Weekly’s end

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Weekly’s end”.

Previous Post
Next Post
Leave a comment

6 Comments

  1. Bruce Springsteen

     /  July 15, 2014

    I read the Chapel Hill Weekly a few times. It suffered from a common local disease I call Style Over Substance. It’s explains why so many people in this area don’t consume things from this area.

    The fundamental problem with CHW as far as I could tell was that it was something whose main purpose was to be read but that made no effort to be easy to read. I’m reminded of The Far Side cartoon of the “convenience” store where all the items for sale to customers were sitting on shelves ten feet above their heads. That is CHW and many other things in Chapel Hill / Carrboro too.

    The layout was weird, the fonts were bad, the different fonts for certain names and places were bad, although it’s hard to tell whether that bad was avoidable or not as a result of the other bads. But regardless, it was just plain bad, from a readability perspective.

    Why does someone make something with the intention of having other people read it and then make it hard to read? It’s sort of like having the intention of having a town that is “affordable” for people without a high income and then ending up with a town that is unaffordable for people without a high income.

    I want to be Mister Universe so my plan is to sit on my couch watching TV and eating twinkies for the next six months. What do you think the chances are that I’ll succeed?

  2. many

     /  July 15, 2014

    Bruce,

    Interesting point. It seems to me there are two factors ate work:

    1) Human Factors: readability, layout, choice of fonts, colors, placement, distractions, number of “clicks” etc.

    2) Content: choice of subject, depth of discussion, separation of fact from opinion from fiction etc.

    Lately I have been disappointed by some of the usual suspects (INDY, DTH, CHN in particular). It seems to me that they have gotten somewhat better in category 1 they have gotten much worse in category 2.

    Style over substance describes it well, but for me it’s the content that is bad, not so much the “style”

  3. Del Snow

     /  July 16, 2014

    I agree, many. We have a need for in-depth journalism, but the cruel truth is that the money for it just isn’t there. The CHN does the best it can with very limited resources, as do the other print media, but doubtlessly, it is not enough. The Carrboro Citizen put in a great effort and, even so, it is no longer here.

    My fantasy would be that all of the concern would help to fund real fact-based news, but I don’t think
    that it will really happen.

    And, thanks to Nancy for taking on such a time consuming job transcribing the real estate transactions!

  4. David

     /  July 17, 2014

    If we view quality journalism as a valuable public service, as something necessary for the proper functioning of a democracy, then perhaps we need to consider taxing ourselves to provide funding for a local newspaper. Call it “1 cent for truth.”

  5. Bruce Springsteen

     /  July 20, 2014

    “Publicly funded quality journalism” seems to me to be an oxymoron since the people in charge of doing the public funding are often the ones in need of being journalized.

  6. Chris Glasser

     /  February 26, 2015

    Sorry to hear about another small town read meeting it’s end. Always will have fond memories of the Chapel Hill/Carrboro area and my frequented haunts from the late ’80’s through the mid ’90’s when I worked at RDU. Rest in peace and best to all those whose extended efforts kept it alive up to this point.