-police tactics and relations between the police and the rest of us
-the failed drug war, how to stop and reverse it, and how to deal fairly with marijuana and other drugs as compared with alcohol and tobacco
-gay and gender issues
-racial injustice and its human costs
-what the mayor, governor, and other elected officials are doing to make life more bearable for everyone in this city and state
Other readers may have their own wish lists compiled from topics you have and have not yet made yours, such as greater coverage of feminist issues. The rest of your expanded agenda may result from your pursuit of relevance but these are some things that make the Times relevant for me.
I very much hope the new format provides a brief Abstract about each major article to entice readers. In all scientific journals an Abstract is required. Distilling the major points of a long complex study is difficult, but the result is very useful to readers. It can help readers understand the main points the article is hoping to make; it is often is the deciding factor in whether I am going to read the article.
2
40 years ago, I trudged through deep Chicago snow to find the NYT and magazine, which I saved.
A decade or so ago, I gave up on both the Sunday Times and magazine because they have so little to offer and are so "Pinched" that they aren't worth the $6 or whatever the price is these days. Now that I'm a subscriber online, I still don't read the magazine because it is a waste of time.
A decade or so ago, I gave up on both the Sunday Times and magazine because they have so little to offer and are so "Pinched" that they aren't worth the $6 or whatever the price is these days. Now that I'm a subscriber online, I still don't read the magazine because it is a waste of time.
3
I have no problem with an occasional facelift, and the new look is OK with me. I am an online subscriber, and here's what I object to: The right side of the page is littered with links to ancient stories: kids at the restaurant; what the world eats for breakfast; women at West Point, actors kissing for no reason . . . why? As a subscriber, I'd like to see all the content from the current issue front and center.
I also have to echo the sentiment that the Magazine should retain some kind of forum for unknown or lesser-known guest writers have their say. As much as I enjoy Emily Bazelon and Troy Patterson on Slate, for example, they are well-established writers whose work is readily available elsewhere. In addition to gender and ethnic diversity, how about bringing in more writers who aren't coming aboard with well-established viewpoints?
I also have to echo the sentiment that the Magazine should retain some kind of forum for unknown or lesser-known guest writers have their say. As much as I enjoy Emily Bazelon and Troy Patterson on Slate, for example, they are well-established writers whose work is readily available elsewhere. In addition to gender and ethnic diversity, how about bringing in more writers who aren't coming aboard with well-established viewpoints?
2
Once I hefted the new format, heavy with all its ads, and spent minutes searching for the table of contents, I found few articles of interest - unlike last week's old edition - and tossed the whole thing into the recycle bin.
6
I love when things change, but I balk when those making changes are dishonest with me, as it seems like you are doing with the new Magazine. You are being disingenuous about the new approach to the "Lives" column. You make it sound as if you are opening up the column to a wider range of writers, but you are actually exerting more editorial control over whose lives are represented in the "Lives" column. Your description of the new "Lives" column makes it clear that you have added an entirely new level of editorial control to the voices we will hear in that column: "We’ve turned Lives from a column that features mostly written accounts to one that features mostly accounts told to a reporter." But then, remarkably, you spin this as a change that "will enable us to showcase a wider variety of lives from a wider range of nations and backgrounds." Wait a second. Slow down. How on earth we will get "a wider variety of lives from a wider range of nations and backgrounds" when the "Lives" column now has to be mediated by a reporter? Again, change is wonderful and necessary -- and it's an irreducible fact of daily life. But please don't be dishonest about the changes you are making: the dishonesty only turns off readers, like myself, who otherwise would have been open to these changes.
4
I think the point about variety is this: Not everyone with a good story is able to write a publishable first-person account. In fact, the vast majority of people lack that skill -- yet many have stories worth telling and lives worth knowing about. "Lives" has been an engaging column, but the stories have all been "mediated" (a/k/a "told") by people with writers' sensibilities and a way with words. There's a larger universe of human experience out there that's worth exploring -- or so I imagine the NYT's thinking goes.
I'll have to add another thumbs down to the Ethicists. It's really OK for a print magazine to deliver writing (as opposed to podcasts & web pages). It's what I read magazines for.
Along with the ethicist, I always looked forward to, and started with, the letters to the editor. Did I miss something here or has the letters page been replaced with the Thread? If so, please bring back letters. Your readers are some of your most thoughtful and articulate contributors and can speak very well for themselves.
Along with the ethicist, I always looked forward to, and started with, the letters to the editor. Did I miss something here or has the letters page been replaced with the Thread? If so, please bring back letters. Your readers are some of your most thoughtful and articulate contributors and can speak very well for themselves.
5
I loved the Ethicist but hated the new Ethicists. It seemed like too many cooks in the kitchen.
Is there a magazine buried somewhere in all those advertisements ?
15
I hate mixed fonts. It's inelegant, pointless and confusing to the eye.
4
I'm struggling to discover in what sense the new logo is "more modern." All the old elements of the Textur typeface are still there. It's certainly less condensed than its predecessor, but does that make it more "graciously" spaced? It's this kind of hype that raises people's suspicions.
3
The "Lives" section has been really inane and totally uninteresting. I have read the Times almost every day for over 50 years, and have pretty much stopped reading the magazine.
Please don't mess anymore with the Book Review....although it's pretty discouraging to see what's on the "bestseller" lists....Bill O'Reilly and his ilk? Puh-lease!
Please don't mess anymore with the Book Review....although it's pretty discouraging to see what's on the "bestseller" lists....Bill O'Reilly and his ilk? Puh-lease!
1
Why did an editor not nix the mixed metaphors in the first 2 paragraphs?
If this were a first date and this article was the guy, I'd fake call a friend and tell him that I have to leave for some kind of "emergency".
If this were a first date and this article was the guy, I'd fake call a friend and tell him that I have to leave for some kind of "emergency".
2
Years ago, for me the magazine used to be sort of like a print version of '60 Minutes.' But over the last decade or so, much of the high quality and informative journalism that kept me buying the paper every Sunday has been replaced by this unwanted, uninformative and useless emphasis on style. At this point, it is crystal clear to me that the people who produce the magazine really don't care much about what the magazine actually says, as long as it looks good saying it.
9
Much-needed and great to hear more advertising because that pays the freight, and if it continues to increase you all will be able to keep experimenting. As JB in CA (evidently an ex-NYT insider) notes, this clearly is a work-in-progress. IMO anything is an improvement over existing (I too would completely junk The Ethicist, though).
So many of us have grown up with the Sunday Times; for the past 15 years, but for one or two articles each week, my eyes quickly skim over. Am looking forward now to something I can carry around (one way or the other) all week.
Personally, I'm hopeful the product exceeds the Editor's written narrative.
So many of us have grown up with the Sunday Times; for the past 15 years, but for one or two articles each week, my eyes quickly skim over. Am looking forward now to something I can carry around (one way or the other) all week.
Personally, I'm hopeful the product exceeds the Editor's written narrative.
2
so this what the new york times does when it doesn't know what else to do.
it's kind of like the old trope from the "our gang" series: "hey gang, let's put on a show!"
it's kind of like the old trope from the "our gang" series: "hey gang, let's put on a show!"
4
Will it still be on that light, slippery paper that makes the pages stick together?
The vain, self-congratulatory tone of this letter couldn't be more off putting to me. And so cute too. "Not a single letter in this relaunch issue has ever seen the light of day. They are infants; treat them gently." I just hope they are readable. love the Times; I just hope this redo of the magazine isn't as flawed as this letter seems to be.
7
Like the crossword redesign and the puzzle page. Hate everything else. The magazine looks like Vogue now: I can't tell what's article and what's advertising; hard to tell where stories begin and where they end. You know you're in trouble when the table of contents goes on for multiple pages. The loss of the personal essay on the last page is deeply mourned in my household.
I'm glad you have a lot of advertisements--God knows you need the money--but the previous design felt like a well-conceived whole. This design feels like an overstuffed mess.
I'm glad you have a lot of advertisements--God knows you need the money--but the previous design felt like a well-conceived whole. This design feels like an overstuffed mess.
6
Where did the magazine go? It's hard to find where it even starts, now that it has been buried in what feels like two pounds of added paper worth of advertising.
Really? Is the NY Times in such dire straights that the magazine now needs to be like any other advertising platform?
Really? Is the NY Times in such dire straights that the magazine now needs to be like any other advertising platform?
9
The new Ethicist (s) is awful. Reminds me of the jabbering on Fox & Friends.
8
Yes! You nailed it!
The king/queen of all choice in reading is how the content connects with the reader. That's IT. Fonts, delivery platforms, and numbers of ads are not that important to readers overall. Starting with all that won't get you too far. What matters is: do we the readers want to read what you've created? Will it move us, change us, inspire us, provoke us, compel us? Don't disrespect content or think the valuing of it is something older people do. Don't spend a thousand hours thinking about design, and less thinking about content. Over and over, we see that success comes to those who care about what they are making. Serial proved podcasts were not dead. The independent bookstores are making a comeback. People just love good content, wherever it is, and wherever they can find it. And they will jump through a lot of platforms to get it. Focus on great content. And hire people right away thinking more about diversity, not because of some kind of retroactive reaction to the many excellent comments here on that but because also because a more diverse staff will also lead to far more interesting content! And by diversity I mean real diversity: diversity of race, and also of age (older people have good stories to tell!), perspective, social/economic class, gender and gender continuum and culture. Don't let your preoccupation of design and ad space prevent you from remembering this: if the content is truly good, the readers will come.
6
In my experience, any time a magazine has "relaunched," it's meant making the readable unreadable. I haven't seen the new magazine yet (my paper hasn't been delivered yet), but this introduction has already infuriated me. When Chuck Klosterman took over the Ethicist column a couple of years ago, I began finally reading that column every week without fail. And now you're telling me he's gone. One of the things I've always liked about the magazine is that it had large blocks of text unbroken by blurbs or pictures, sometimes whole pages. This made it very convenient to read on the subway. I fear that that particular layout will disappear from the new design. If all this is an attempt to attract newer, younger readers, good luck. Most likely, you'll just alienate your older readers and only get a few new ones.
4
Please, just go back to the 50's and 60's when the magazine with the puzzle was the "fought over" heart of the Sunday Times. The paper was glossy' , the articles were interesting and LONG. meaning they were not the usual sound bytes of today's journalism. It was truly a 'magazine' and truly a Sunday treasure. I do not think the new team is old enough to remember the 'good old days.' It's true, I am getting old.
4
The re-inauguration of the NYT Magazine is eventful as it attracts that ads full of way over-priced real estate in NYC, Miami, LV and elsewhere that only the 1% can buy. Heidi Klum is always welcomed but I don't think my wife would ever spend 2K on a bathing suit nor are we contemplating buying a ranch to get away from it all nor can we take time off of more than 7 days to get the discount vacationing in St Lucia. But it's comforting to know that I can read all about Brazilian Favellas, female commando's in the Congo (How sexy) or the mandatory "every issue "gay centric" let's lock them in as readers articles. Nothing new here NYT. But what I do commend that I don't see in this week's magazine is the NYT photographed signature fashions shoots that make the subject female or male look like lurid zombies with charcoal eye shadow and with hair shooting up and the use of purple shading - that NYT : demonstrates that you have moved on from that ridiculous photography that does not resonate with the 1% nor the 100% of your readers - good luck!
1
I became a fan of the Magazine when I was a kid reading Russell Baker and William Safire with my dad who was himself a child of Manhattan. Every major change has sent me into paroxysms of outrage and fear, but somehow I have adjusted. I still miss what I miss, but I also still look for the paper and the Magazine to arrive each Sunday. (I read online other days of the week.) Living in Maine, that thump on the driveway is a weekend pleasure I am not ready to give up. Some of the changes announced here today are making me feel crazy, once again, but I'll wait it out and let time do the rest. Although the Ethicist? Really???
3
I am not sure how many NYT redesigns I have lived through but to date, each one has resulted in a dumbing down of content. In years past the Magazine could be counted on to provide at least one in depth article an issue - worth spending time reading and thinking about. Following the last tinkering I feel fortunate to find even one such article every six months. The content of the new effort sounds even more trivial. Every week when I get my NYT Sunday edition I first pull out all of the sections that I do not read. Sadly it sounds like the Magazine will be going into that pile. It is a shame.
15
Once again the powers that be submit to the idea that they can ignore the 50+ generation ad build everything around the younger generation. According to one AARP we represent 46% of the nation's GDP, and yet we are more and more ignored in new product development, in advertising, and by the entertainment industry. I'm watching TV a lot less now because much of the stuff is not of interest to me. I'm forced to but more than 200 channels on cable so I can get a couple of channels that I want, but I can tell you there are probably 175 channels I've never watched. As for the Times magazine I have found it more and more irrelevant. Maybe I read one Times Magazine article a month. The proposed changes drive it even further away from my interest zone. But then I guess the Times doesn't really care about my half of the economy.
11
Really? Arguing on twitter? Is that what you think NY Times readers want in their Sunday magazine?
What is wrong with content. That is what we want. High quality, high concept, diverse content. By real people with real voices.
This club approach is doomed.
What is wrong with content. That is what we want. High quality, high concept, diverse content. By real people with real voices.
This club approach is doomed.
31
I read and read and read and this introduction to the 'new' magazine failed to mention anything resembling content.
5
The word that comes to mind when I read this article is "breathless". It's a tone more suited to a women's magazine. And it sounds like all the attention is focused on the look rather than the writing. I hope that is not the case.
30
Once again, you seem to be ignoring us older folks, who think back fondly on the magazine of three or four transformations ago. From my more "mature" perspective, it keeps getting worse.
I understand that you must attract new readers to stay in business, but don't forget those of us who actually BUY the upscale goods you advertise. We're not dead YET!
I understand that you must attract new readers to stay in business, but don't forget those of us who actually BUY the upscale goods you advertise. We're not dead YET!
16
I was struck by the phrase "let's face it" in the Editor's Letter for the first issue of this relaunch. It's the editorial "we" in a different guise; it doesn't represent only the team putting out the new magazine but rather the editors and readers, too. It presumes a consensus on both sides of the page. Now, most of the comments I've read here (about 100) don't seem to be part of that consensus. The question I have is whether the advertisers are part of it? For the moment, given their increased number, it sounds as if they are. Advertising in bulk pages makes editorial pages more difficult to find (as in the fall issue of Vogue, for instance); the health of the publisher transforms a magazine from a reading experience to a browsing experience, but, finally, the reader's experience doesn't count as much as the patron's (the demographic) experience. Unless the publisher remains in business, no editorial content--fluff, gravitas, whatever--can be published. Perhaps the lack of diversity in age among the members of the editorial staff pictured is the result of painful belt-tightening throughout the paper, which has been laying off older editorial staff by the hundreds. And the changes to the Magazine have been made at about the same time as the changes to the paper's T Magazine--where style has been made more serious. T seems to be reaching for older readers; the Magazine chases younger ones. In each, if we ("we") get one substantial reporting piece per issue we'll be lucky.
7
Surely a sign of desperation at newspapers in general. A poem? Are you kidding me? That will get the millennials excited.
8
Ooh goody. I love The New Yorker! How fun to have a second edition delivered to me weekly.
6
It is too heavy and too full of ads for expensive products to entice a middle class reader to bother to plow thru the content. The type is too small for a ^mature* reader. Why not leave well enough alone? Most people have other things to do besides reading another magazine. Have you noticed how cheap subscriptions to magazines with good content are?
19
My very first impressions: The magazine took so long to load I almost bailed out. I'm not in the City now, and DSL, which is all we're going to get for decades if not forever, is too slow to read this paper easily now. It also needs a lot of memory. Your site is making my machine obsolete.
My other first reaction is the font used for the headlines is plug ugly. Too heavy, too black, too close together. Really, really ugly. What were you thinking?
My other first reaction is the font used for the headlines is plug ugly. Too heavy, too black, too close together. Really, really ugly. What were you thinking?
5
I couldn't agree more regarding the headlines font: "ugly" is the first word that came to mind for me as well. My second thought was it looks like something from a Buffalo Bill Wild West show leaflet from the 19th century.
But I'm on DSL as well and have no problems loading the site.
And my curmudgeonly editor's nitpick is that most style guides (and my rusty memory of the NYT Style Guide itself) calls for titles of publications, such as The New York Times Magazine, to be set in italics.
But I'm on DSL as well and have no problems loading the site.
And my curmudgeonly editor's nitpick is that most style guides (and my rusty memory of the NYT Style Guide itself) calls for titles of publications, such as The New York Times Magazine, to be set in italics.
I have not seen it yet. but anything will be an improvement over what is dreadful.
I have been reading The Times since I was ten years old, and I loved The Magazine and Book Review then. What happened to it since then is a tragedy.
I have been reading The Times since I was ten years old, and I loved The Magazine and Book Review then. What happened to it since then is a tragedy.
7
I thought it was silly when, on learning she would be managing editor, Jill Abramson noted that reading the Sunday times had religious significance. Perhaps she would have been better served confining herself to "ritual" significance, or perhaps the sudden carping was a shot across the bow to let her know she would not be able to win in her new post as first and only. Whatever the case may be, she was conceptually right as rain as far as I was concerned. The arrival of and distribution of the parts of the Sunday Times reflected a clear understanding of family hierarchy. Only the biggest smart aleck went for the Week in Review first, trumpeting being so up to date that only a refresher was needed. The coveted Magazine and Book Review went to...well, there was no small amount of fighting and pouting over who would read first, not very spiritual but there you have it. There was always the consolation of saving some of the magazine for the week ahead.
I do not even bother with the book review any longer and with respect to the magazine, which seems to repeat and repeat tales of abuse, I am tempted to resort to tl;dr. It is no small loss and I doubt that there will be redemption in a new font. Some stories of interest would help. By that I mean coverage of topics in which the self is not an object of fascination.
I do not even bother with the book review any longer and with respect to the magazine, which seems to repeat and repeat tales of abuse, I am tempted to resort to tl;dr. It is no small loss and I doubt that there will be redemption in a new font. Some stories of interest would help. By that I mean coverage of topics in which the self is not an object of fascination.
Is the new New York Times Magazine graphic presentation an introduction of an all new white view of the world? Somehow missing seems to be (in no special order) representatives from Asia, Africa, the Mideast, South and Latin America, Oceana and always exotic blonde Scandinavia among others. If the graphics are used as an introduction to your new vision just what are you meaning to say?
5
Don't get me wrong…I love Millennials, have some myself, but does anyone doubt that 20 years from now, or sooner if too much escapes this "garage," the Times will barely exist, if at all, when we hardcopy-loving/paying, just-want-to-read-"content"-down-the-straight-column Boomers are gone and have stopped underwriting the operation?
7
Yes! - First Word. If it helps to fill the void left by the loss of William Safire's old column, I applaud the effort.
I'd Give It a Chance -- 1) Plural Ethicists. A column in which I enjoy reading the comments, have to acknowledge multiple perspectives. The biggest challenge might be to resist the temptation to joke and kibbitz and downgrade the ethics, but it can be done. 2) The Ons. Especially if this is to replace the occasional Style Issues, Money Issues, etc.
No, No, No -- "The Most Vital Engine of Culture?" Maybe upstate here during hibernation season, but not in a city of 8 million. And don't even bring up that I'm reading this on my laptop and posting a response. Or checking some Jenna Wortham's prose on another tab and discovering I like it. Don't even.
Best of luck. Stay good.
I'd Give It a Chance -- 1) Plural Ethicists. A column in which I enjoy reading the comments, have to acknowledge multiple perspectives. The biggest challenge might be to resist the temptation to joke and kibbitz and downgrade the ethics, but it can be done. 2) The Ons. Especially if this is to replace the occasional Style Issues, Money Issues, etc.
No, No, No -- "The Most Vital Engine of Culture?" Maybe upstate here during hibernation season, but not in a city of 8 million. And don't even bring up that I'm reading this on my laptop and posting a response. Or checking some Jenna Wortham's prose on another tab and discovering I like it. Don't even.
Best of luck. Stay good.
Holy lack of diversity, Batman!!!!!
It is the year 2015 and there is still nobody outside the "30-40, upper-middle-class, white" demographic group worth of working for this supposedly "revamped" magazine? Besides hair and clothing styles, this picture made me think of a newsroom picture from the 50's instead of a publication trying to adapt to the 21st century. And this lack of diversity is affecting your product: twitter fights? Internet culture? Consideration of a word or phrase? I am a Gen X'er and the mother of a Millennial and we both found the new offerings dumb; kind of the print version of CNN.
It is the year 2015 and there is still nobody outside the "30-40, upper-middle-class, white" demographic group worth of working for this supposedly "revamped" magazine? Besides hair and clothing styles, this picture made me think of a newsroom picture from the 50's instead of a publication trying to adapt to the 21st century. And this lack of diversity is affecting your product: twitter fights? Internet culture? Consideration of a word or phrase? I am a Gen X'er and the mother of a Millennial and we both found the new offerings dumb; kind of the print version of CNN.
20
Check out the article by Teju Cole about the photographer Roy DeCarava and how he positioned the tones of black faces in his photos. This story gets right to the heart of how minorities are portrayed in media. It explains how the tools of photography are biased toward white skin tones.
The best news here is the addition of poetry and the deeper commitment to photography. The worst is the watering down of The Ethicist into a podcast's transcript.
15
Agreed - I want to read - and for the same reason, I don't look at videos. Aside from the fact that I do not wish to, nor do I wish to listen to podcasts unless walking my dogs, there's the question of bandwidth. My internet connection doesn't support it. Keep the depth of the articles as they were, please. No CNN or People shallowness.
2
The podcast idea for the ethics is a terrible one. No one wants grey- they wasn't black and white. The old ethicist was perfection- who has the time to waste listening to a podcast debate? This is drivel. Your older READERS aren't interested and younger podcast aficionados have many, many far better and more interesting listening choices. This new format serves no demographic well.
Bring back a cooking feature. I always enjoyed this, and my partner was also pleased whenever I tried one of the recipes.
I fail to see how the new logo is better, it's just odd looking after all these years. However, your new online logo looks bizarre and like something I would expect to see promotion a Goth Halloween party no the NYT. It appears that you have the need to feel "painfully hip" by reducing the conversation much closer to the lowest common denominator. In case you were not aware there are hundreds of paper publications and millions online that have already occupied that space quite successfully.
13
Congratulations on your re-invention of The New York Times Magazine. As your print edition only reaches me when visitors come with one in their suitcases I shall have to hold my anticipation in for a while longer.
The Sunday Times has been a faithful companion since around 1974 and like any long-term relationship, we've had our ups and downs. You changed. I changed, neither of us always for the better, yet somehow we always found each other again.
From your "letter" I like what you've done with the place, respectful yet aware of the fact that even the best built house on the block needs a facelift now and then. Creating external platforms to complement the print magazine may prove to be your legacy.
Your online slogan does give me second thoughts however:
NYTMagazine
Think again
I urge you to adjust the second line slightly: Think, again. Which I do believe was your intent because honestly I have no regrets or second thoughts about your magazine.
The Sunday Times has been a faithful companion since around 1974 and like any long-term relationship, we've had our ups and downs. You changed. I changed, neither of us always for the better, yet somehow we always found each other again.
From your "letter" I like what you've done with the place, respectful yet aware of the fact that even the best built house on the block needs a facelift now and then. Creating external platforms to complement the print magazine may prove to be your legacy.
Your online slogan does give me second thoughts however:
NYTMagazine
Think again
I urge you to adjust the second line slightly: Think, again. Which I do believe was your intent because honestly I have no regrets or second thoughts about your magazine.
2
I've never read a New York Times magazine that did not entertain me for an hour or so. The font job is truly impressive. Whooda thought a new design could be had? Thank you.
Turning the ethicist into sound bites rather than threaded reasoning/guided thinking process really dilutes what was best about it, along with the wit of the writer. Don't we have enough panel discussion/sound bite columns all over the internet? You took something distinct and made it mediocre, though it was always only as good as the "Ethicist" in charge. Letter of Recommendation: fun, but a McSweeney's rip off. Poem: yay.
8
The new ethicists seem to be trying to have a casual party-setting conversation with each other, as opposed to giving deep, thoughtful responses. I liked Randy Cohen; please bring him back.
2
Engagement of the reader is the key to the future of the NYT. Quality of writing is second. Content third. Your recently departed wonderful journalist knew this so well. Review his course and follow it. The approach tone voice and topics here do not grab me. And I am a loyal NYT a person
5
Oh to be young, beautiful and living in New York City redesigning the New York Times Magazine! That's the first thought all these plans initially inspired, I'm ashamed to admit, but my ego recovered because your typefaces are glorious and the new columns sound divine. Bravo for your efforts and I look forward to consuming your product!
1
Why on earth is there an article discussing the new format? Put it out there and wait. Clearly readers of any stripe will see the changes and have opinions. This extended discussion is ludicrous as it isn't like any of the comments will be taken under consideration and modified as a result.
3
I loved the old magazine, and I'm looking forward to seeing what you do with the new one. As they say, change is going to happen, it's a question of managing it. The New York Times continues to be the best source of public information in the world.
1
But will the print version actually have large enough font to actually read? Now THAT would be a new and improved magazine!
8
I'm struggling to discover in what sense the new logo is "more modern." All the old elements of the Textur typeface are still there. It's certainly less condensed than its predecessor, but does that make it more "graciously" spaced? It's this kind of hype that raises peoples' suspicions.
3
This article puts me in mind of someone with poor fashion sense relating with pride and flourish, how they get themselves dressed every morning.
7
Shot in black & white to look hip.
4
Is there an ad free version I can pay extra for? Paging though ad after ad showing $10 million apartments makes me want to join a revolution to overthrow the .01 percent. I'll probably cancel my print version just so I don't have to subject myself to that every weekend.
33
Agreed. The onslaught of advertisements in this week's magazine ruined the entire experience of actually READING the magazine! I had assumed the "new" magazine would be about new content, not an obscene number of new ads. It makes me think of that moment in "A Christmas Story" where Ralphie excitedly unpacks his Little Orphan Annie decoder ring, only to realize he's been duped into buying "a crummy commercial." I, too, will be canceling my print subscription if this continues.
2
Just got the print version today. Weighs more than I do. Appears to be like T - mostly ads with some pretense at content. Searched though for contents (Stanley had an easier time finding Livingston). Found contents. Nothing of interest. Straight into the recycling bin.
Looked at picture to the left. Cumulative age/experience of those who produced this ... publication ... not quite that of my house. Exactly what I'd have expected.
I just renewed my NYT subscription. It runs through May. When it expires I will not be back.
Looked at picture to the left. Cumulative age/experience of those who produced this ... publication ... not quite that of my house. Exactly what I'd have expected.
I just renewed my NYT subscription. It runs through May. When it expires I will not be back.
13
My thoughts exactly, except the part about canceling my subscription. Many of the NYT's well-written stories and columns are worth the price of admission. But this new ad-heavy magazine is definitely recycle bin material.
1
Unfortunately, Jennifer, the revamped Magazine is not my only problem. It merely crystallised my attitude. Just as one day you may wake up next to someone and realise you are no longer in love - and that it's not something that just happened, but something that has been happening for some time, which you have simply avoided admitting to yourself - I have noticed that for some time now I have been losing not only enthusiasm but respect for the NYT. There are other media news sources; a weekend-only print subscripton (Sat/Sun) now costs more than $400/yr; I could put the money to better use and simply look in on the NYT now and then at the public library.
Sorry, but it just seems like an incredible waste of money and time that could have been used on real journalism.
15
As an online subscriber (delivery is days late in some places you know), I would suggest you have focus groups among your readership, online and paper based. (Not online surveys, focus groups). Ask what works and even better ask what they value and would like to see more of. Ask what they pay for. Ask what else they READ. Ars technica, archaeology, science daily and CNET here. Did you have a clue even with Google? Did you test the new concepts with people?
Content, good journalism, critical topics, readers comments, real fact gathering and please fewer frivolous and meaningless videos. OK, I get fashion week (visual content is the be all), museum shows, ballet but text to video? Alternatively, your articles on the international tax nightmare for U.S. citizens was riveting and necessary.
Content, good journalism, critical topics, readers comments, real fact gathering and please fewer frivolous and meaningless videos. OK, I get fashion week (visual content is the be all), museum shows, ballet but text to video? Alternatively, your articles on the international tax nightmare for U.S. citizens was riveting and necessary.
3
Excellent makeover. Good job.
RE Parenthesis in the third graph.
Good news for the Times corp.
For your readers?
Good news for the Times corp.
For your readers?
1
The magazine has gone from 50 pages to 200+. The increase in advertising may be a win for the NYT but not for its readers.
10
The new format is an attempt to be both print fish and digital fowl, and succeeds at neither. And speaking of fish, it is sad to watch the greatest traditional newspaper in the world flap like a fish out of water in today's economy. Isn't that what this is really all about?
The third typeface is ugly, but I do like the first two of the four. Otherwise, thanks for all the fish.
The third typeface is ugly, but I do like the first two of the four. Otherwise, thanks for all the fish.
3
Please stop with the explanations of how you are changing the NYT magazine. This is not really "news". Just do it, it is not as if you take readers' input into account. Are you looking for absolution or approval? Anyway, once you dropped Hodgeman it was over. What's next to be dropped, the end piece? Stop already, just do it and like all other involuntary updates of Windows, or iTunes, we, the public, is stuck with it.
5
Sounds worse than the present irrelevant offering.
1
"...more pages of advertising than in any issue since October 2007."
Oh joy.
Oh joy.
4
POETRY! Bless your heart.
2
Did you read the poem? Not to be churlish - the choice of a poet who 'died of a stroke in 2012, when he was only 40' pretty much insulates the work against criticism (tragic death ... how *could* one be so callous as to call it 'slightly better than a Hallmark card'?).
Poetry is not just anything with odd line breaks and ragged-right margins. The first offering is not bad, but it's not great either, and I question whether the NYT can actually dredge up a poem every week worthy of the name. Some of the stuff in the New Yorker, the Atlantic, and other publications that print poetry is truly cringeworthy.
(No, I don't write poetry. When I got out of high school, in a moment of blinding clarity as to the level of my own talent in that genre, I made of all my efforts in that genre a burnt offering to the muses and resolved to go and sin no more.)
Poetry is not just anything with odd line breaks and ragged-right margins. The first offering is not bad, but it's not great either, and I question whether the NYT can actually dredge up a poem every week worthy of the name. Some of the stuff in the New Yorker, the Atlantic, and other publications that print poetry is truly cringeworthy.
(No, I don't write poetry. When I got out of high school, in a moment of blinding clarity as to the level of my own talent in that genre, I made of all my efforts in that genre a burnt offering to the muses and resolved to go and sin no more.)
More ads? Too bad! I can see ads in any magazine out there.i read the times for the well written articles. I particularly liked the magazine section.(it was the first thing I read). How disappointing!
2
Don't mess with the crossword
3
Too late by decades. When Will Weng was doing the Sunday Crossword, back in the 1970s, I used to write my starting time at the top of the page, then see how long it took to finish - in ink, without mistakes. Quite a few weeks I did manage, in something between a half-hour and an hour (I don't think I ever beat a half-hour, though). Then Mr Weng was gone, and the crossword went downhill.
I approach this with the stoicism-cynicism of Benjamin the donkey in Animal Farm, whose dour reply to the promises and innovations of the new order is 'donkeys live a long time. None of you has ever seen a dead donkey'.
I've been reading the NYT since 1968, when our social studies teacher kept a copy in her classroom. So I have ridden through quite a few bright new sunrises ... pardon me while I chaw some hay.
I approach this with the stoicism-cynicism of Benjamin the donkey in Animal Farm, whose dour reply to the promises and innovations of the new order is 'donkeys live a long time. None of you has ever seen a dead donkey'.
I've been reading the NYT since 1968, when our social studies teacher kept a copy in her classroom. So I have ridden through quite a few bright new sunrises ... pardon me while I chaw some hay.
1
I say, “Out with the new.” … and everyone who worships at that Altar. Or, should I merely refer to it [that altar] as "The Golden Calf"?
1
Just heard the thump of a few pounds of The New York Times hit the floor of my hallway. I eagerly pull off the rubber band that holds the Saturday edition wrapped around several Sunday Times sections, and there it is: the new New York Times magazine. I don’t stop to peruse the Editor’s Letter on how the magazine has been reimagined (sorry, but I’ll save that to read later), I skim over the table of contents pages, and am pleased to note that The Ethicists, Drink, Eat, Diagnosis, Lives and Puzzle columns/pages remain, but have been invitingly revised. And there are new features, too—First Words, On Photography. Then flipping forward, from the last-page Talk interview with filmmaker Ava DuVernay (good placement), I find the articles that I can’t wait to get into: “The Media Doesn’t Care What Happens Here,” “How Can We Find More People Like You?” “Why Not Us Women?” and “Out of My Mouth. . .168 hours of Russian TV.” Let me get my coffee, I have some reading to do.
1
Tusk?!! Hooray, what a great choice.
Good luck, New York Times. There's a reason you're the best in the business--a willingness to innovate, yet not surrender your values. We'll all be watching closely.
Good luck, New York Times. There's a reason you're the best in the business--a willingness to innovate, yet not surrender your values. We'll all be watching closely.
Unless the Times is making money from the magazine, which I often wonder about as I toss it without looking at it, it would do better to kill and invest the money in what it does best, in the newsroom, in the newspaper.
Yes, 4 million people see it every week. I doubt they read it. I have not read it in nearly years of reading the Times.
The changes described make not an iota's bit of difference. Not meant to be critical of the people who worked no doubt hard on the project or of their talents or the Times' best intentions.
But all the changes you describe just do not matter. The magazine is just not relevant and nothing you describe it doing is or could be nearly so relevant as adding reporters, correspondents and editors to strengthen what to me is an essential pillar of American life and democracy -- the newspaper.
Oh yes, the puzzle if the magazine went away. Put it in the book review section.
But of course if your financial show it is a money maker than you have to keep it. But I do wonder whether it is.
Yes, 4 million people see it every week. I doubt they read it. I have not read it in nearly years of reading the Times.
The changes described make not an iota's bit of difference. Not meant to be critical of the people who worked no doubt hard on the project or of their talents or the Times' best intentions.
But all the changes you describe just do not matter. The magazine is just not relevant and nothing you describe it doing is or could be nearly so relevant as adding reporters, correspondents and editors to strengthen what to me is an essential pillar of American life and democracy -- the newspaper.
Oh yes, the puzzle if the magazine went away. Put it in the book review section.
But of course if your financial show it is a money maker than you have to keep it. But I do wonder whether it is.
2
My first impression is that your new fonts are distinctively non-friendly to those who live with dyslexia. Given the spate of research over the past few years into the qualities a font should have to be more easily read, it is confusing as to why you have chosen to ignore all of them. The headline of this article is virtually unreadable.
6
I am very much attracted to the idea of a new magazine. I appreciate the thought and creativity behind producing the latest version of the Sunday magazine reformatted for the current way of consuming news. I eagerly anticipate this weekend's delivery along with accompanying opportunities to experience the magazine's treasures online. Thanks for taking the time to share the revamp and to present the next iteration of the magazine.
How I wish I could get the NYTM in PRINT here (in Israel). When will technology catch up with everyone else and enable this to happen?
WELL DONE, and GOOD LUCK!
WELL DONE, and GOOD LUCK!
Why are you doing this? I don't see much of this, if any, as an improvement (and the three-headed ethics column is a disaster; I wouldn't trust any of them to give me advice).
Why not just can the print magazine and publish whatever you dream up on Facebook? It seems like you're heading in that direction at this point.
Why not just can the print magazine and publish whatever you dream up on Facebook? It seems like you're heading in that direction at this point.
8
I appreciate the inside look of the redesign. Thank you for all of the hard work and effort!
I look forward to seeing the teams work every Sunday.
I look forward to seeing the teams work every Sunday.
1
I am very familiar with type faces, I am an artist, and my son and his wife own a graphic design business. I literally shuddered at the main font being used to head all the articles in the newly redesigned magazine. Everything else looks great.
7
Agree, except for that bit about everything else looks great. No, it 'looks' terrible, and, more to the point, hard to see in one glance all that might be in the so-called Magazine from its entry page.
2
I'm a designer who puts a great deal of emphasis on typeface design. You have always thrilled me with yours -- except now. I find the new headline face a bit difficult to read. I admire you experimenting, well, rather deciding to go with it. But it's so vertical and so character tight, I have a hard time with it. Just an opinion.
5
Here in Miami, The Miami Herald,, once a very good paper, dumbed down it's paper with changes galore, changing the type, the layout, the writing, using more wire services and so on. It's rapidly going the way of all flesh. So I switched to the New York Times and look forward to reading quality writing. If I wanted podcasts, I wouldn't be buying the paper. Sure, it needs to look good and read easily and appeal to all ages but what is/was really good about the paper should remain. In print. Online is fine but not at the expense of the print offerings.
18
I shudder at the thought of a "remake". My experience with changes on websites is that I rarely find them an improvement. I look forward to the Sunday Magazine primarily because of the feature stories, almost always interesting with something new to learn. Beyond that I like some of the short features but rarely have time to read the entire issue. The book length 220 pages of the inaugural issue of the "new magazine" seems like an over kill unless it's being considered a collectors item. I know social media and the internet have impacted our culture and especially the way many -- but not all -- communicate. Lots of it is fluff and I hope NYT doesn't try too hard to compete with these. There's still a huge readership that values text.
6
The new logo "more modern"? You've got to be kidding; fake Gothic typeface is anything but modern. The same goes for the Magazine's headline type face; the characters are so slimmed own as to look positively anorexic.
I know that tradition counts for a lot, but if the Times as a whole wanted, it could have used the magazine as a test bed for something far more 21st century.
I know that tradition counts for a lot, but if the Times as a whole wanted, it could have used the magazine as a test bed for something far more 21st century.
17
I don't buy the Sunday Times any more after years of never missing a copy. It's awfully expensive, and my friends and I share copies of the puzzle. But the biggest reason is because the magazine seemed to be less and less serious (meh?, c'mon) and more concerned with design than readability. Having to follow arrows to read the Diagnosis column rather than reading top to bottom and left to right drove me absolutely crazy. I think maybe the straw that broke the camel's back, though, was when you started adding tweets to the letters to the editor. One particularly glorious one I can't forget went something like, "I threw up in my mouth when I read that." Does anyone really care that some unknown person threw up in his or her mouth? What was the point of printing that, really? Does it add anything of value to the conversation?
In the scramble to be hip and cool and to keep up with social media, print media seem to be diluting their strength. Why not continue to do what you do best and quit imitating something else? Is it because most newspapers have gone public and it's no longer enough to cover expenses and provide a fairly decent living for staffers? Are newspapers afraid their stock prices will fall if shareholders aren't earning enough? Is that's what's driving things?
I was talking to a friend from Ireland the other day who said The Times is the only paper worth reading any more. Please make sure in changing things to keep up with the times you don't change that.
In the scramble to be hip and cool and to keep up with social media, print media seem to be diluting their strength. Why not continue to do what you do best and quit imitating something else? Is it because most newspapers have gone public and it's no longer enough to cover expenses and provide a fairly decent living for staffers? Are newspapers afraid their stock prices will fall if shareholders aren't earning enough? Is that's what's driving things?
I was talking to a friend from Ireland the other day who said The Times is the only paper worth reading any more. Please make sure in changing things to keep up with the times you don't change that.
146
Are you sure your Irish friend didn't mean the London paper?
1
The "only paper worth reading" needs your support. Stop complaining and buy it. The country will thank you.
Yes!! My sentiments exactly.
As I looked over the names of the writers, I realized that I recognized just one: Colson Whitehead. That means that it really has been a long time since I lived in New York.
Since I have been bingewatching HBO's "Girls" this week, I imagined someone like Lena Dunham's character "Hannah" getting a job at this magazine. But then that would mean she would have to stop being her own worst enemy and actually stay at a job or school more than 5 minutes. My dream was to be a writer but now I find writing comments enough to fuel my passion for writing. Any time I actually had to write under a deadline was miserable and NOT fun.
Anyway, I read the magazine online and only if there is something on the main online page that grabs me. Hopefully there will be lots.
Best of luck!
Since I have been bingewatching HBO's "Girls" this week, I imagined someone like Lena Dunham's character "Hannah" getting a job at this magazine. But then that would mean she would have to stop being her own worst enemy and actually stay at a job or school more than 5 minutes. My dream was to be a writer but now I find writing comments enough to fuel my passion for writing. Any time I actually had to write under a deadline was miserable and NOT fun.
Anyway, I read the magazine online and only if there is something on the main online page that grabs me. Hopefully there will be lots.
Best of luck!
6
Drawing a family of NY Times-worthy typefaces is a tremendous effort requiring uncommon artistry. Why have you neglected to credit the typeface designer(s)?
30
A line at the end of the column credits Henrik Kubel. A quickie web search shows him as a partner in a London-based design and typography firm that has created "bespoke" fonts for a number of newspapers and other businesses.
At the end of the article there's a "by-line" specifying "Typefaces by Henrik Kubel".
Hi Kevin, in print and at the footer of this piece, we credited Henrik Kubel for his fine work! In addition, a lovely still life of a single letter 'a' appears on pp. 44 of the 2/22/15 issue, as Kubel's contributor 'portrait' to accompany his bio. Kubel's portrait is THE first of many contributors' portraits by Kathy Ryan to sit in this spot, preceding all writers, editors, photographers, illustrators and filmmakers TK. When was the last time a general-interest news magazine did that!?
It's ALL balderdash !
19
What's a snarky way to agree with Richard S ... and tell The Times that change, for change's sake, is ... Oh my, I believe I just did.
1
Just so "What I'm Drinking " with Mario what's his name stays gone it's all good.
23
After publishing that truly idiotic piece, "The Attraction," as your cover article last weekend, you might do better to stop publishing the magazine at all for a month or two before you try to convince yourself, much less your readers, that you are really competent for the task.
49
The "new" Ethicist is horrible. Just horrible. Reading three people yapping with each other: no sense of words and how they, of good writing, or in fact, of ethics.
134
I agree--transcription is not writing.
Agree: confused and in need of a real ethicist.
"...no sense of words and how they, of good writing, or in fact, of ethics." Um. Whu??
1
I read the NYT online, so I can't speak to the layout and design, but based on the photos of staffers, it appears the Times has a diversity problem.
59
So does the NBA and NFL so what?
>>it appears the Times has a diversity problem<< If you include AGE DISCRIMINATION, I must agree. The combined experiences for the people in the picture does not equal that a single cognisant senior. Also being raised with in a multimedia freak show the "kids" actually have learned less and been brainwashed more, by incessant marketing.
1
Best indulge the editors and look at their cunning slide show and you will spot some *diverse* people, or were you commenting on the fashion and general air of sloppiness.
Nothing in this sampling strikes me as important. Ironic that the last issue published of the "old style" magazine had three of the most important (and interesting) articles the journal has carried in some time (the hunt for the killer of Lebanese ex-president Hariri; the complex story of a relationship in Stanford; and the negative impact of social media. That was all high order of journalism, in keeping with what I thought was the journal's mission—to inform at a meaningful depth on meaningful subjects. Little in this first issue is worth the print (or the bits). Keep it down at this level and a 60-year relationship is over. And agreed with an early writer, more advertising is supposed to make who happy? Is it an incentive to go on line and avoid the ads. The characterization of what is coming seems delusional. Seems to me the new Emperor of the Sunday magazines has no clothes. Sorry. I'll give it a month to produce things worth reading.
94
Jumped. The. Shark.
32
As did this comment. If they said nothing, you'd probably have not noticed anything.
I can only hope that the new "lives" pieces will be better than the disaster you now publish---stories with inane and pointless endings. The predecessor to that column (I forget the name) was excellent.
Most of my favorite things seem to have been eliminated and I have to wonder why you did not follow the path of "...if it ain't broke don't fix it.."
Most of my favorite things seem to have been eliminated and I have to wonder why you did not follow the path of "...if it ain't broke don't fix it.."
25
Deborah Solomon? Loved her, loved her pushiness with subjects. That was the voice, the attitude, of New York City. But nobody cares what we Boomers--or should I say, dinosaurs--think anymore (sob).
The "Meh" section was getting embarrassing. Thanks for getting rid of it. And thanks for keeping the Acrostic. How about making it twice as big, like the Saturday Review used to make them?
15
The Old Gray Lady actually had a "Meh" section? Wow.
8
That is one positive change - that the One-Page Magazine is, I hope, gone forever. I used to refer to that as 'Romper Room' - where the kiddies indulge their ADHD.
Unfortunately, I have the feeling that the one-page magazine is now the entire magazine.
Unfortunately, I have the feeling that the one-page magazine is now the entire magazine.
2
Looking forward to checking it out and excited you're adding poetry! A change is good! Thanks!
6
As an online subscriber, I hope you folks don't get too fancy with your multi-media...ahem...content. It tends to crash my iPad.
It is unwise to devalue those of us who don't require a physical newspaper. Think of all the trees we save, the fuel-burning trucks we don't require. I assume that we are pure profit for the NYT.
As so many others have commented already, the podcast form for the Ethicist column is disappointing. In my humble (online subscriber) opinion, it doesn't work.
It is unwise to devalue those of us who don't require a physical newspaper. Think of all the trees we save, the fuel-burning trucks we don't require. I assume that we are pure profit for the NYT.
As so many others have commented already, the podcast form for the Ethicist column is disappointing. In my humble (online subscriber) opinion, it doesn't work.
43
And the internet doesn't require the burning of fuel?
3
It is not a "print vs online" issue. Regardless of how information is conveyed, just because something is online, doesn't mean it has to be fluff or dumb-down. Quality of reporting and content is still required to be considered a respectable information and news organization. The blind pursue of the "golden 25-35" demographic group has driven so many of these organizations to dumb-down their content so much that they have become jokes. The "new content" so proudly touted by this article sounds more like something CNN and network news outlets would offer these days instead of what the NYT, as a news organization, if known for.
2
Just don't mess with the puzzles.
37
There will be fewer Diagramless crosswords but three small new puzzles added on a new page—a couple word puzzles and a logic puzzle.
I'm glad someone mentioned that! It's the only reason to have a print copy.
I don't by it. Particularly the transformation featuring more advertisements (mentioned in passing but the big elephant in the room). All the "new" showy features do not compensate for the inconvenience (nightmare) of more advertisement. Another marketing strategy--changing the package a bit and bombarding us with more consumer propaganda. Hope that does not mean more "pop ups" in our screens, or longer waiting ad periods in the short videos (which I do not watch anymore).
28
Dear md. It is possible to almost NEVER see ads on websites. Install Adblock and other pop-up blockers and don't forget to support the developers. Also install ghostery and turn off all of the trackers. Why everyone doesn't do this is a mystery to me. Browse the web like it's 1994! (before the age of banner advertising and popups!)
So true. I would gladly pay a premium on my next TV if someone could come up with technology that would blank out that bottom banner on so many shows that constantly scrolls all those inane tweets. I mean, who other than @blitheringidiot really cares what @blitheringidiot has to say?
1
It's as if you went to the grave of a family member and found an iPad powered by a solar cell doing a selfie.
27
Commenters should really take a moment to think about what they're posting. Here's a bunch of young newbies taking on the redesign of the (dare I say) iconic section of the Times. They've got friends and families looking at the comments - proud of the new jobs, but probably horrified by some of the posts. This staff wasn't turned loose to do whatever they wished; they got directions from management and tried to produce something to be proud of. Obviously, they haven't succeeded in pleasing a lot of readers, including me. (Full disclosure: I made a snarky comment to the Ethicist column.)
Management and staff will get plenty of feedback about the redesign. Changes will surely be made. Give them a chance to improve, insist that they read the NYTimes style manual, and maybe get some old fashioned editors on board to help.
If they can manage to restore the Magazine to an interesting, well written, and well edited weekly, then they will have succeeded. If not, then email management, post more comments, and cancel your subscriptions. I know I will.
Management and staff will get plenty of feedback about the redesign. Changes will surely be made. Give them a chance to improve, insist that they read the NYTimes style manual, and maybe get some old fashioned editors on board to help.
If they can manage to restore the Magazine to an interesting, well written, and well edited weekly, then they will have succeeded. If not, then email management, post more comments, and cancel your subscriptions. I know I will.
32
re: JB
I think the "klddies" and management should be able to take a bit of criticism and asking us to hold back our concerns about this juvenile and ill-conceived revamp is a misguided notion because the last thing these "kiddies" need is an echo chamber massaging their egos by telling them how "innovative" and "brilliant" their redesign is.
I think the "klddies" and management should be able to take a bit of criticism and asking us to hold back our concerns about this juvenile and ill-conceived revamp is a misguided notion because the last thing these "kiddies" need is an echo chamber massaging their egos by telling them how "innovative" and "brilliant" their redesign is.
1
The Tijmes used to have the magazine described by JB above. but that was many years ago. It's been going downhill since then.
2
The much heralded re-design is summed up in the logo change (Fig 3.) Shakespeare was prescient when wrote "Much Ado About Nothing."Sorry, the index page is still illegible. Hopefully the content will make up for all the stylistic short comings.
I have been willing to cut the Times lots of slack, as it increased its fluff content to attract the readers who interest the advertisers of expensive products. After all, I do understand that my subscription alone does not pay the cost of the serious journalism I want.
However, this article on the magazine's makeover makes me wonder whether the paper's publisher and editor may actually believe there is substantial journalistic merit in fluff. I found especially disturbing the statement, "Twice a month, the great and farseeing Jenna Wortham will use this space for a dispatch from Internet culture, which, let’s be honest, is the most vital engine of culture today."
I'm not sure if it's more scarey or more depressing to think these people really believe that the internet is the most vital engine of culture. It may be the most prodigious dispersal agent for virtual forms of some culture, but that's about it. Sure, it may well be the engine for video games and isolated experience, but if they think listening to the Schubert Cello Quintet, watching Casablanca, or viewing a Rodin sculpture on a computer bears any resemblance to doing those things "off line", they are not merely mistaken, they are living under an illusion that impoverishes their own lives.
More worrisome is the possibility that such attitudes will take over the paper, something that is already happening, as evidenced by the fact that most of the tech columns are functionally ads rather than analytic journalism.
However, this article on the magazine's makeover makes me wonder whether the paper's publisher and editor may actually believe there is substantial journalistic merit in fluff. I found especially disturbing the statement, "Twice a month, the great and farseeing Jenna Wortham will use this space for a dispatch from Internet culture, which, let’s be honest, is the most vital engine of culture today."
I'm not sure if it's more scarey or more depressing to think these people really believe that the internet is the most vital engine of culture. It may be the most prodigious dispersal agent for virtual forms of some culture, but that's about it. Sure, it may well be the engine for video games and isolated experience, but if they think listening to the Schubert Cello Quintet, watching Casablanca, or viewing a Rodin sculpture on a computer bears any resemblance to doing those things "off line", they are not merely mistaken, they are living under an illusion that impoverishes their own lives.
More worrisome is the possibility that such attitudes will take over the paper, something that is already happening, as evidenced by the fact that most of the tech columns are functionally ads rather than analytic journalism.
213
Wish I could thumbs up this comment another 6 billion times; and I've been engaged with the internet personally and professionally since the early days of dial-up.
6
You are so right to point that out. Thank you. And if the NYT can't see the folly in that statement, what can we expect.
4
I have seldom seen a nail hit on its head more squarely.
4
More pages of advertising. Just what we all need. I'll echo others and say, as long as you don't mess with the crossword.
8
Please bring back Bill Safire. I really miss his column. Oh. Well, never mind.
24
As a Jew, Bill's not coming back until the Messiah comes. And as a Jew, I'm not waiting for that to happen...
(no Christian spam, please)
(no Christian spam, please)
Mr. Michael N. Marcus, it would be a privilege to join you on this particular issue. And yes, them is not paying us no mind.
1
I also miss Bill Safire and how he'd make words come alive. Like the "Bated" in "Bated Breath". Can anyone today analyze a word's etymology as well as Bill Safire could? His regular columns were pretty good too.
Just before he left us, Bill Safire wrote a long column on how he was in Moscow in 1959 for the famous "Nixon-Khrushchev Kitchen Debate" and how he noticed someone had "photobombed" the photo, before "Photobomb" was even a word. It was an unknown Soviet official named Leonid Brezhnev. The Times should have cloned Bill Safire before he sadly passed away.
Therefore I will not be waiting for the return of Bill Safire with "Bated Breath".
http://www.linkedin.com/in/rdelrosso2001
Just before he left us, Bill Safire wrote a long column on how he was in Moscow in 1959 for the famous "Nixon-Khrushchev Kitchen Debate" and how he noticed someone had "photobombed" the photo, before "Photobomb" was even a word. It was an unknown Soviet official named Leonid Brezhnev. The Times should have cloned Bill Safire before he sadly passed away.
Therefore I will not be waiting for the return of Bill Safire with "Bated Breath".
http://www.linkedin.com/in/rdelrosso2001
I agree with the many other people posting here that there are contradictory messages in this editor's letter around the question of print vs digital content. I can't imagine myself to be a fan of news designed for my "buds": that is supposed to enhance journalism?
"...listening to podcasts, arguing on Twitter and wandering from link to link..." to me means less long-form writing, news as bullet points. Twitter isn't even written in English. Please!
What really makes me laugh-out-loud (spelled out for emphasis) is the idea of journalists and editors "grimac(ing) a little even saying the word 'content.'” Isn't "content" what it is all supposed to be about? I'm not afraid of the word, I'm all for content enhancement, but content enhancement that is about substance over style.
As to style, and in closing, sorry, you don't have to have been published in Graphis, Lurzer's Archive, etc (as I have) to have the good common sense to realize that the headline font is dated (or retro, take your pick: looks like the fonts I used for fliers for political rallies back in the 70s), visually off-putting and - most importantly - difficult to read.
"...listening to podcasts, arguing on Twitter and wandering from link to link..." to me means less long-form writing, news as bullet points. Twitter isn't even written in English. Please!
What really makes me laugh-out-loud (spelled out for emphasis) is the idea of journalists and editors "grimac(ing) a little even saying the word 'content.'” Isn't "content" what it is all supposed to be about? I'm not afraid of the word, I'm all for content enhancement, but content enhancement that is about substance over style.
As to style, and in closing, sorry, you don't have to have been published in Graphis, Lurzer's Archive, etc (as I have) to have the good common sense to realize that the headline font is dated (or retro, take your pick: looks like the fonts I used for fliers for political rallies back in the 70s), visually off-putting and - most importantly - difficult to read.
33
The utter lack of diversity is appalling.....both of minority folks and real working people.
The demise of literary values has finally made its way to one of the last bastions of taste.....R.I.P.
The triumph of 'comment' over 'CONTENT' is not pretty.
The demise of literary values has finally made its way to one of the last bastions of taste.....R.I.P.
The triumph of 'comment' over 'CONTENT' is not pretty.
61
The Lives column will now be an 'as told to" a reporter creation? Oh geez. What a loss. Lives was the first thing I read each week. I was wondering why this week's ghosts in Thailand piece sounded wooden, child-like.
Is this to cut down on costs (pay out to contributors and the staff needed to read submissions) or do you really think the average Times reader can't write a short column on his/her personal experience?
The layout/fonts are attractive, and I enjoyed the Airbnb in Japan article, but....
I remain hopeful that your changes aren't permanent.
Is this to cut down on costs (pay out to contributors and the staff needed to read submissions) or do you really think the average Times reader can't write a short column on his/her personal experience?
The layout/fonts are attractive, and I enjoyed the Airbnb in Japan article, but....
I remain hopeful that your changes aren't permanent.
28
Evidence is what matters, even in matters of opinion, so I'll wait until I see what you've done on Sunday. (I hope the nay-sayers are wrong.)
2
One of my Sunday pleasures is not turning on my computer. A good pot of coffee and the Magazine reminds me that not all contact is electronic - my husband is beside me with the Front Page (we'll still get one of those, right?). Sitting alone at your computer is not social. Most ideas need more than 140 characters.
I love the Ethicist ... an edited excerpt seems unethical. What would Klosterman say? Watching a Podcast seems lazy. I want to read and decide for myself.
The Crossword Puzzle is a must. In the afternoons, we meet with friends to compare puzzle notes with a glass of wine or beer. Now that's social.
I love the Ethicist ... an edited excerpt seems unethical. What would Klosterman say? Watching a Podcast seems lazy. I want to read and decide for myself.
The Crossword Puzzle is a must. In the afternoons, we meet with friends to compare puzzle notes with a glass of wine or beer. Now that's social.
33
How exciting! I can't wait to dig in.
1
I will miss the Lives columns—always my first stop in the magazine. Hopefully the new one will be as enticing.
5
Add "Edited Transcripts of Podcasts" and "Internet culture" to the (prematurely departed) Meh List.
17
As long as you didn't mess with the crossword puzzle...
10
And you didn't mess with the Acrostic. The puzzles are the main reason we take delivery of the Sunday paper.
3
Also don't mess with the Acrostic. The puzzles and the Book Review are the only reasons we take home delivery of the Sunday paper.
4
Hey Pat, The problem with the font size being too small is in reference to the print magazine, not online.
3
Well, I can only hope...I'm a huge fan of the NYT...not so much the magazine. The only thing I enjoy about it is the sunday puzzle...hampered each week by the fact that I have to copy it in order to work it because it is printed on that nasty, icky, slicky paper that is impossible to turn the pages of and impossible to write on...so I'm hoping that with all the hullabaloo about a new font (as if there weren't enough already - c'mon guys), you tended to something that actually matters to the, um, READERS (buyers)..geez.
Honestly, after reading this "letter" my hopes are weak...you give the impression that the new format is more about the NYT staff and their needs than about the readers...but I will hold out hope...
I'm not sure who you think it is that wants "screen-busting photograph and design flourishes", do you know who your market segment is? Or is it that you are trying to appeal to some other new and lucrative audience???
Honestly, after reading this "letter" my hopes are weak...you give the impression that the new format is more about the NYT staff and their needs than about the readers...but I will hold out hope...
I'm not sure who you think it is that wants "screen-busting photograph and design flourishes", do you know who your market segment is? Or is it that you are trying to appeal to some other new and lucrative audience???
39
Please tell me they got rid of that idiotic 'humor' page...
3
Big deal you changed the typeface. Online the home page looks pretty much the same. This week there are actually two stories I'm interested in. Keep that up. Usually I can't find anything readable since most of the mag is filled with filler aimed at the haute bourgeoisie readers advertizers love to love.
A real change would be content that matters: How about a labour column, articles concerning the working class struggle, the need for revolutionary action against income inequality etc.
And it doesn't augur well that in the pic of your staff there's nary a person of colour. Maybe you should have photographed the cleaning crew instead.
A real change would be content that matters: How about a labour column, articles concerning the working class struggle, the need for revolutionary action against income inequality etc.
And it doesn't augur well that in the pic of your staff there's nary a person of colour. Maybe you should have photographed the cleaning crew instead.
48
Why dont you just read a different paper that caters more specifically to your interests? For the record the magazine has featured stories that deal with the topics you mention and also other topics; as should a GENERAL AUDIENCE magazine.
2
@Scott, the point is that the paper and the mag are 2 diff things...What these folks are saying is "we love the paper but not the mag and talking about fonts and using a young white, skinny, dark haired team to revamp it seems...wrong, ill conceived, self-focused"
I agreed with your comment up until the last sentence. Some janitorial workers are not persons of color.
To express your statement that to photograph a cleaning crew might show diversity appears stereotypical, and demeans the dignity and hard work of all cleaning staff, of whatever race.
To express your statement that to photograph a cleaning crew might show diversity appears stereotypical, and demeans the dignity and hard work of all cleaning staff, of whatever race.
1
what is the matter with you people? So far it looks great! As a designer of a magazine, I can appreciate all the thought that has gone into this redesign.
4
As readers, it's not our job to concern ourselves with the Times' staff's feelings. I assume when they asked for comments, they wanted honest responses. Otherwise they would just ask for pats on the back, i.e., "Tell us what you love about our re-design."
3
Um, okay. But not everyone here designs magazines, so why would you think they care all that much about inside baseball of the magazine's design. It's hard to do anything well, but it doesn't mean that if you gloat about your hard work people are required to fall all over themselves praising you for it. Just do the work and be happy for it. Pictures of themselves in black and white like their all Woodward & Berstein considering some very important issue when they're picking a magazine cover? Come on, dial it down a notch NYTM.
1
Once again, the Gray Lady takes a deep breath and with utter
confidence in her roots and her duty, produces a 220-page
megadocument that proudly and metaphorically gives a huge
Middle Finger to the world, saying, "You thought print was
dead? Chew on this!" Or words to that effect.
Long may she wave and kudos to all those youthful folks
who are showing us the way.
Well done.
confidence in her roots and her duty, produces a 220-page
megadocument that proudly and metaphorically gives a huge
Middle Finger to the world, saying, "You thought print was
dead? Chew on this!" Or words to that effect.
Long may she wave and kudos to all those youthful folks
who are showing us the way.
Well done.
10
what a pleasant change! good work, folks.
please feel free to bring back the humor column and the weekly comic!
please feel free to bring back the humor column and the weekly comic!
1
So, what is in it for me and my Sunday morning enjoyment? Eating my eggs, reading the NYT as my family swirls around me?
I read the daily paper online, but Sunday is for the print version, please do not change it.
I was born before 1960, just for reference
I read the daily paper online, but Sunday is for the print version, please do not change it.
I was born before 1960, just for reference
17
Amen to that. And I was born after 1960.
4
I agree with those who are very skeptical that the "improvements" will add to anything. I've watched many of my old favorites go through design struggles trying to get hip and failing miserably - falling into the twitter zone of the bubblegum heads. Scientific American went through years of identity crisis and I've watched the online daily IHT get more and more superficial, headlining stories that should have been in People Mag and having the serious news stories become more and more incoherent in their prose. Also I am about to drop my subscription because of the hideously annoying pop up and banner ads. More revenue/lower quality. What's that about? I don't object to advertising if it is done with some modicum of discretion and taste. But cummon guys!
I also agree with the commenters that have given more value to the readers comments than the stories. It seems as if your readers have eclipsed your writers in their thoughtfulness.
That's really what I find missing: depth and thoughtfulness.
I also agree with the commenters that have given more value to the readers comments than the stories. It seems as if your readers have eclipsed your writers in their thoughtfulness.
That's really what I find missing: depth and thoughtfulness.
22
@Daniel Barnett: Try a pop-up blocker. I use the one on Mozilla and never see an ad or banner on the Times. If I had to put up with ads, I'd unsubscribe, too!
8
I've been reading the Times for more than half a century and, to be candid, have been put off by some of the design and editorial changes to the Magazine in recent years. However, to paraphrase the Latin proverb, the times change and we (and the Magazine) must change with the times, so I'm determined to keep an open mind about the impending relaunch and hope for the best. As the roll-out progresses, I hope that the Times will be open to making changes, large and small, to the redesign in response to feedback from its loyal readers.
14
Change doesn't have to mean dumb-down content. BBC and CNN went through changes too: One is still a respectable news organization, the other, a joke.
2
I have been reading the Malagazine for some 30 years and in the eighties it kind of changed my life. It is not important now to report here HOW it changed my life but it did.
At that time I I lived just outside New York City in a New Jersey suburb and at one point, I came to Manhattan every day.
Now I cannot even drive in our little town of Big Bear.
I hope to read the new and improved Magazine as long as I can read anything on the screen of my computer.
Thanks for continually improving it.
At that time I I lived just outside New York City in a New Jersey suburb and at one point, I came to Manhattan every day.
Now I cannot even drive in our little town of Big Bear.
I hope to read the new and improved Magazine as long as I can read anything on the screen of my computer.
Thanks for continually improving it.
1
Looking forward to the poems. It is good to have a popular showcase for new works.
8
OK, I queried the comments the best I could. Are you keeping the weekly recipe?
7
To eliminate the weekly recipe would be unthinkable. Is nothing sacred anymore?
1
On 'Lives', now you need to know a reporter to get your story into 'Lives'?Interesting twist, since face-to-face encounters with reporters aren't a huge part of most people's day-to-day experience. Perhaps this column should now be more aptly titled 'Lives of people who know reporters or who hang out where reporters do." In truth, I'm a little disappointed, as I emailed a compelling story in a month ago that I hoped would be shared in 'Lives'. Can I call a reporter to recount it verbally? Or buy them a drink and tell it to them over cocktails?
23
Seriously, the New York Times must receive literally thousands of submissions each day. You would have better luck sending a submission to a local newspaper or magazine. Then, if it's publish in that medium, the Times may notice it and ask if they could publish it too.
Agree. After the crossword and the feature articles, "Lives" was the best part of the Magazine. Stories related in the first person (rather than "reported") were short, succinct, deeply human, and had a meaningful and often emotional impact on the reader. That feature should have been left alone - it will be missed.
1
Last format change made the magazine significantly harder to read. Let's hope this one goes the other way.
12
Re: all the complaints about the typefaces being too small.
How is it possible after 20 years of web browsers that some people don't know the shortcut to increase the font size? Control/command –+" to increase the text size. Works in every browser.
How is it possible after 20 years of web browsers that some people don't know the shortcut to increase the font size? Control/command –+" to increase the text size. Works in every browser.
3
Except the browser on the breakfast table.
5
I believe most of them are referring to the physical newspaper, not its online presence.
4
As with all things web-or-computer-or-smartphone-based, if one does not know that a thing CAN be done, one will not necessarily inquire as to HOW it can be done. With apologies for the caps, but after [x] years of HTML I haven't learned any tags.
1
Kudos to NYTMag for moving forward and introducing new ways to enjoy it. Onward and upward.
2
This new design is the future old design. Can't wait to see the new new design of the future. About the new headline font, I'm with the others who don't like it. My old eyes can read it okay, but esthetically it's just dreadful. The content of the magazine, however, is fine with me.
If the photo you have used online in the Editor's Letter -- where the face of one of the photo editors is hidden behind a computer screen -- is an example of what to expect, you are off to a bad start. Photo Editing 101: Don't use a photo where a subject's face is hidden, especially when it is posed and you have time to shoot it properly. I hope the selection of articles and their editing is better than this, but based on the redesign of the Sunday Week in Review -- now called Sunday Review -- I am not expecting much.
17
For me the most important part of the paper used to the News of the Week in Review. After being totally gutted, the current version (the "Sunday Review") no longer makes any attempt to "review" anything. The most noteworthy events of the week are left to our imaginations. This is a crying shame.
26
I am no photo expert. However, maybe the Times was looking for "realism" as opposed to a "staged" photo.
I remember when the "Review" changed too - I thought -- a column on people's love life? Why would that be news? I used to read just about every word - now I mostly read 2-3 columns. Was there really something so wrong about wanting to be educated, informed, challenged, aware...? I thought that made us good citizens and fine human beings...sigh.
The biggest problem, as I see it, is that they are producing a "magazine."
9
My goodness, people really don't like change!
I'm looking forward to the changes/updates, it's exciting to know that things are changing and like all things in life, I'm sure it'll be a wonderful work in progress! Good luck and thanks for the move forward, integration, podcasts, digital only elements- sure all the "catching up" will be well worth it!
I'm looking forward to the changes/updates, it's exciting to know that things are changing and like all things in life, I'm sure it'll be a wonderful work in progress! Good luck and thanks for the move forward, integration, podcasts, digital only elements- sure all the "catching up" will be well worth it!
4
People don't like bad change. Not all change is good.
2
My only reason for getting the Times magazine is for the Sunday puzzles. My preferred change would be to enlarge the puzzles and make the print/numbers in the puzzles readable. The cost of puzzles via online subscription is nearly as much as the Sunday print paper. Sure there's a reason for that.
As for reading the rest of the magazine--perhaps. Usually catch interesting articles online before the print edition comes out. Yes, I read the NYT online daily.
Too often I find magazine's articles on such subjects as poverty, poor economy, and other national/personal ills plastered against ads for things like new $5 million apartments being sold. I know ad money is precious and these ads must generate good $$ to keep things going. But it always strikes me as ironic.
Your article on the revamp was a bit too self-congratulatory. And the writing not the best. Take the statement "creating something that will, we hope, strike you as a version you have never read before". Of course it will strike me as something I never read before...because it's new and not something previously available.
Slice and dice away..add digital...add events...add whatever. Unfortunately the Times still doesn't make money, which is sad. I'm a print-loving person subscribing to 2 newspapers, but value digital/mobile, too.
As for reading the rest of the magazine--perhaps. Usually catch interesting articles online before the print edition comes out. Yes, I read the NYT online daily.
Too often I find magazine's articles on such subjects as poverty, poor economy, and other national/personal ills plastered against ads for things like new $5 million apartments being sold. I know ad money is precious and these ads must generate good $$ to keep things going. But it always strikes me as ironic.
Your article on the revamp was a bit too self-congratulatory. And the writing not the best. Take the statement "creating something that will, we hope, strike you as a version you have never read before". Of course it will strike me as something I never read before...because it's new and not something previously available.
Slice and dice away..add digital...add events...add whatever. Unfortunately the Times still doesn't make money, which is sad. I'm a print-loving person subscribing to 2 newspapers, but value digital/mobile, too.
14
Many do not realize that when one follows puzzle link, one can print the puzzle in a variety of formats.....and has access to puzzle archive.
I agree with the detractors of new and greater. Whatever happened to 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' ?
I agree with the detractors of new and greater. Whatever happened to 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' ?
2
No difference to me as where is the diversity? Same people running the show!!! Show some diversity as I look at the pictures and all I see is the people that have always made the decisions.
10
LOVE THE NEW FONTS!
1
Saturday morning, until noon, with the print edition:
The essay on the last page
The puzzles
The front cover
The rest of the issue
One qualm- the reduced size starts to look more like People Magazine, a horrendous calamity
The essay on the last page
The puzzles
The front cover
The rest of the issue
One qualm- the reduced size starts to look more like People Magazine, a horrendous calamity
2
I look forward to having a look at the print version....of the changes listed here, the only one that bothers me straight off is the change to Lives. I looked forward to those little vignettes and always imagined that I might send something in someday......but now that won't be possible. Instead of "....showcasing a wider variety of lives...", I fear that the new set-up will do the opposite, with the showcasing limited inevitably to a cadre of people encountered by an elite set of beat writers.
15
Please don't mess with the Lives column! It's priceless, for both readers and writers. If anything, make it more of what it already is--real-life stories delivered directly from their authentic voices, not through a reporter. The column has always stood out as a favorite for that very reason.
39
I fear that Lives will turn into another interview column in which the reporter messes with the life story- moving events and answers around in a way that he or she likes better. The Times already had a bit of a brouhaha a few years ago when the subject of a celebrity interview complained that had happened to him- the sense of an interview altered by the reporter.
Best to leave Lives alone.
Best to leave Lives alone.
7
With the increasing prevalence of 'as told to', the NYT is narrowing the variety of voices to those of the reporters to whom the stories are told. The craft of skilled and thoughtful writing is already in dire straits without the NYT offering to help it along - 'just barf it all out; we'll clean it up and put it in order for you.'
1
Hard to tell what's so different. Any new graphics will certainly interest the designer types, but hopefully the reading and perusing will have a straight-forward feel rather than being complex and overly 'trend-setting'. Wouldn't it be great to go back to understatement and pure journalism rather than swim through the must-haves of the electronic age and culture?
1
FWIW, I really don't like that font you're using for headlines, but I'm really excited that Natasha Trethewey will be selecting poems every week.
1
The last relaunch was so bad I cancelled my paper subscription to the Times. What are the odds this version will return to its former glory?
3
If I was still living in NYC and got my NYT delivered I might be a little upset at these changes, particularly if the Sunday puzzles were screwed with. But I live in Italy now and read the NYT daily online. On line I hardly pay attention to the Magazine. Most articles are nothing more than fluff although once in a great while a read some in-depth piece that I enjoy for the great prose. Maybe online, the new version will be ok. We'll see. Most of the changes you have made over the last few years are for the worse. Idiotic attempts such as thinking someone would pay a fee for only reading your opinion page posts make one wonder what is going on at the top of the org. And making guys like Bittman and Asimov who I liked very much in their qualified roles of food and wine into op ed guys? I mean, who the heck cares what their opinions are? Again, what is going on at the top? In any case I hope your redo of the magazine is a winner.
12
Bittman has a lot of important things--very well researched and thought through--to say about food and agriculture policy, and he deserves the broader platform.
I loathe the new Ethicists column. It lacks the serious, well-considered approach of its predecessor. The off-the-cuff, conversational style shows and does not serve the subject well. I don't care what these people have to say, and why would anyone? The whole thing comes off as idiotic. This makes me very sad; the Ethicist was one of my favorite things, something I looked forward to. It was the first thing I read in the Magazine each week and now I mourn its passing.
58
What about Lisa Sanders and the medical mystery?
16
Regarding "Arguing on twitter" as one of the things to look forward to: I think the media are constantly pounding us with whose tweeting what because for them it's free marketing and promotion. Or am I missing something?
8
The content is far more important than the design.
14
NYT has it backwards - why on God's green earth would you re-imagine and spend any time or money on something that's never, ever going to gain readership in paper form? Write the "magazine" for the web first, and then print the "content" for the Sunday paper that will fit. The Grey Lady is showing her age.
2
I love the NY Times Magazine. It is a staple in my home and has been since I began reading the paper in about 1970-71. I grew up in Bklyn and my parents and family were Daily News or Ny Post readers. I was given a job at PS 171 distributing the NY Times to all the teachers every morning. It occurred to me then that if the teachers were reading this strange upside paper there must be something to it. Ive never looked back. While sailing in the Carribean, I have withdrawals for the NY Times. You get the picture. With that, I must add that the magazine section of the last 10 years has somewhat dumbed down. I see less in depth superbly written pieces about topics I would consider mainstream. It may also be that as a young reader the writers all seemed to be sophisticated and urbane. Now perhaps as I've aged the roles have reversed. Having said that, I will be reading this Magazine forever and I suppose most of the other 4 million folks will too. Good luck and try to uphold a very long and brilliant tradition we all hold dear.
8
Seems to me that it may be older folks more inclined to read print rather than online, and those are the kind of peeps who have more difficulty reading smaller typefaces. I certainly can't unless I am in full sunlight.
4
Didn't a similar article appear last year? And the year before?
2
Oh Great. Just as I'm getting to submit a LIVES story, you change the format (sort of). Guess now all I have to do is find a famous reporter to tell it to.
11
I sure hope they read these comments and don't muck up LIVES. I'd love to read your story--and not some reporter's version of it. I'll look for it.....
At one point, I looked forward to the magazine. The articles were very interesting, but honestly, I got very, very tired of looking at only white models. White contributors. No diversity at all. I just stopped even reading the magazine. It actually begin to grate on my senses. Please add some diversity and I would appreciate it if you looked at all cultures from good and bad standpoints. Report not just the difficulties but the contributions and advances of all races and cultures.
9
Thrilled to hear you're adding poetry. The new Critics feature and Letters of Recommendation section sound great. Can't wait to see your reimagined Magazine. Curious, though, what made you think Jack Shafer knows anything about ethics. (Then again, that's rarely seemed a qualification for writing that column before.)
2
I have read the NYT since 1979.
Aside from its content, its form is equally as important. Especially now that the internet has taken over life, and we humans see, think and write in a virtual world, virtually all day and night.
The design of the paper, and your website is truly magnificent. It shows clarity and elegance. It is easy to navigate. The videos are well produced and beautifully presented.
I am sorry to have to knock other newspapers online, but the best designed website is yours. The LA Times and the Washington Post are cluttered and confused. Their bad form detracts from good writing.
And I like your new, "more graciously spaced" logo which appeals to my love of typefaces from the early 1900s. "The New York Times Magazine" now looks both more leisurely and more authoritative.
You are innovative, but you are keeping the tradition together. I like it. And I will always wake up and go to you first thing in the morning.
Aside from its content, its form is equally as important. Especially now that the internet has taken over life, and we humans see, think and write in a virtual world, virtually all day and night.
The design of the paper, and your website is truly magnificent. It shows clarity and elegance. It is easy to navigate. The videos are well produced and beautifully presented.
I am sorry to have to knock other newspapers online, but the best designed website is yours. The LA Times and the Washington Post are cluttered and confused. Their bad form detracts from good writing.
And I like your new, "more graciously spaced" logo which appeals to my love of typefaces from the early 1900s. "The New York Times Magazine" now looks both more leisurely and more authoritative.
You are innovative, but you are keeping the tradition together. I like it. And I will always wake up and go to you first thing in the morning.
5
Just exactly 13 months ago, when the previous Times web redesign happened, Tony Brancato, "executive director of web products," infuriated many readers with the condescending statement, “Putting it simply, we’ve moved their cheese, and we have to tell them where it is now." Another Times article about changes to YouTube declared, "That negative reaction certainly has a lot to do with a general hatred of change." In other words, everything wrong with the product is the fault of the users. There may be good things about this redesign - an end, finally, to the wrongheaded know-nothing Klosterman, the stupid One-Page thing and the idiotic Meh List - but smaller fonts? Three Ethicists bloviating for the price of one? Multiplatform brand leveraging, whatever that is? Is there any journalism involved in this? You made a telling statement: "... we sought to manufacture a magazine ..." It looks like that's exactly what it will be, something manufactured rather than written.
30
and with more ads than ever before, which for some reason the magazine editors are really proud of.
1
I stopped reading the Magazine section when I went digital- It was a featherweight and lacked any analysis . It reminded me of the other commercial magazines one can pick up in the grocery store- I still have no interest in reading it after your preview in today's paper. What a shame.
18
I promise not to hate it until I see it. But please keep in mind that the Sunday NYT holds a place in the lives of some of us that is above and beyond any other newspaper (including the NYT the rest of the week). The Ethicist is my first stop in the magazine. That you are offering me an abbreviated version of what is being offered elsewhere in a far more time-consuming and inconvenient format makes me very nervous about what is coming.
I don't want a magazine that sits in a secondary position to what you are putting on line.
I don't want a magazine that sits in a secondary position to what you are putting on line.
16
The offer of Abbreviated CONTENT to proselytize an inconvenient, time-consuming format is also known as Chutzpah.
1
Emphasis on designing a new font gives us insight into your thinking and it is not encouraging. There are thousands of existing serif, text-oriented fonts already out there, time-tested for elegance and readability!
26
I view it differently. The typeface and the design in general are intrinsic to the appreciation of the words. I'm encouraged that they take pride in the new design. It's like a musician taking pride in his instrument.
1
New fonts are usually part of a rebrand. As for the time tested ones, there may be costly licensing involved.
Do people still listen to podcasts? In this day and age of digital media you'd think that the powers that be at the Magazine would have had the foresight to think of doing a "visual podcast" as in streaming video like buzzed or dailymotion. It's also sad to see that they think that a reboot was needed. Just go back to the way it was 5 or 10 years ago and I'd be happy considering that I've been reading the Times since i was a child in the 60's when the magazine had worth.
4
"Do people still listen to podcasts?"
Between 50 and 70 million people downloaded the Serial podcast just this past fall. This is a medium that is growing, not shrinking. So it only makes sense for the NYT Magazine to try their hand here, as well.
Between 50 and 70 million people downloaded the Serial podcast just this past fall. This is a medium that is growing, not shrinking. So it only makes sense for the NYT Magazine to try their hand here, as well.
1
Yes people still listen to podcasts; I for one like to do something else while listening instead of being tied to the screen watching.
I'm with Sue re podcasts: listen to something intelligent while cooking, or knitting, or woodworking, or ...
Hey guys, even seen that GIF of Grandpa Simpson, with the headline "Old Man Yells at Cloud"? That's what a lot of you sound like.
Some of these concerns are very valid: will features I like (ie, puzzles) disappear? Will the font be readable for someone with aging eyes? But there is a very healthy dose of grumping about becoming too trendy (ie, current) and how the editors look young and god forbid this appeal to people who regularly consume video/podcast media and the devil itself, the 140 characters of Twitter.
Out of curiosity, I did a spot of research and concluded that most of the "younguns" in this photo are in their late 30s to mid 40s. These are full adults and professionals at the top of their game, not teenagers who want to change the title of the high school yearbook. People of this age cohort will be the ones leading culture and media this decade. It frankly makes me cringe when I see that many of the (presumably) older commenters can't handle change or not seeing their peers running the New York Times. Frankly, the Times won't thrive if it only appeals to people who don't want things to change from what they remember the NYT looking like in 1982 or even 2002.
That doesn't mean I want the NYT Magazine to move over to a Snapchat/Tumblr interface, and I don't necessarily love every change outlined here, but I want the NYT to succeed and adapt and continue to produce great stories and great journalism. Even if some of it is on video.
Some of these concerns are very valid: will features I like (ie, puzzles) disappear? Will the font be readable for someone with aging eyes? But there is a very healthy dose of grumping about becoming too trendy (ie, current) and how the editors look young and god forbid this appeal to people who regularly consume video/podcast media and the devil itself, the 140 characters of Twitter.
Out of curiosity, I did a spot of research and concluded that most of the "younguns" in this photo are in their late 30s to mid 40s. These are full adults and professionals at the top of their game, not teenagers who want to change the title of the high school yearbook. People of this age cohort will be the ones leading culture and media this decade. It frankly makes me cringe when I see that many of the (presumably) older commenters can't handle change or not seeing their peers running the New York Times. Frankly, the Times won't thrive if it only appeals to people who don't want things to change from what they remember the NYT looking like in 1982 or even 2002.
That doesn't mean I want the NYT Magazine to move over to a Snapchat/Tumblr interface, and I don't necessarily love every change outlined here, but I want the NYT to succeed and adapt and continue to produce great stories and great journalism. Even if some of it is on video.
17
Thanks - I completely agree. Going on 59, I work really hard not to be the old guy yelling at everyone to get off my lawn, and I *want* the Times Magazine to connect me with the zeitgeist.
That means some things I love are going to go away: such is the nature of life. If it wishes, The Times Magazine can be my training wheel for worse losses to come :)
BUT please, whatever you do, no tiny unreadable typography!
(BTW, what are all these complaints about podcasts? Some amazing work is being done in that medium. Twitter, on the other hand? Not so much.)
That means some things I love are going to go away: such is the nature of life. If it wishes, The Times Magazine can be my training wheel for worse losses to come :)
BUT please, whatever you do, no tiny unreadable typography!
(BTW, what are all these complaints about podcasts? Some amazing work is being done in that medium. Twitter, on the other hand? Not so much.)
4
I stopped reading the magazine years ago. You rarely seemed to care about what I care about. "The Dawn of the Post-Clinic Abortion" was an exception.
3
New graphics and the new look will refresh the feeling. Will the editorial content refresh what matters? To my horror, producing a lasting effort from me, The New York Times Magazine published Edmund L. Andrews on its cover to pump his book and push his version of his second wife... neglecting her second bankruptcy in a text devoted to their personal finance. There have been many examples of self promotion in this magazine.
Good luck to the most important newspaper in the world.
I blew myself out of this magazine and provoked its lousy editor in November 2008 - delaying what I needed so badly. I cared that much for The New York Times.
We must hope that this magazine will change from the head down, not just the cover.
Good luck to the most important newspaper in the world.
Good luck to the most important newspaper in the world.
I blew myself out of this magazine and provoked its lousy editor in November 2008 - delaying what I needed so badly. I cared that much for The New York Times.
We must hope that this magazine will change from the head down, not just the cover.
Good luck to the most important newspaper in the world.
2
From the list of contributors, it seems like the New York Times magazine and Slate magazine have merged.
10
Sorry, but the headline font is hard to read and doesn't look very good. Letters are too bunched together.
1
I hope the new typefaces will be LARGER, as I haven't been able to read the Magazine in print since the last redesign. Thank god for my iPad. I have hopes for this makeover, as I found the most recent iteration full of superficial and cutesy items. Lives and The Ethicist were exceptions: please bring them back as they were.
3
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Please keep the Double Crosstic.
Please keep the Double Crosstic.
3
Please, don't recreate the Magazine to appeal to those who "love to argue on Twitter". We've more than enough Twits in this world anyway, and what's really bad is the fact that they've basically been running things. Better to encourage contemplation and logical thinking. While those remain legal, without having to involve a treadmill, anyway.
38
Not sure how I'll survive without Batali telling me what he's drinking. Or what's "meh" this week. And please, no more "conversations."
3
Great. I missed the gush pieces about powerful people. The ads were popular with one-handed readers everywhere. I can't wait to see my first Guess Jeans or Obsession ad.
4
I have a sneaking suspicion that in attempt of being relevant it will stress form over substance. Busy typefaces and irrelevant stylish graphic design.
I hope it doesn't look like Wired. Trying to be "hip" but ends up unreadable.
I hope it doesn't look like Wired. Trying to be "hip" but ends up unreadable.
20
Looking forward to next week's story about how this week's story came to be. And the week after that's on how that week's story came to be. Must you talk about it? Can't you just do it?
22
Just what i was thinking as i struggled through the story of the Relaunch. I hope the magazine will be more interesting, or at least more important than its announcement story.
4
You got rid of the Meh List and that was a bummer. I hope you're not losing the Food article or the puzzles. That would push me over the edge.
4
I've read some terrific things in the "old" NY Times Magazine. I hope the "new" NY Times Magazine will not include too many sentences such as:
"It is as if we have been bidding our dinner guests adieu each week, busing the dessert plates and then hurrying out to the garage to tinker with our strange creation under a flickering bulb." Or:
"This isn’t an obligatory exercise in multiplatform brand leveraging, as the marketing types might put it, or the beginning of our descent into soul-deadening content farming."
Good luck.
"It is as if we have been bidding our dinner guests adieu each week, busing the dessert plates and then hurrying out to the garage to tinker with our strange creation under a flickering bulb." Or:
"This isn’t an obligatory exercise in multiplatform brand leveraging, as the marketing types might put it, or the beginning of our descent into soul-deadening content farming."
Good luck.
49
I love these comments! So much better than the magazine.
P.S. You might consider hiring some of your critics. These people are brainy, write well, and have taste!
P.S. You might consider hiring some of your critics. These people are brainy, write well, and have taste!
220
Sounds fantastic...Kudos on your (re) inventiveness, and best wishes for success...On the Internet, nobody knows you're 119 years old...
2
Am glad you took a look at the Magazine which has become increasingly irrelevant and trivial. Do not see why you feel the need to invent a new font---do not actually think it is possible to out do readability (and isn't that the key thing rather than style) of existing fonts. So sorry to see the Magazine will be largely the creation of young white men. No doubt w/ similar backgrounds and experiences as well. Very narrowing. You can do better, NYT.
20
Did you even look at the photo? Looks to me mainly young women.
3
This back-slapping, self-congratulatory preview made my flesh crawl, so juvenile is its tone, so loaded with self-serving, Madison Avenue blather. It almost reads like something the Onion would invent. I'm embarrassed for the writer and the paper, and I dread seeing the thing itself.
236
No mention of the reason so many of us still turn to the Magazine? Namely, the Sunday Crossword! Please tell me the crossword (and the second sunday puzzle) will still get the space they deserve!
The ONLY reason I still subscribe to a print version of the Times at all is to do the Sunday crossword on paper. The rest of the week I'm happy to both read the paper online and solve the puzzle online.
Take that away, and you've lost this print subscriber.
The ONLY reason I still subscribe to a print version of the Times at all is to do the Sunday crossword on paper. The rest of the week I'm happy to both read the paper online and solve the puzzle online.
Take that away, and you've lost this print subscriber.
9
Ditto.
1
The puzzles are the one untouchable feature in the Magazine. Fear not.
Queries like this have been answered in earlier comments. Did you read them before you posted this?
Queries like this have been answered in earlier comments. Did you read them before you posted this?
3
No matter how you dress up the magazine it will probably not be as good as the previous version...or the one before that.
I have been reading "The Times" since I was 7 years old (1954). Over the past 5-10 years you have lost so many talented writers and have not replaced them all that well. In many ways the firing of Jill Abramson was symbolic of the continuing decline of the Sulzburger dynasty.
I have been reading "The Times" since I was 7 years old (1954). Over the past 5-10 years you have lost so many talented writers and have not replaced them all that well. In many ways the firing of Jill Abramson was symbolic of the continuing decline of the Sulzburger dynasty.
39
I've been reading the NYT many years as well (though not from the age of 7, I must say), but while I miss certain writers, there are others who are very talented that have replaced them...one of whom I was not even aware of, David Carr, until it was too late. Perhaps that has happened with you.
The redesign of The New Yorker was completely unneeded and unnecessary, and may have been done because its art directors got some swanky new software, or were just bored and wanted to throw their weight around. I have little hope that the redo of the Magazine will improve the experience of reading it, either on line or in print, but there is always hope...
32
I highly doubt that the art department has the clout to spark a redesign. And as someone in the field, "swanky" new software is hardly a motivator for a redesign.
What about the crossword puzzle? I look forward to the print version every week.
3
If I can't read "the ethicist" why get up? Bring back Chuck!!!!!
12
Why did I always get the feeling that Chuck was fishing from a stocked pool? The questions often seemed more philosophical than practical.
1
Oh man, with respect, the online headline font is REALLY hard to read! Heavy, condensed. I'm afraid of what it's going to look like on my iPad, let alone an iPhone!
3
Agreed. It looks almost like an afterthought. As in they they redesigned the page and then realised that they forgot the most important thing, namely the name and just placed it up there without wondering, or caring, whether people would notice or see it for that matter.
1
I've never gotten over the makeover of The Week in Review section. I refuse to call it the Sunday Review. Maybe I'm just a fuddy-duddy. I do wish you luck and hope very much that this metamorphosis works out for the Times, an institution I adore and wish well.
10
I agree about the Week of Review. When I pick it up I know I'm in for the Reader's Digest version of deep thought.
8
Looking forward to reading the redesigned issue. I'm also pleased to see the word "typefaces" in this article instead of the oft-abused and usually incorrectly used "fonts".
5
To me, this is one of the greatest magazines in America, and I read/have read plenty of them. I am just hoping that the spirit of the magazine is not lost in the shuffle, as much as I hope that the restructuring (!) of the magazine doesn't water down the experience of reading it.
Thomas Murphy
Thomas Murphy
2
I just took an online survey about the magazine today asking about all the changes. Why wouldn't that survey go out after the changes appear?
Also, will there be an RSS feed just for the magazine, as there is for other NYT sections (eg, Home [page], Health, columnists)? I primarily read NYT via Feedly, and a magazine feed would be great.
Also, will there be an RSS feed just for the magazine, as there is for other NYT sections (eg, Home [page], Health, columnists)? I primarily read NYT via Feedly, and a magazine feed would be great.
1
I'm not keen on the idea of your turning "The Ethicist" into a podcast, but I do like the prospect of seeing more than one person's opinion on ethical conundrums.
I rarely listen to podcasts. For the record, I'm turning 41 in a few days.
I also wish you had left the "Lives" column as-is. It was my favorite feature of the Magazine.
Thanks for letting us know about these changes ahead of time, at least. It's really jarring when a newspaper makes major changes with no advance notice.
I rarely listen to podcasts. For the record, I'm turning 41 in a few days.
I also wish you had left the "Lives" column as-is. It was my favorite feature of the Magazine.
Thanks for letting us know about these changes ahead of time, at least. It's really jarring when a newspaper makes major changes with no advance notice.
7
After looking at the new "The Ethicist" column, I'm no longer enthused about the changes you've made to it. I wasn't a big fan of Klosterman, but he was better than what's on offer now.
1
"we also love listening to podcasts, arguing on Twitter and wandering from link to link through the ever-expanding universe of online writing. "
Who is this "we" you're talking about Mr. Silverstein? Your staff? Your readers??? Because if that's who you think your readers are then that's a pretty dismal vision. I'm neutral on podcasts, only idiots argue on Twitter and if I'm wandering from link to link in the online universe what do I need the NY Times Magazine for? If this is your vision please return the magazine to the grownups.
Who is this "we" you're talking about Mr. Silverstein? Your staff? Your readers??? Because if that's who you think your readers are then that's a pretty dismal vision. I'm neutral on podcasts, only idiots argue on Twitter and if I'm wandering from link to link in the online universe what do I need the NY Times Magazine for? If this is your vision please return the magazine to the grownups.
199
Oh, dear.
Hasn't anyone told you the podcasts are dreadful? Indeed, embarrassing and painful to watch? Stilted? Uninformative? That perhaps NYT readers -- readers -- prefer to do just that? Read?
One must bow to inevitable technological change, but that doesn't mean sprawling prostrate on the ground, does it?
These changes mostly sound so twee and trendy and non-newsworthy, I'm wincing.If I wish to see news, I have many choices. I don't need, or want, the NYT to be one of them.
Hasn't anyone told you the podcasts are dreadful? Indeed, embarrassing and painful to watch? Stilted? Uninformative? That perhaps NYT readers -- readers -- prefer to do just that? Read?
One must bow to inevitable technological change, but that doesn't mean sprawling prostrate on the ground, does it?
These changes mostly sound so twee and trendy and non-newsworthy, I'm wincing.If I wish to see news, I have many choices. I don't need, or want, the NYT to be one of them.
100
Oh gawd. Please don't tell me we're going to get overly busy page layouts, with dozens of fonts per page, and snippets of info in little boxes for the 'reader' with the attention span of a four-year-old. I cancelled my subscription to Bloomberg Business Week for that reason.
70
That's funny -- I thought I was the only one who cancelled my subscription to Bloomberg Businessweek because it was all empty-calorie over-designed trivia. I've also come to feel the same way about Wired. It's unreadable and has turned into the print equivalent of Buzzfeed. I hope the Times magazine doesn't go this way, but this Editor's Letter doesn't leave me optimistic.
And, I agree with one of the other commenters: I'm not interested in arguing on Twitter, or getting more information in a podcast.
Why can't the magazine just be a magazine?
And, I agree with one of the other commenters: I'm not interested in arguing on Twitter, or getting more information in a podcast.
Why can't the magazine just be a magazine?
14
RE: "Lives" column... I don't want more lives, as told to a reporter (ugh), I want more VOICES. That was the beauty of the "Lives" column. Please reconsider.
56
Congratulation. Your ideas seem amazing. Thrilled to read your mag.
Bastian, I second your comment, and I'm an old fuddy-duddy. I can't wait to see the new magazine. Change happens and the timing on this is good. For better and worse, everyone's attention spans are shorter. Perhaps it's the pace of life, or the abundance of material, or many millions reading from small readers. I look forward to the new Magazine and thank you for your enthusiasm. It seems to be in short supply with many of your commenters.
Design is the last thing to worry about.
The quality of the writing is first, second, third,
fourth and fifth.
Otherwise it's GIGO.
The quality of the writing is first, second, third,
fourth and fifth.
Otherwise it's GIGO.
92
More ads? A piece on a decades old Fleetwood Mac album? More electronic coverage?
Does ANYONE remember The New York Times Magazine when it was read cover to cover, decades ago?
It's like SNL all over again!
Does ANYONE remember The New York Times Magazine when it was read cover to cover, decades ago?
It's like SNL all over again!
8
Bring back "Lives." Only make it open to more than just white folk with books to promote.
35
I'm an NYC woman in my 30s and a proponent of change and progress. However, as an up and coming freelance writer, the LIVES column (along with Modern Love) is one of the most coveted publishing feathers we can put in our caps. To remove/alter that page is to take away yet another of the dwindling spaces for people to tell first account stories, a reason the column has remained so engaging. The intrigue and empathy that comes with hearing someone's first-person account of their unique story can never be matched by something that is reported. Why the need for this change to Lives?
88
I didn't know that about the Modern Love column. It's highly formulaic, but I admit I am drawn to the stories, though usually they are fast food for the soul.
5
A poem .
God bless you .
Jake Smith
KC MO
God bless you .
Jake Smith
KC MO
5
Any word on the venerable, but hugely stale, Sunday Crossword Puzzle? That could sure use a reboot. It's been years since it's been difficult, and worse, ages since it's been fun and interesting. More like 20 minutes of drudgery, alas. Please breath some life into this!
3
We all moved to Saturday years ago for this reason.
1
As a reader who has written some pointed, highly critical, observations in the last year (most not published) about content (yes, there is that word) and editorial choices, some cautious optimism. I know I don't meet the coveted demographic in as much as I can and do remember the golden age of the magazine when pithy, weighty, big subjects and capital letter newsmakers were the norm. Of late, it often seemed more a journal of human sexuality and sociology published not by the Gray Lady but by a militant gender studies department of a self-important university. Please, give us back the profiles of those who would be our President, articles on the multifaceted threats and challenges to our safety, our economy and our environment and to leaven the seriousness some occasional fluff on a Hollywood celebrity. But not too much of the latter. Appeal more to a devoted general readership and less to those (however much we may need their activism) who are single issue zealots on the barricades.
19
What you suggest would be wonderful, Unworthy. However, don't hold your breath.
2
What s/he ^ said. That's exactly how I remember the magazine when I started reading it as a child in the 60's but I haven't read it on a regular basis in years since it's so overwrought and frankly, boring.
4
I'm delighted about your decision to publish a poem every week. William Carlos Williams was right, "It is difficult to get the news from poems, yet men die every day for the lack of it".
How wonderful.....we will now indeed get the news from poems. And, Natasha Trethewey is the perfect "newscaster".
How wonderful.....we will now indeed get the news from poems. And, Natasha Trethewey is the perfect "newscaster".
8
I love the Letter of Recommendation idea! It's great to have a standing column dedicated to something positive so it pains me to be the first to say that Sam Anderson is completely wrong about "Tusk:" terrible album, worse song. I can only assume he went to USC. :)
1
I have entire issues of the old Magazine that I've saved from the 1970s and 1980s. The quality of the content seemed to take a nose dive over the last decade and now the whole Magazine often is thrown into the recycling bin immediately (along with the sports section) as the wheat was separated from the chaff. It ain't the color of the lipstick, it's the pig wearing it that's the problem.
15
As a long-time New York Times subscriber and freelancer who has helped hundreds of students break into the newspaper over the last 21 years, I applaud the addiction of the poem. But losing the Lives column is a horrible tragedy that should be quickly reconsidered! Having well known journalists write as-told-to stories of unknown people is a tired technique employed by dumb women's magazines. The back page should remain a place of honor for an 800 word beautifully written essay where new writers might be given a start (like my colleague Kenan Trebincevic's essay "Day of Reckoning" which launched his book and writing career.) Don't you want more readers and more diverse voices in the New York Times. This is why NYT Opinionator, Motherlode and Modern Love columns are so popular. Having well known mostly white writers publish every single part of the magazine, just like Vanity Fair. Big snooze! Please reconsider!!!!
50
"the addiction of the poem"
2
I just hope these changes are an improvement. The last two times the Magazine was "relaunched," it ended up being much, much worse. Silly columns, glib writing. And I think it's pretty clear that it lost a ton of readers as a result. I haven't regularly read the Magazine in a long time, now, as the regular columns are inane, and the long original pieces only sporadically interesting. I hope this works out, because I love the Times and read it online multiple times a day.
27
Lots of self-praise and boring hype here.
47
You guys do a revamp every few years. Would you believe ... new type fonts !!??
Snore.
Snore.
6
As a 25-year-old who reads NYT (online/mobile) almost every day, I hope that I'm not as cranky about the publication's changes and evolution when I get to be the age of some of these commenters.
I for one am excited to see what's to come, podcasts, typefaces and all.
I for one am excited to see what's to come, podcasts, typefaces and all.
6
Dear Laura,
Is it crankiness? That is a great stereotype for older people although I do run into very cranky young people, too.
I do not like podcasts and I don't think it is because I'm old, although that is so. I like to read at varying speeds, savoring some parts and skimming over others. Sometimes I think, "did he actually mean that,?" and have to go back on the podcast instead of just re-read a sentence to consider its meaning. I also don't like to have to watch logos, hear cheesy music and see "you can skip this ad in 15 seconds" notices. (For these reasons I choose the printed word over the podcast if it exists). I might even stop and look up some fact or reference. Sometimes lovely writing is a joy whereas I have yet to see a really beautifully "written" podcast. (U-tube music is different.) I don't carry my iPad or iPhone everywhere and listen on head phones. I do like books on CD in the car (I'm in L.A.). Its okay though laura because I, and my ilk, will soon disappear, just like the old written word. Someday something you love will go away forever and you may feel sad about it.
Is it crankiness? That is a great stereotype for older people although I do run into very cranky young people, too.
I do not like podcasts and I don't think it is because I'm old, although that is so. I like to read at varying speeds, savoring some parts and skimming over others. Sometimes I think, "did he actually mean that,?" and have to go back on the podcast instead of just re-read a sentence to consider its meaning. I also don't like to have to watch logos, hear cheesy music and see "you can skip this ad in 15 seconds" notices. (For these reasons I choose the printed word over the podcast if it exists). I might even stop and look up some fact or reference. Sometimes lovely writing is a joy whereas I have yet to see a really beautifully "written" podcast. (U-tube music is different.) I don't carry my iPad or iPhone everywhere and listen on head phones. I do like books on CD in the car (I'm in L.A.). Its okay though laura because I, and my ilk, will soon disappear, just like the old written word. Someday something you love will go away forever and you may feel sad about it.
33
I suppose crankiness does increase with age. May you stay forever young!
7
I am not a Luddite. How 'bout: 1. Dust off the old designs of the original Corvette, upgrade with current technology, and market. Ditto for the classic, the 4 door center post Continental, etc. 2. Just revisit the Magazine of the old, and better, New York Times, and start again. New is not necessarily better.
9
You lost me with that last "revision" a few years ago -- when you jettisoned the original ethics author and the "What they were thinking" feature, and introduced unreadable type-faces and color schemes (white letters on a red background??) -- and that ridiculous page of cutesy microscopic vignettes. For the last few years, I do the puzzle, usually read the personal story on the last page, and occasionally read one of the long articles -- but that's it. I hope the new incarnation will be an improvement in style and content over the current disappointment.
10
Is this a boast or a warning? (You will also find, in this Sunday’s print edition, more pages of advertising than in any issue since October 2007.)
20
Yay, poetry!
7
LIVES is the best part of the Sunday Magazine. What makes you think filtering material through select reporters will provide a better experience for the reader? Sounds to me like you're dumbing down what was an iconic and exemplary publication. What's next? Pieces texted in?
19
Virginia Hefferna, Colson Whitehead, and Jack Shafer will improve the mag just by showing up. And I'm glad that somebody ELSE remembers Tusk (Stevie Nicks with the USC band!) I am concerned about the "dispatch from Internet culture." I think you should've called it "Dispatches from within the culture of no culture." Poetry? Photography coverage? Sounds great.
So good luck, God bless, and in the print edition, may we see the last of the article that starts on page 19, continues to page 23, then jumps to page 51, then 62, then 74, and then concludes somewhere near the answer to last week's puzzles.
So good luck, God bless, and in the print edition, may we see the last of the article that starts on page 19, continues to page 23, then jumps to page 51, then 62, then 74, and then concludes somewhere near the answer to last week's puzzles.
9
I am writing from the Curmudgeon's Corner.Although certain articles were worthwhile, I long ago stopped reading the NYT Magazine because of its super-trendiness,. I was mad as hell and wasn't going to take it any more the arbitrary eye-stabbing formats and unnecessarily large type e.g. why the need for HUGE initiating letters introducing articles? So I hope the new magazine will go back to a more tasteful design. Compare with the New Yorker, for example. Certainly on-top-of-things but not screaming in your face. Sorry.
9
Wait! Everyone in the top photo is named except for the person doing all the work at the keyboard. Credit where it is due, please.
5
Read the caption, again.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
2
The poetry section sounds horribly out of touch-- edited by an establishment type of white ethnicity from a selection of previously published work picked by her. We have other poets and poetry. It's called rap and it expresses an urgency which apparently will not be found in the starchy pages of the NYT magazine even in its revamped form.
Eh? Natasha Trethewey is not a "type of white ethnicity."
1
Do you think that rap is suitable for the printed page? I hope the NY Times does a better job than the New Yorker, whose poems tend to hang heavy on my eyelids.
1
I'm sad to see Chuck Klosterman go - I'm a big admirer of his writing, and I really enjoyed his thoughtful Ethicist columns. It seems to me that a consolidated printing of an off-the-cuff conversation can only be less thoughtful and considered than what we got from Chuck, who clearly put in time and effort to craft something meaningful. We already have "Room for Debate," which I think demonstrates perfectly that tiny snippets of various opinions aren't very useful or interesting to read. I hope Chuck keeps the books coming, at least!
Hello, thanks for your efforts. A request: I would love to participate in more online discussions of your magazine articles. I believe you hosted a Facebook discussion of the article about the Stanford mentor/rape story, but I had trouble figuring out how to follow that. Will you be using other platforms? Or let us know in advance when such discussions happen? The comment section is always a bit of a conversation, but having the writer of an article explain the behind the scenes of reporting is also interesting. Thanks in advance. (P.s. I read only online at this point.)
3
I'm glad to learn that this issue will be packed with ads. Too often in recent years, the print magazine (along with other sections of the paper) has felt entirely too light and flimsy. I don't love ads, but I realize they're a key source of revenue that helps underwrite the top-quality journalism that distinguishes the Times from all others. So, so long as you don't mess with the top-quality journalism, I say bring on the ads. They're a sign of health.
5
I am hoping the magazine will allow for more individualized voices in its longer pieces. In my mind, the writers have conformed to a Times style, creating an artificial sameness and eventual dreariness.
4
"And we'll load even slower and lock up quicker on your tablets."
Dear New York Times,
Let me just get one thing straight right off the bat. Not all of us like to "argue on Twitter."
Some of us come to you to read what we trust to be well-reported news from around the world, with some cogent opinion and arts criticism thrown in.
Peripatetic and/or rural living make reading you on paper a rare treat, and so we pay for a digital subscription. Unlike your print subscribers, which each cost you in marginally more ink and paper, each of us digital subsribers costs you absolutely nothing.
So we'd like a little more respect.
Maybe one of your senior people could be "tasked" to read the Times on a tablet for a month. No sneek peaks at the Magazine. No touching of hand to paper. Please make this a person who is old enough to need reading glasses and cranky enough to want to comment on one out of every three articles she or he reads.
You'll find that it is much harder to read a digital paper than an analog one. No quick scanning through any section, glancing at the headlins and reading all the ledes. Every link takes time to load, and every unwanted jump is incredibly irritating.
Then you'll see why you have to get rid of those little tabs that slide into the articles and take us to a page we have no interest in. They do NOT work on a tablet.
Stop wasting my subscription money on new print typefaces.
Sincerely,
Cranky Reader
Dear New York Times,
Let me just get one thing straight right off the bat. Not all of us like to "argue on Twitter."
Some of us come to you to read what we trust to be well-reported news from around the world, with some cogent opinion and arts criticism thrown in.
Peripatetic and/or rural living make reading you on paper a rare treat, and so we pay for a digital subscription. Unlike your print subscribers, which each cost you in marginally more ink and paper, each of us digital subsribers costs you absolutely nothing.
So we'd like a little more respect.
Maybe one of your senior people could be "tasked" to read the Times on a tablet for a month. No sneek peaks at the Magazine. No touching of hand to paper. Please make this a person who is old enough to need reading glasses and cranky enough to want to comment on one out of every three articles she or he reads.
You'll find that it is much harder to read a digital paper than an analog one. No quick scanning through any section, glancing at the headlins and reading all the ledes. Every link takes time to load, and every unwanted jump is incredibly irritating.
Then you'll see why you have to get rid of those little tabs that slide into the articles and take us to a page we have no interest in. They do NOT work on a tablet.
Stop wasting my subscription money on new print typefaces.
Sincerely,
Cranky Reader
69
Amen!
1
Great comment. Well done!
Good grief. No people of color, no one seemingly over 50. No wonder NYT is full of stories about moving into expensive neighborhoods when the kiddos get accepted to overpriced elite elementary schools. Sheesh.
62
Most of this sounds great and congratulations on working so hard to improve the magazine! However, this part bothers me: "We’ve turned Lives from a column that features mostly written accounts to one that features mostly accounts told to a reporter. This will enable us to showcase a wider variety of lives from a wider range of nations and backgrounds." Actually this seems headed in the wrong direction. I used to turn first to the His and Hers and then to lives to read some really heartfelt stories on a variety of personal experiences. Why can't people from a wide range of backgrounds be entrusted to tell their *own* stories? Also, the entire newspaper and some of the magazine consists of stories written by reporters about other people's lives, from all backgrounds and nations. The "as told to" always seemed like an insult to me, as if people can't tell their own stories, and they can't get the credit for doing so (you can always edit), and besides, memoirs are such fun to read. If you want a story to be filtered through a reporter, there are many ways to do that in articles or photo essays. Please give the space back to the individual experience, as told to us by the person experiencing it. It doesn't have to touch every single background, and if you want more of that, then seek out people to tell their stories and give the credit to the person rather than the reporter.
102
Thanks, CM. The new Lives format will be very much an example of people telling their own stories in their own words. We'll still run written Lives columns from time to time, but by broadening it to include non-writers telling their stories in a oral format, we can include folks from a wider variety of backgrounds. Thanks for your readership.
2
I like to read pieces, personal experience or otherwise, written by writers. As told to is about as interesting as reality television. You get the limitations of writing without the artistry. Here's a radical idea for you: include a short story once a month. Flash fiction should suit your new format perfectly.
7
I couldn't agree more. The "Lives" column is now mediated by a reporter, yet this article suggests the column will now be opened up to wider voices. How can this be true that we'll be exposed to a wider range of voices, when these voices will now be filtered through the vision, taste, and temperament of a reporter? The description of the new "Lives" column in this article is dishonest. Why would I read a publication that can't even describe itself with honesty?
Ugh, it all sounds so very trendy and with it and at the party and hip and cool and even, maybe, OMG emoticon, awesome. Will there be a lot of !!!!?
I loved the magazine as it was, read it to learn something new, or engage with something or someone I wouldn't have noticed otherwise, or just out of voyeuristic curiosity sometimes. Does anybody really think podcasts have the same power to engage, teach, satisfy anybody but the podcaster? I await my Sunday Times with skeptical trepidation.
I loved the magazine as it was, read it to learn something new, or engage with something or someone I wouldn't have noticed otherwise, or just out of voyeuristic curiosity sometimes. Does anybody really think podcasts have the same power to engage, teach, satisfy anybody but the podcaster? I await my Sunday Times with skeptical trepidation.
133
I think it's important to remember that the magazine before, particularly during the Hugo years, was smarmy, pop-culture obsessed and overdesigned. To pretend that the magazine was some kind of purer cultural product in the recent past just isn't true.
4
Thanks, George. We don't intend for this redesign to be trendy at all. In fact, many of the new columns are pretty classic in their approach. I hope you'll reserve judgment on the podcast. It's actually quite engaging and fun. And the center of the magazine each week will still be four or more long feature stories. Thanks for your readership.
2
Can't agree more!
1
I remember picking up a copy of the NYT from a street vendor on Saturday nights on the way home back in the eighties, and pulling out the NYT Magazine to see what I would be reading on Sunday morning with my coffee.
What would truly re-launch this magazine, would be some actual investigative journalism in the feature story, like what really happened on 9/11.
Why are so many journalists afraid to write this story?
What would truly re-launch this magazine, would be some actual investigative journalism in the feature story, like what really happened on 9/11.
Why are so many journalists afraid to write this story?
17
Popular Mechanics beat you to it:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a49/1227842/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a49/1227842/
2
Thanks, Jan. Investigative journalism is deeply important to the magazine, and you can expect to continue to read pieces like last weekend's long article on the Hariri assassination. Or the cover story about the campus sex assault case at Stanford. Thanks for your readership.
What???? What really happened? Seriously?
We know what happened, there is no conspiracy, no hidden agenda. If there was, dont you think that someone, someone, would have spilled the beans by now?
Just sit back and enjoy the magazine. Geeeeeshhhh.
We know what happened, there is no conspiracy, no hidden agenda. If there was, dont you think that someone, someone, would have spilled the beans by now?
Just sit back and enjoy the magazine. Geeeeeshhhh.
Whatever changes are planned, one thing remains the same: a proponderance -- nay, an entirety -- of white faces featured at the top. I made this same observation about the "Cooking" page introduced last year and got back one of those "we value diversity, watch this space" replies. So I watched, and it's something like 7 months later and it's all still the same. WHEN are you people at the Times going to get that you are really pissing your readers off by saying you are really changing but fundamentally not moving an inch? Do something for realy about having your staff reflect who actually lives in New York, not to mention the rest of the country.
80
Don't know about the others but check out Teju Cole.
Thanks, CML. This is very important to us, as I hope you'll see in the magazine issues going forward.
1
I broadly agree but would add that the problem isn't specifically that the NY Times is too white but that its reporters all seem to be from the same cultural class these days: careerist. They represent a monoculture that can increasingly be found in US & UK media — a cheerful, bland, endlessly self-obsessed, dull and predictable little echo chamber chock full of people who seem to care more about sucking up to one another on Twitter than saying anything of substance. Making a topical noise, no matter if it's transparently desperate for viral traffic, seems to be considered the functional equivalent of having something interesting to say or an interesting voice with which to say it. And I don't think it's at all a coincidence that this has come about at a time when just about the only people who can afford to work for newspapers any more will probably have been supported by mom & dad throughout a series of unpaid or extremely low-paying internships. The problem isn't their skin color; it's their unworldliness.
17
I'll roll withe changes as long as the puzzles are still there. I personally liked the addition of the serial fiction (graphic and otherwise) presented in the mid 2000's. Some great pieces by Michael Connelly, Chris Ware, and Seth, if I recall.
11
Ha, my husband read the headline in last week's magazine, "Everything but the Crossword," and he said, honey, they're getting rid of the crossword puzzle. I panicked until he realized he'd misinterpreted it, and the crossword is the only thing that is not changing. I subscribe to the puzzles online to do the weekday puzzles, but I must have my Sunday magazine to work on it at leisure.
Been a big fan for decades.
I agree that, as I age, the fonts need to be readable to readers of all ages.
Am withholding judgment until I have in my hands something to judge...and even then will give you some time to work out the kinks.
No mention of that old-school journalist, Maureen Dowd?
I agree that, as I age, the fonts need to be readable to readers of all ages.
Am withholding judgment until I have in my hands something to judge...and even then will give you some time to work out the kinks.
No mention of that old-school journalist, Maureen Dowd?
4
This sounds dreadful - like the staff is some little club, and this is their gossip session. Everything sounds so small and precious. It's also a realization that the tendencies I've been seeing in the paper itself are not just in my imagination. I've read the NYTimes since 1974, while living in cities from Philadelphia to New York to Washington to Los Angeles and back to Philadelphia again, but this article might be the one that makes it easier for me to cut the cord with the NYTimes, aka "Lifestyles of the Rich, Self-Absorbed and Trivial."
245
I don't know, I think the magazine was a nasty little club before, too. It was just full of fortysomethings who desperately wanted to be twentysomethings again. It's unclear how much will reall change in this regard.
3
Look at the photo. The college year book crew have been put in charge!
4
Thanks, ejb. Unfortunately, there is an unavoidable self-regard that accompanies all explanations of redesigns.
3
If the main idea is that the staff is young, you sure got that point across with your lead picture.
I await,
82
I await,
82
92
I'm curious about the reasoning behind designing all-new typefaces - not necessarily opposed, but curious - given the existence of hundreds (thousands?) of fonts already and the difficulty of creating truly readable type, especially for the body of long-form pieces. What was the thinking on this?
52
What you have to bear in mind is that fonts nowadays are software and to use someone else's fonts in large-scale digital publishing costs money. An ongoing cost can be eliminated eventually by investing in fonts they wholly own.
Secondly, the fonts can add a subtle flavour to the text design, one that contributes to the identity of the magazine and helps make it different – perhaps better, but certainly less like other publications.
Thirdly, bespoke font designs may enable production or legibility improvements that commercial off-the-shelf ones can't do so efficiently: more text or headlines fitted into tighter spaces, be more easily read in small sizes (in print or on screen) or have an increased range of weights or character sets for all kinds of headline, text and graphics use while retaining a cohesive family identity.
The risk is that in a few years it all looks terribly "2015" and the process begins anew, though I'm sure like any magazine or website it's a perpetual work-in-progress that will evolve.
Secondly, the fonts can add a subtle flavour to the text design, one that contributes to the identity of the magazine and helps make it different – perhaps better, but certainly less like other publications.
Thirdly, bespoke font designs may enable production or legibility improvements that commercial off-the-shelf ones can't do so efficiently: more text or headlines fitted into tighter spaces, be more easily read in small sizes (in print or on screen) or have an increased range of weights or character sets for all kinds of headline, text and graphics use while retaining a cohesive family identity.
The risk is that in a few years it all looks terribly "2015" and the process begins anew, though I'm sure like any magazine or website it's a perpetual work-in-progress that will evolve.
4
Thanks, D. The thinking on this was to create a new and distinctive set of typefaces for the magazine. And also to improve legibility. Thanks for your readership.
1
I'd like to knwo that as well. Isn't Times New Roman a/the New York Times typeface?
2
Two concerns:
Designers: Please avoid anything precious, such as hard-to-read type or patterns that would be better suited to lining hamster cages.
Editors: Ditto.
Designers: Please avoid anything precious, such as hard-to-read type or patterns that would be better suited to lining hamster cages.
Editors: Ditto.
92
Copy this comment to the editors of WIRED who seem to delight in making print unreadable.
2
Very exciting and very much in keeping with the "modernizing" trend that has been so successful at the NYT over the past few years. I am a lapsed reader of the Magazine - this may win me back. Thank you!
1
As a graphic designer- I love the editorial design notes and typographic attention to detail that the NYT has [anachronistically] hung onto- These priorities signal a culture that preserves the craft, and I applaud it. The "Desktop Publishing" revolution of the past twenty years has been a forest fire for many of the traditional vocations, and the publishing world is poorer for it.
15
I hope the new magazine is on recyclable paper. The recent years "slick" paper could not be recycled in contrast to the much older magazine printed on standard newsprint paper.
10
These sound fine as changes. Certainly the Magazine has seemed lost to me in the last ten years, in the face of the rise of the Internet. Nor do I fear the loss of quality, as some fuddy-duddy commenters do: the New Yorker has never been better since Tina Brown brought modern sensibilities to it.
That said: why photography, money, clothing and nature? Why not: education, music, lobbying, culture clashes?
I also find it odd and egocentric that you haven't learned the most basic lesson of social media: interaction. There is no sense here of how readers can engage with the magazine. So many reader comments in the NYT are as articulate and informed as the original articles. Why not have one of the rotating critics assemble the most astute and thought-provoking reader comments and comment on them?
That said: why photography, money, clothing and nature? Why not: education, music, lobbying, culture clashes?
I also find it odd and egocentric that you haven't learned the most basic lesson of social media: interaction. There is no sense here of how readers can engage with the magazine. So many reader comments in the NYT are as articulate and informed as the original articles. Why not have one of the rotating critics assemble the most astute and thought-provoking reader comments and comment on them?
135
Thanks, Grant. The idea behind Clothing, Money, Nature, and Photography was to focus on four subjects that are ubiquitous in readers' lives but merit deeper examination.
2
Nothing wrong with the occasional "fuddy-duddy". They keep the head strong in check.
3
So many of the reader comments are MORE meaningful and fact based than the articles not to mention more researched. Please more content, less form.
1
Please....stop wasting two whole pages on the index.
5
One peevish observation that has carried over from the "old" and the "new."
Why is the biographical information about authors of articles found -- in tiny font -- in the table of contents?
Poor choice!
Consider a return to an older format > at the bottom of the first page of the article.
My favorite magazine feature is the single page interview. Admittedly I read that page selectively, based on whom the spotlight focuses in any given week.
I appreciate indepth articles. The piece on sexual harassment at Stanford University certainly was pertient and very well presented.
I don't appreciate overly "cutsey" articles, often in the realm of popular culture. DISCLAIMER: I am 72!
Indepth biographically-centered articles -- e.g., Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Brian Lamb (founder of C-SPAN), Gwen Ifill, Tzipi Livini, Jill Lepore (prolific historian, Harvard professor, and New Yorker staff writer) -- also would command my attention.
What to avoid: same format/focus repeated Sunday after Sunday.
Famously, The New Yorker devoted a single issue to John Hersey's book on the impact of the nuclear bomb used against Japan in 1945.
Why is the biographical information about authors of articles found -- in tiny font -- in the table of contents?
Poor choice!
Consider a return to an older format > at the bottom of the first page of the article.
My favorite magazine feature is the single page interview. Admittedly I read that page selectively, based on whom the spotlight focuses in any given week.
I appreciate indepth articles. The piece on sexual harassment at Stanford University certainly was pertient and very well presented.
I don't appreciate overly "cutsey" articles, often in the realm of popular culture. DISCLAIMER: I am 72!
Indepth biographically-centered articles -- e.g., Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Brian Lamb (founder of C-SPAN), Gwen Ifill, Tzipi Livini, Jill Lepore (prolific historian, Harvard professor, and New Yorker staff writer) -- also would command my attention.
What to avoid: same format/focus repeated Sunday after Sunday.
Famously, The New Yorker devoted a single issue to John Hersey's book on the impact of the nuclear bomb used against Japan in 1945.
12
Good luck to you but this long-time reader will likely not follow --- not to the multi-platforms anyway. I like to read print -- I don't want to listen to podcasts or watch videos or read an article in print only to be told to "get more" by going to the internet. When I'm reading something, I'm committed to it NOW, even if interested in knowing more, there's no chance that I'm going to fold up the paper/magazine and turn to my tablet right then and I probably won't have time to follow up on it later (assuming I remember to). I don't doubt that you doing what's right for the NYT Magazine in a new era of digital information that assumes that more people will access you digitally tha in print, but you'll have to do it without me.
152
Thanks, Clarice. Couldn't agree with you more. We love to read in print too, which is why we're making the print reading experience better than ever. The magazine will be on a slightly better stock of paper starting this Sunday, which makes the photos (and even the text) look much better. The digital changes are additive, they are not meant to replace the simple joy of reading a print magazine. We're all for that. Thanks for your readership.
3
Here's my confession: I actually clip the articles or photos I am interested in sharing or commenting on - leave them on my desk next to my full size desk top to remind me that I wanted to do something with them later. I will still resist watching conversations on line - I grew up with radio and still prefer to use my imagination based on the words I am reading on paper - alas a neurologic skill lost on the under thirties.
That rote "Thanks for your readership" is getting a bit tiring to re-read over and over in your comments. Endless reiteration lends a note of insincere automation even if you really mean it. Just a sidenote. Thanks for your, um, writership.
1
Gee, jake... When's the last time you heard someone say "I can't wait to see what type faces the magazine is using this Sunday." As you describe it, you tossed a whole bunch of things at the wall and are going to determine what sticks. Let's hope that a lot of it does. Seltzer commentary? Really?
23
needed reworking - content was not 'up to snuff'! hope it will not cater to 'lowest common denominator'! tough 'business' these days-
19
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. What is going to happen to in-depth cover stories? And for those of us who spend our lives working on laptops, tablets and phones, what is going to happen to the guilty luxury of taking quiet time to read the paper version of the magazine on a lazy Sunday? And more advertisements? As a consumer of both The Times online and paper versions, I feel like I get more than enough exposure to mindless ads already. How about a version for people who are willing to pay more for news sans ads?
22
Thanks, AAS. In-depth cover stories will continue to be in-depth and continue to be the core of what we do every week. As for the guilty luxury of reading in print, we support that! The paper version will be a better reading experience than ever, on heavier stock paper, with a cleaner and easier-to-navigate design. Hope you enjoy it!
2
Since I retired, I cherish the time I spend reading first the NYT and then the WSJ in the morning. Then, I go on line to review about 9 sources of news, ending with WSJ and NYT. It just goes to show how depth will overcome speed every time!. Hubert Boyd
1
It's not clear to me: Just how much of the Magazine will be available to digital subscribers?
17
While I doubt that this will reach the level of New Coke it is in the words of the Bard Much Ado About Nothing.
23
Give it some time. And if you like it, all's well that ends well.
1
Wow.
Good luck.
A faithful reader - age 79.
Good luck.
A faithful reader - age 79.
9
There was nothing wrong with the original version. I hope this doesn't misfire ala New Coke.
7
Maybe there was nothing wrong with the "original version," but the one we've been getting for the last 10 years or so has been seriously dumbed down - it's scattershot content (other than the substantial lead articles) apparently designed to appeal to those who tweet.
93
Our redesign aims to preserve all that was great about the original version, while also improving and expanding it as well. Thanks for your readership.
So you think a redesign is going to "un-dumb down" the Magazine? It takes more than design to smarten up a magazine which is, in my opinion, one of the best in the country. Designers and visual artists and stylists (look at music videos sometime) have taken over valuable, relevant, hard-hitting content, and I doubt is things will ever be the same. NO...I am not some reprobate, I just think that society has fallen in love with what it sees, and not what it thinks or feels.
3
As a person who worked in newspapers for over 15 years, this is catnip for a process junkie. However, as a human living in 2015, doesn't this level of attention devoted to a printed artifact seem unnecessary?
7
Thanks, Bill. Are you rolling on the floor now, in a catnip-induced fog? As humans living in 2015, we aimed to balance a focus on improving the print magazine with a major effort to improve the online experience as well. Hope you like it.
1
Sounds exciting. I swooned when I read you will include poetry. I enjoy the writing and tone of this introductory article - it has verve and voice. It gives me hope that style will carry into the new magazine.
4
All well and good, but I hope you are keeping the beloved acrostic puzzle!!
7
The acrostic stays, as do most of our Variety puzzles. In addition, there will be some new puzzles to solve, so stay tuned!
7
For some of us that's all we needed to hear! I remember the last time you tried to mess with our acrostic!
You know a column I really love from the NY section is "Sunday Routine" I wish you would expand that column to the magazine some day!
You know a column I really love from the NY section is "Sunday Routine" I wish you would expand that column to the magazine some day!
3
Actually, I'm reading it less. But, I am older. The magazine at one time had interesting profiles, more delicious recipes instead of recipes where one must go to the store and buy expensive ingredients that may not be used again. As I said, I am older and don't find it necessary to be ever so hip and cool.
74
We're all older, honey. And I've found some outstanding and thought-provoking articles in recent editions of the magazine ("The Fire on the 57 Bus in Oakland," "The Stanford Undergraduate and the Mentor"). Furthermore, many of the cooking articles align perfectly with my evolving culinary ambitions, and I have never once felt marginalized by "hip and cool" foodies. I enjoy settling in with the magazine, a cup of coffee, and letting go of the workaday world. To each his own!
3
Looking at the photos and reading the article, I couldn't help but think, "they all look so young". Being an older man myself, I wonder how I will relate to the new content. I know that in its last iteration I felt left out in the cold; the magazine had become too trendy for me. I knew it wasn't talking to me the same way it had for decades.
Being an optimist I will hope for the best though, recognizing that for the NYT as well as for other publishing and advertising institutions, my generation is not the desired demographic and that we are considered at the waterfall's edge.
Being an optimist I will hope for the best though, recognizing that for the NYT as well as for other publishing and advertising institutions, my generation is not the desired demographic and that we are considered at the waterfall's edge.
40
Happy to have your readership, s. berger. We'll do our best to respect where you're coming from.
2
The oh-so-precious tone of this article doesn't bode well for the magazine. And what about the puzzles? Without them I'd read it online and save myself six bucks every week.
55
The crossword puzzle and the Variety puzzles remain intact, eyesopen. Not only that, but stay tuned for some additional variety puzzles that are being added.
2
You can easily do the puzzles online--there are even different formats. I like Across LIte!
1
Not on a Kindle, you can't.
You may have updated and modernized the magazine, but your staff, although "updated" with women, looks quite white to me. #notimpressed
45
What a ridiculous comment. Is the Times magazine supposed to lay off talented creative people (they were hired for a reason) just to hit some imaginary racial "diversity" quota?
I've been a graphic designer for over 20 years in both corporate and agency settings, and in interviewing new designers, the only thing that matters is the work in their portfolio; the color of their skin is irrelevant.
I've been a graphic designer for over 20 years in both corporate and agency settings, and in interviewing new designers, the only thing that matters is the work in their portfolio; the color of their skin is irrelevant.
3
Thanks, Angela. A diverse staff and contributors is important to us, and if you read the magazine in the months ahead, you'll see evidence of that.
1
Thanks for saying that.
People are judging the makeup of the staff based on one or two photos. I'll bet the NYT staff is a lot more diverse than people think.
People are judging the makeup of the staff based on one or two photos. I'll bet the NYT staff is a lot more diverse than people think.
Is the "Letter of Recommendation" part of the native advertising in the Times?
If it isn't, and the writer sends a love letter to say, Uber or AirBnB, how do we know the writer didn't get a nudge or more - from the company to write it?
The Times will need to do a full disclosure statement for each column to reassure the readers that the writer has no connection to the product or service they're endorsing.
Better yet, the Magazine editors could try to understand that they're journalists, not cheerleaders, and should let that column die a quick and merciful death.
If it isn't, and the writer sends a love letter to say, Uber or AirBnB, how do we know the writer didn't get a nudge or more - from the company to write it?
The Times will need to do a full disclosure statement for each column to reassure the readers that the writer has no connection to the product or service they're endorsing.
Better yet, the Magazine editors could try to understand that they're journalists, not cheerleaders, and should let that column die a quick and merciful death.
144
Good point! How do we know, for example, that when Sam Anderson praises the 1979 Fleetwood Mac album "Tusk," he's not secretly in the employ of Big Soft Rock. Liking things is always suspicious!
5
well, first of all, srs, I'm not sure why I should care that Sam Anderson - whomever that is - likes "Tusk" or not. Lots of people like lots of things, but this is the NY times, not a fanzine. The Admiral makes a good point. Unless the editor makes a statement to the contrary I'll consider everything in that column to be a product placement.
6
Although excited about new possibilities, Lives have often been a most powerful and unique vehicle for self expression and hope this new format can continue in that tradition.
10
@Richard: In case you didn't notice...
Lives (and Modern Love and Private Lives) are too often a platform for the author to promote an under-selling novel or up-coming memoir.
That is, the pieces are mostly written from the wallet, not the heart, and, thus, suffer in quality.
I hope the new "Lives" are more disinterested and, thus, more interesting.
Lives (and Modern Love and Private Lives) are too often a platform for the author to promote an under-selling novel or up-coming memoir.
That is, the pieces are mostly written from the wallet, not the heart, and, thus, suffer in quality.
I hope the new "Lives" are more disinterested and, thus, more interesting.
3
Can't wait for the crossword puzzle this weekend.
5
Lots of talk about "joining conversations" graphics, multi-media production and themes but I've read through this twice and I still can't find some form of the words "quality journalism" or "good writing" anywhere.
And when you crowd-sourced the new fonts did you take into consideration anyone over 60? Utterly unreadable.
I know us five-decades + readers are being pushed aside for the Millenials who, by the way, will never read the New York Times on a regular basis, but if gee-whiz graphics and font changes are the things Mr. Silverstein are most proud of then maybe that's a good thing. I'm already exhausted from trying to wade through all the analysis and anecdotal ledes just so I can get my news. I don't need jittery graphics to make it even worse.
And when you crowd-sourced the new fonts did you take into consideration anyone over 60? Utterly unreadable.
I know us five-decades + readers are being pushed aside for the Millenials who, by the way, will never read the New York Times on a regular basis, but if gee-whiz graphics and font changes are the things Mr. Silverstein are most proud of then maybe that's a good thing. I'm already exhausted from trying to wade through all the analysis and anecdotal ledes just so I can get my news. I don't need jittery graphics to make it even worse.
234
As a "Millennial" and daily reader of the Times I, too, appreciate readable design and solid journalism. Don't stereotype an age group then criticize anecdotal ledes.
1
Thanks, slartibartfast. The thing that I'm most proud of and most committed to is great feature writing. That's why it's the thing that's not being changed at all and therefore the thing I didn't write about in that letter. We will still be publishing many long, in-depth, deeply reported feature stories every week. But we'll also be adding to our store of good feature writing with excellent columns by writers like Teju Cole and Helen Macdonald, and even poetry. I hope you enjoy!
2
Bravo!!
Hopefully it will be better. Can't be worse. Maybe florid, hothouse writing will be filtered through a real copy editor and not presented in the white as they say in the metal trade. I look forward to actually reading the magazine again. The new logo title is excellent. I hope your picture editing is as informed. Good luck.
11
Let's hope the the number one priority of the art director is readability. No light grey type on white, or teeny tiny point sizes.
80
Well, I think we can see the answer to that one.
Will you still have the crossword puzzle?
5
Hi allie,
Yes, the crossword puzzles and the Variety puzzles live! Not only that, but there are additional variety puzzles joining the group, so stay tuned.
Yes, the crossword puzzles and the Variety puzzles live! Not only that, but there are additional variety puzzles joining the group, so stay tuned.
3
Whew! Maybe make the clues a larger font? (NOT smaller!)
5
You state that the new next edition of the Times Magazine will have "more pages of advertising than in any other issue since October 2007." Is that supposed to make me want to read it more? On the contrary, it's a turn off.
217
If you work in mass media, you understand the very simple formula that the thickness of a publication is a caveman-like barometer of its overall health. More ad pages are a good thing, as they directly support the editorial investment in the book. Overall, print is dying, as more media shifts to the digital landscape- Seeing a thriving NYTMag is great.
9
Betsy Jordan, the genius of the American Economy (the god from whom few seem to be able to turn away) is marketing. And the genius of American Marketing, the First Apostle of the Economy God, is exemplified by this: one hundred and fifty years ago, no one thought that drinking sugary, colored, flavored, and carbonated water was a good thing. Nowadays, those beverages are a many billions of dollars, world-wide industry that earns profits galore, but still does no one any real good. Go figure.
The key word in your post is "more." More of everything, please, and faster, too, if you can manage that, please.
The key word in your post is "more." More of everything, please, and faster, too, if you can manage that, please.
2
Are you a fan of print? Would you like it to survive?
It's a business, for god's sake. If the magazine does not pay for itself, it will go away. 50/50 ad to edit ration is the norm, and the thin NYT Sunday Magazine was not close to that. Take a look at T or WSJ.
This from an editor who cringes when I have to break up a beautiful spread into LHPs with ad adjacencies.
It's a business, for god's sake. If the magazine does not pay for itself, it will go away. 50/50 ad to edit ration is the norm, and the thin NYT Sunday Magazine was not close to that. Take a look at T or WSJ.
This from an editor who cringes when I have to break up a beautiful spread into LHPs with ad adjacencies.
5
Oh god.
62
I hope it's not going to be as heavy every week, for the paper delivery people and the readers. It's very intense, full of advertising, and frankly off putting to read any article - if you get caught in one you know you have to wade through all those other pages, too.
2
Every long Times reader knows how serious the reporting has been in the Magazine and for a while,we were engaged by Russell Baker's wisdom and whimsy Observer essays. Times change and the Magazine has not thrived so let's embrace the renovation effort here and root for the editors to do better work online and in the print pages. And the Puzzle Page?
4
Many thanks, Mark. All the current puzzles will remain, but we'll be adding three new puzzles as well.
I love you NY Times and NY Time Magazine!
4
The Ethicists--Yoshino is concerned whether the writer has investigated the situation fully, stating, “I am left wondering whether or not this person has done his or her diligence.” One does not do diligence! One exercises due diligence in performing a task, gives an assignment its due diligence, or simply is duly diligent.
First Words—Consider: “‘Let’s get out of here’ may be the five most productive monosyllables in American movies. It confers agency on whoever says it.” Heffernan views the collection of five words (Let’s + get + out + of + here) as a single entity and so should not refer to it as “the five most productive monosyllables…” but rather as something singular like “the most productive monosyllabic line….” Doing so would also yield number agreement with the “It” with which she begins the next three sentences.
Spelling Bee--Longo’s list is not worth 23 points! Point of fact, “-ed” and “-er” are suffixes. Take away the prohibited duped, pureed, purer, purred, queered, queerer, queued, ruder, and upped, and the count is down to 14. Excellent maybe, but in this instance I suggest we penalize errors of commission one point each. Now it’s down to 5—not even good!
Do consider hiring some of your critics. I’m available. MNS, Princeton, NJ