Is the Guardian worse than it used to be?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
My feeling is: Yes, somewhat. But Regular Readers will recall that I am a curmudgeon who doesn't like New Things. So do they really want to agree with me here? Plus, we do have (somewhere round here) a house Guardian expert whose opinion would be interesting.

the pinefox, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Some readers might, conceivably, like to know that the Guardian (formerly Manchester Guardian) is a UK daily newspaper which has for several decades been the main print source / gathering-point, as it were, for those on 'The Liberal Left'. Many UK ILE posters, I imagine, know it very well and have done for many years, so I thought there might be some opinions around.

the pinefox, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

I like the Guardian now more than I have for years. Perhaps the restyle of the mag helped, but generally the Burchill thing works for me and I haven't noticed a drop in quality elsewhere. The Guide has always been shite (and I say that working for PA Listings) but the rest seems cool. Can you specify what's gone wrong for you?

chris, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

I hate the Guardian - particularly the G2 section, with it's crappy 'think' pieces, terrible arts reviews and smug phillistinism - and have bought it every weekday and Saturdays for at least the last fifteen years. Because, being a bleeding heart liberal and a news junkie, I couldn't bring myself to read any of the other rags (morning papers are somehow part of my going to work coping ritual.) I flirted with the Independent for a while - and the IOS still has the great film critic David Thomson writing for 'em - but I found it to be even more boring than the Guardian. I suspect that I am far from alone in all this, and that the Guardian survives on the unearned good will of the liberal middle classes.

Funnily enough, I quite like the Guide, partly because Joe Queenan and Byron Coley sometimes write for it, partly because it means I no longer have to buy that useless piece of toss Time Out anymore.

Andrew L, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

I've never actually bought a copy of the Guardian, if I did buy a newspaper I'd get the Telegraph, it has a good weather section, obituaries, world news briefs and I like the sports section.

james e l, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

I suppose the short answer is 'Trivialization'. One has to be a tad careful using a word like that, because, for instance,

1. The simplification of the accusation may just echo what it asserts about the target (just as 'Dumbing Down' is a dumb, dull phrase);

2. If I don't like Triviality, why don't I read nothing but 10-page reports from the former Yugoslavia? It would be hypocritical of me to say that I simply wanted them to be SERIOUS and SOLEMN and RESPONSIBLE all the time. No, that's not it.

What I mean, I suppose, is that too many features, esp. in G2, now look dashed-off - half-hearted, half-baked, unconvincing, just cliché pies really. Today's Lara Croft piece was just the latest of a million examples. It feels (the terms are problematic here, I know) JOURNALISTIC in a bad way - trite, unconsidered, full of crowd- pleasing Received Ideas - rather than JOURNALISTIC in a good way (that is: dogged, resourceful, brave, mentally agile, snappy and what have you).

It's the world of second-hand Lifestyle phrases that bugs me. The way that adults can still write a phrase like "*that* dress" and not hang their heads in shame.

A rider to all my bile, though, is that my previous, more impressed impressions of the Guardian may just reflect youthful impressionability. (Sentence!) Maybe the same kind of crap used to impress me that now feels rubbishy, faux-zeitgeisty and embarrassing? Maybe, but I suspect it's a bit of both.

the pinefox, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Andrew L: I know what you mean - the Labour party factor of Nowhere Else To Go? (And brand loyalty, or whatever you want to call it.) There's actually a Verso book out (yet?) which makes a massive attack on the Guardian as home of neo-conservative (ie New Labour) ideas. I find this rather unconvincing and overstated. Even offensive, come to think of it.

I agree about Queenan too. But most of all, I agree about Thomson. There's almost no point having a thread about Thomson, because people who know what they think about him already know it all and would just send in superlatives.

the pinefox, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Andrew L, and indeed everyone: cut em loose and let em drown in their own smug laziness!! I stopped buying it a YEAR ago FOREVER and now buy NO NEWSPAPER and am FREE. (Actually I too buy saturday for the guide — and for the food page in the mag, but the mag redesign is utter shit, and the recipes are in fact on long recycle: eg I have seen Lady Llandower's Duck three times now, always copied (of course) from Elizabeth David Salt, Spices and Aromatics...) The age of the newspaper is dead.

mark s, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Something has clearly gone wrong with G2: the other week they ran a page-long feature on the phenomenon of "Jumping the shark" (referring to that moment when a long-running tv fave finally loses the plot completely, apparently derived from a late episode of Happy Days where Fonzie, yes, jumped a shark). This was all well and good (except it was inane and ripped off from a website [this is a whole other can of worms]), but they ran an almost IDENTICAL story in the Guide not two weeks previously. Do they not read their own paper, or did they simply think the readers wouldn't notice?

What the paper still has going for it: George Monbiot's column, the Diary, Steve Bell, giving review space to Ians Sansom and Penman, and the tv columns of Nancy Banks-Smith. (When N B-S finally pops her clogs I will have to think very hard about buying the paper.)

What is leading the paper ever closer to the abyss: consistently terrible pop coverage (honorable exceptions: Maddy Costa, Betty Clarke); the fatuous new Saturday mag (Zoe Ball on dressing? match the celebrity with the pet? that awful woman talking about words that should be banned??); Charlotte bloody Raven.

stevie t, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

What I mean, I suppose, is that too many features, esp. in G2, now look dashed-off - half-hearted, half-baked, unconvincing, just cliché pies really. (Pinefox)

I agree with you there. They sucker you in with the G2 front cover (and the masthead of the main paper), but when you get to read the cover story it often appears cobbled together and lightweight. I imagine it must be difficult to fill that space with high quality stories day in day out though.

David, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Stevie: agree about Steve Bell, of course. I mean, if only for the sake of 1981 and all that. But actually, he draws and paints better now.

I actually like Peter Preston's awkward, staccato opinion pieces, come to think of it. But not the pompous ones of Hugo Young. Freedland is sometimes good at summing political issues up, but usually he 'sums up' too much - there's too much glibness in the way he marshals it all. (I admit again, though, that it's easy - even glib - to call someone glib.)

Penman strikes me as a red herring. I can see that he doesn't do that to you, cos you have some kind of investment in his career. I agree about Sansom (great left-back, mean penalty, blah blah) - in fact I think that the whole Saturday book reviews section is quite possibly the best feature of the paper. EXCEPT of course the footy. Heroes? How could I forget David Lacey?

BUT I think that you are wrong about N B-S. It doesn't surprise me that older folk make that judgement about her; it does rather surprise me coming from you. She has skills, I guess, but she's terribly repetitive; uses the same lines on the same topics year in year out. It's all too - yes - glib and easy, while dressed up to look aged and thus wise.

the pinefox, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

I agree with much of what's been said. After Mark Steel and Jeremy Hardy went, it didn't seem as essential anymore. The Observer's the same - just dear old Phil Hogan that still makes me go down the shops Sunday morning

jamesmichaelward, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

My parents used to get a subscription to the Guardian shipped to them for the first few years they were in the States, because they couldn't trust the US Media. The Guardian just isn't the same when it's not printed on that semi-transluscent airmail paper.

I only read it for the Guide and the job listings. Not that either has been particularly helpful lately... ;-)

masonic boom, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Steve Bell is a GOD but apart from that I read it largely out of having nowhere else to go and a worry that I'll become totally detached from the world if I don't read any newspapers at all. I think it might have marginally improved with the loss of Messrs. Hardy and Steel though. Everything they wrote was just as predictable and smug as any of the other writers mentioned above, only with a more left wing stance.

Richard Tunnicliffe, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

I don't read anything except the Spectator. Hey Chris, if you work for PA Listings then that means you're in the same building as me.

tarden, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

The Guide last week (or was it the week before) had that BRILLIANT article slamming not just the Strokes, but the entire music hype industry... VERY funny because it was so clearly written by an insider who had been participating in the music hype game for so long.

masonic boom, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

I'd love to comment, but those Observer commissions are keeping me out of the poor house. Anything appearing in the Guardian or the Obs by my deepest and dearest friends is obviously genius...

Mark Morris, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

As bad as the Guardian may have become, it's still better than the so-called "best" American newspapers. Or, if you think it couldn't get worse, it could end up becoming The New York Times or The Washington Post.

Tadeusz Suchodolski, Friday, 6 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Reynard's right about the amount of trivial toss that gets in there. Mark's also right about the decline of the newspaper in general. Reynard's spot on re. New Labour - the Guardian's frequent criticism of some Blairite attitudes is one of the great things about it.

There's a lot of irritating stuff, yes. My favourite columnist is George Monbiot, by a mile. Something I like about the Independent when I do get it is that its liberalism is less metropolitan and more about the common good. Needless to say, though, the Guardian's series of articles on public service under that very title were awesome.

The Hemulen Who Loved Silence, Friday, 6 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

OK, agree with the Hemulen re. The Common Good.

Today's G2 seems designed to add fuel to my (f)ire: one page of 'Style' after another, including a column on Why We're So Disappointed That Madonna Employs A Stylist.

the pinefox, Friday, 6 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Although Toynbee's piece on Labour post-election is admirable.

blue veils and golden sands, Friday, 6 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Broadly I agree with her, yes. It feels a wee bit ironic given her immediately-pre-election pieces telling everyone how urgent it was to overcome apathy and vote for the people she's now criticizing. (But actually I think she was right both times.)

Also good in Guardian: John Patterson re. cinema.

the pinefox, Friday, 6 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

six years pass...

oh god, ask hadley today is just... tooth-grinding.

Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

"today"

Dom Passantino, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

"At what age is a man too old to wear band T-shirts?"

Martin McCall, by email

"About 15 - that young enough for you, Martin? And to follow one rhetorical question with several more, what in God's name is the point of band T-shirts anyway? To show your allegiance to a band? Do you think anyone else cares? To impress onlookers with your esoteric musical knowledge? See previous reply. To make people stare at your bony chest? Again, I refer you to the first answer. To show that you once attended a live gig? Wow, like, a pair of golden headsets to the guy in the Nirvana '91 T-shirt. In case you happen to bump into the lead singer on the street, he sees that the two of you are kindred souls and therefore invites you to join his band and you then go on the road and have all the manly bonding sessions followed by groupies that your heart could desire? OK, I'll give you that one, although this does suggest that you still harbour the fantasy that you might bump into Joey Ramone in Waterstone's.

"As for ladies in band T-shirts, give me a fricking break. First, gals, a badly cut, poorly made, oversized T-shirt is good for nothing other than wearing to bed and the gym. Second, too often women who wear band T-shirts appear to be going for what we shall call Groupie Chic. It is a style amply modelled by Kate Moss in recent years, and can pretty much be summed up as skinny faded black jeans, ankle boots, a ripped band T-shirt and a cropped fur jacket. In other words, a girlified version of Marc Bolan's or Keith Richards' wardrobe, as though the woman has been so busy, um, sleeping on the band bus she hasn't had time to clean her clothes, so she's now wearing ones belonging to her musical companion. This column has no time for such nonsense."

Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah, because women have *no* interest in music whatsoever except for sleeping with musicians. What CENTURY is this cretin from?

Masonic Boom, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

I think I stopped wearing band T-shirts by the time I was 23. It wasn't necessarily a conscious move tho. I doubt I will ever wear one again tho - I guess it seems lame unless it's an old obscure or overlooked thus hip act (even this I dunno about). I don't notice many people over 20 wearing them. Does Matt DC still have that Save Ferris T?

I only want to sleep with musicians if they are hot as they are (their musical ability is pretty irrelevant in fact).

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:29 (ten years ago) Permalink

dear teh grauniad - a long time ago/we used to be friends...

CharlieNo4, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

It went downhill after I left.

Dom Passantino, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

or were you PUSHED?

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:35 (ten years ago) Permalink

i was being harsh really. i don't care what's on other people's t-shirts that much. just trying to work out why i stopped wearing/wouldn't wear band t-shirts myself.

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

Any t-shirt which isn't plain white clearly sucks that's why.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:38 (ten years ago) Permalink

i couldn't agree less

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:40 (ten years ago) Permalink

I still wear band t-shirts if I like the band. Why not? I don't *define* myself or my personality by my music tastes any more, I haven't done that since I was about 18. But that's not the same thing as wearing a band t-shirt.

I suppose the fashion journalist in discussion cannot fathom the idea that clothes are just something you put on, rather than a definition of or statement about your personality.

This is definitely something that happens as you age - or rather, has happened to me as I aged. There's a subtle difference between Statement Clothes and just things you put on.

Masonic Boom, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:40 (ten years ago) Permalink

Guardian editorial worldview circa 2007:

http://www.astucia.co.uk/images/sce/galibier%20tunnel%20_three.jpg

tissp, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

why else would you buy a band t-shirt if not as a statement or definition of personality?

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

I didn't know it was a band t-shirt okay?

Matt DC, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

because you're cold xp

tissp, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

In the past I've usually just bought them as a keepsake of a gig I've enjoyed. The piece tracer quotes is idiotic fluff, obv. I'd be embarrased to admit I'd written that.

Pashmina, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

Because you like the design? Because you like the music? Because it was given to you (this is where most of mine come from)? Because it was a souvenier?

x-post

Masonic Boom, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

you wouldn't actually buy a band t-shirt because you liked the design but not necessarily the band tho...would you?

because you like the music = statement/definition of you/your taste

given to you = not you buying

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

you wouldn't actually buy a band t-shirt because you liked the design but not necessarily the band tho...would you?

No, plus I've only ever bought them @ gigs.

because you like the music = statement/definition of you/your taste

Probably yeah, but w/smaller bands there's also the knowledge that in buying it, yr helping to supposrt the tour.

Pashmina, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

i actually bought a comets on fire t-shirt solely because the design was so awesome. (it was at a gig, but they hadn't come on stage yet.) then i heard the music and i liked that too. i suppose if i hadn't liked their music, or thought it was boring, it would have posed a problem.

a friend of mine, who shall remain nameless so that alex in nyc doesn't stalk and kill him, bought a huge iron maiden patch when he was 14 and sewed it across the shoulders of his denim jacket. he had never heard a note of iron maiden, but he wound up becoming the biggest iron maiden fan i know, and even sung in a band later, where his vocal style was almost inseparable from bruce dickinson's.

Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

my take on this: do not read hadley freeman.

this resolution made some time ago, stands as strong today as it ever did.

it's a crass and deliberately invidious piece of writing. such an attitude, if sincerely held, could be turned around on pretty much ANY choice of clothing. so forgeddaboudit

Alan, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

the last band t-shirt i bought - robyn!

alan i can't help myself, i know i'm sick and need help.

Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

is there a thread for best band t-shirts? must see

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

Taste is something that I have. It does not define me. Clothes are something I wear. The statement I am making is "I don't really care about clothes any more."

If I'm going to make a statement about clothes, I'll wear a bright green paisley jacket to a dronerock festival where everyone else is in leather.

I suppose my Hawkwind t-shirt is a statement, it says "ha ha, I'm wearing a Hawkwind t-shirt, I care nothing for fashion, I am wearing the shirt of a band so deeply uncool you can suck my left one because I love them!" But it's certainly not a statement saying that I want to f*ck any of Hawkwind or that I have a musician boyfriend whose Hawkwind t-shirt I'm borrowing, which is the assumption of that article.

Masonic Boom, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

> I don't notice many people over 20 wearing them.

*SOBS*

> you wouldn't actually buy a band t-shirt because you liked the design but not necessarily the band tho...would you?

EAR t-shirt with the putney on the front = great. EAR live = terrible. (EAR on CD = ok, plus pram and stereolab were supporting)

koogs, Monday, 3 September 2007 15:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

well that sucks, mason is/was great

i look forward to welcoming their new, more affordable, craven centrist columnists

pee-wee and the power men (bizarro gazzara), Monday, 15 January 2018 15:58 (five days ago) Permalink

Giles Fraser is also going I think? my impression was that Orr and Fraser's columns were reliably awful, Mason sometimes wrote interesting stuff but also had some terrible positions - I feel like are a lot of better candidates for the role of token pro-Corbyn commentator if you're looking at it from that angle. I guess it depends who they're replaced with?

soref, Monday, 15 January 2018 16:00 (five days ago) Permalink

Deborah was talking up zero hour contracts as a good thing, then karma intervened....

calzino, Monday, 15 January 2018 16:01 (five days ago) Permalink

Orr’s comment pieces were abysmal but I don’t think her proper journalism was considered that bad.

Mason turned into a bit of a joke figure on the left but he was, at least, a break from centrism.

Wag1 Shree Rajneesh (ShariVari), Monday, 15 January 2018 16:04 (five days ago) Permalink

In memorium:

@stoya come to Athens - the revolution is happening

— Paul Mason (@paulmasonnews) January 25, 2015

Wag1 Shree Rajneesh (ShariVari), Monday, 15 January 2018 16:04 (five days ago) Permalink

Deba re de dee deba re de dee
O Deborah
You dress like an art teacher
Your sunken face is like a galleon
Clothed with bad takes of the Spanish Main, O Deborah

Ni ni ni ni ni

But doctor, I am Camille Paglia (Bananaman Begins), Monday, 15 January 2018 16:11 (five days ago) Permalink

delet

mark s, Monday, 15 January 2018 16:11 (five days ago) Permalink

Once you @ a porn star on twitter, that's just who you are from then on. There isn't a way back.

But doctor, I am Camille Paglia (Bananaman Begins), Monday, 15 January 2018 16:12 (five days ago) Permalink

I'm sure Deborah Orr wasn't always as awful as she became over the last five years or so. Mason is no great loss but the fact that Simon Jenkins is still there is inexplicable.

Matt DC, Monday, 15 January 2018 16:19 (five days ago) Permalink

the only reason I can think of why Jenkins is still there = there is a contingent of older tory-leaning people who have nevertheless always bought the Guardian because they think it's better written than it's right wing competitors, if they get rid of Jenkins some of these people might start buying the Times instead? (esp because they are now both tabloids and the Times is 60p cheaper, and these readers are some of the last folks actually paying money to read the Guardian?)

soref, Monday, 15 January 2018 16:27 (five days ago) Permalink

slightly wondering if there's contractual -- or just practical* -- reasons not to have said goodbye to him yesterday, along with the old typeface and some of more the junior faces

*a redesign is often stepped (not least because you basically need two entire staffs to negotiate it): the major layout elements done week 1, say, other changes week 2,3 etc): but because of the change of format here this p much all has to go at once, up on day one

the crisis-management practicalities of firing a high-profile figure in the london media establishment -- with him able to secretly leak demoralising scuttlebutt etc, from the moment of his notice -- *could* be a reason to punt this for a week or a month (ppl might have judged orr is a basically a guardianista loyalist at some level, however grumpy she may feel over the next few weeks; jenkins is an ideological foe)

or they could think he'a good not bad

mark s, Monday, 15 January 2018 16:34 (five days ago) Permalink

The analytics almost certainly play a big role as well and Jenkins' form of highly shareable trolling is a guaranteed source of traffic. Guessing Monbiot is still there as well.

Matt DC, Monday, 15 January 2018 16:43 (five days ago) Permalink

(To clarify I don't think Monbiot is trolling but some of the more outrageous headlines attached to his pieces serve a similar function)

Matt DC, Monday, 15 January 2018 16:44 (five days ago) Permalink

the change of the contrib guard is bound to come out in blibs and blobs a bit, isn't it, if only because the pundits aren't all run on the same day?

i slightly decoded viner's five points as a step away from clickbait praxis but not holding my breath: i actually like the new look but i think the attendant announcement has been super-feeble

mark s, Monday, 15 January 2018 16:53 (five days ago) Permalink

TBH this just results in me putting together a fantasy league team worth of columists I would drop.

Matt DC, Monday, 15 January 2018 17:21 (five days ago) Permalink

weird that they led with rhik samadder on their first front page, isn't he just one their ex-guide clickbait writers?

Chuck_Tatum, Monday, 15 January 2018 17:24 (five days ago) Permalink

'praxis' - A.H. Wilson

the pinefox, Monday, 15 January 2018 17:25 (five days ago) Permalink

I don't see much reason to suppose that any columnists are dropped, until it turns out they're dropped?

Unlike others, I don't dislike Jenkins as a writer. In fact simply as a writer of prose he is far better than most of them. I agree with about 50% of what he says, while usually feeling threatened, angered or alarmed by other 50%. I don't think he is a simple 'right-winger'. More a 'classical liberal' or the like.

I once told Alba (of ilx) I thought SJ was a CAVALIER and was very glad that he agreed.

the pinefox, Monday, 15 January 2018 17:28 (five days ago) Permalink

I went out to buy the new Guardian.

There was just one tattered copy left in Marks & Spencer.

No copies left at all in WH Smith.

A Guardian frenzy!

Then I found a deep pile remaining in Sainsbury's.

The paper looks substantial to me, ie: it will take me days to get through it.

the pinefox, Monday, 15 January 2018 17:29 (five days ago) Permalink

Lol.

Do not like the new masthead, social media logos etc.

If only the Guardian read ilxor.com user LBI's opinion on this, this would be reversed in no time, I know I know (it's not that serious)

♫ very clever with maracas.jpg ♫ (Le Bateau Ivre), Monday, 15 January 2018 17:56 (five days ago) Permalink

am i right in thinking they're using an FT-style off white background on the website to denote columnists? could they perhaps change the body text on those pages to the same off-white colour?

𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Monday, 15 January 2018 19:05 (five days ago) Permalink

You're not wrong, by the looks of it.

♫ very clever with maracas.jpg ♫ (Le Bateau Ivre), Monday, 15 January 2018 19:08 (five days ago) Permalink

the formatting of the new logo on twitter is abysmal but i like the new masthead font

in twelve parts (lamonti), Tuesday, 16 January 2018 08:21 (four days ago) Permalink

New masthead typeface is horrible, I wasn’t much a gnat of the old one. Eff a serif.

American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Tuesday, 16 January 2018 09:06 (four days ago) Permalink

So. I've looked at the website on a number of different devices now, and it definitely looks different on different screens. But isn't it a bit odd that Factual Reporting aka Truth is pristine white, Official Guardian Opinions are a pale pinky colour, and Comment Is Free is kind of... brown?

Did no one think through the visual semiotics of that?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTqA0HhWAAEXPRo?format=jpg

Einstürzende NEU!bauten (Branwell with an N), Tuesday, 16 January 2018 10:48 (four days ago) Permalink

"Comment Is Free" has always been full of brown

hell is auteur people (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 16 January 2018 10:50 (four days ago) Permalink

Culture is beige.

nashwan, Tuesday, 16 January 2018 10:57 (four days ago) Permalink

I'm not expecting to grow flowers in a desert
But I can live and breathe
And see the sun in wintertime
In a third country dreams stay with you
Like a lover's voice fires the mountainside
Stay alive

But doctor, I am Camille Paglia (Bananaman Begins), Tuesday, 16 January 2018 11:11 (four days ago) Permalink

Not entirely sure about the white text on black background thing tbh.

https://s10.postimg.org/4i7ba7uhl/Guardian.png

Wag1 Shree Rajneesh (ShariVari), Tuesday, 16 January 2018 11:15 (four days ago) Permalink

I don't get why the single-G icon (on the app eg) is so different from the masthead G

stet, Tuesday, 16 January 2018 11:26 (four days ago) Permalink

so that it fits symmetrically into the circular twitter profile badge

but i'm not sure that's worth messing with the first letter of your new logo tbh

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 16 January 2018 11:31 (four days ago) Permalink

yikes - the black and white in the new app is stark

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 16 January 2018 12:33 (four days ago) Permalink

Stark and also very boring

Blacks should be slightly off-black or grey on the web - true black is kinda hard to read

I don't understand why designers don't understand that high contrasts are hard for people (especially older people) to read

Chuck_Tatum, Tuesday, 16 January 2018 12:36 (four days ago) Permalink

everyone seems to be forgetting the blue was extremely shit

ogmor, Tuesday, 16 January 2018 13:35 (four days ago) Permalink

i like the new font!

ogmor, Tuesday, 16 January 2018 13:35 (four days ago) Permalink

This could work

https://i.imgur.com/AE17Yws.png

Algerian Goalkeeper (Odysseus), Tuesday, 16 January 2018 23:01 (four days ago) Permalink

Initial conclusions:

I like the tabloid a lot less than the Berliner. I was very fond of the Berliner and admired much of its design, each time I read the sports pages for instance. I mostly don't admire the new design. I also don't think the tabloid is easier to handle: on the contrary.

The website seems considerably worse to me, partly in how it handles but mainly how it looks.

While there were economic reasons to go tabloid, I don't think there were good aesthetic reasons to change the design. It seems an unforced error.

It all makes me think I will read the Guardian less in future, whether online or in print.

Mind you, it is now 17 years since I wondered whether the Guardian was worse than it used to be.

the pinefox, Thursday, 18 January 2018 08:48 (two days ago) Permalink

17!

Madchen, Thursday, 18 January 2018 09:04 (two days ago) Permalink

I'm finding it annoying that some text on the homepage is the same purple colour used as the internet's standard colour for hyperlinks you have already clicked on.

Madchen, Thursday, 18 January 2018 12:47 (two days ago) Permalink

It's the colour that throws me off in general w/ the new site. It's all every unbalanced and (relatively) restless to my eyes, compared with how it was.

♫ very clever with maracas.jpg ♫ (Le Bateau Ivre), Thursday, 18 January 2018 12:50 (two days ago) Permalink

I hate all the lines.

I don't understand why designers don't understand that high contrasts are hard for people (especially older people) to read

Some sites (iirc the 2012 Olmypics for example) have in the past offered 'high contrast' stylesheets (white text on black or near black, very strong colours e.g. cyan for links) to actually cater more for greater readability but it's never been easy to judge what works best for who and why here.

nashwan, Thursday, 18 January 2018 13:02 (two days ago) Permalink

The garish star rating on images for reviewed media is bad too. Suggests the star rating isn't important enough to retain the space it had before yet more important than showing all of an image. The bigger problem remains pretty much everything getting three or four stars though so could've been a good opportunity to alter that system and save space. Should've gone with emoji imo.

nashwan, Thursday, 18 January 2018 13:05 (two days ago) Permalink

I also hate the lines - I've had a couple discussions at work about the redesign (part of my job is website UX) and they are all variants on "wtf were they thinking with those lines".

The paper is fine, it's just a little sad and boring, kinda easy to mistake for the Times or Evening Standard. Two quid a day seems... untenable.

Chuck_Tatum, Thursday, 18 January 2018 13:17 (two days ago) Permalink

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jan/18/elena-ferrante-to-become-guardian-weekends-new-columnist

This is an excellent move, seriously.

Matt DC, Thursday, 18 January 2018 14:19 (two days ago) Permalink

"Yet, when Hodgson allows himself a second to contemplate, he can acknowledge some would spy romance in last autumn’s return."

The Guardian's typical omission of the word "that" sometimes makes their sentences temporarily confusing for me.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jan/19/roy-hodgson-interview-crystal-palace-manager

the pinefox, Saturday, 20 January 2018 11:21 (seven hours ago) Permalink

Took me a while to find the guardian this morning - it was hiding with all the other tabloids, not on the broadsheet shelf where it normally is.

Thought the review section looked at but feeble when I picked it out but the smaller size is handy and the paper stock is better.

They've ditched the weekly film recommendations in the TV bit (I think, maybe they've just moved it). That used to be handy.

koogs, Saturday, 20 January 2018 12:41 (six hours ago) Permalink

enjoyed Grace Dent dropping a casual Sylvie Krin-esque mention of her handbag worth the thick end of a grand into her food review today

thirst trap your hare (DJ Mencap), Saturday, 20 January 2018 12:48 (six hours ago) Permalink

brands as shorthand or juxtaposition is kind of her thing though, innit. like mentioning Findus Crispy Pancakes at the other end of the spectrum.

kinder, Saturday, 20 January 2018 13:38 (five hours ago) Permalink

Where's Harangue The DJ gone?

mike t-diva, Saturday, 20 January 2018 18:37 (twenty-four minutes ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.