June 15, 2005
Facelift at The Washington Times
Maybe the owners of The Washington Times were getting tired of their online look, maybe they were trying to play catch up to the Post, which underwent its own re-tooling a few months back -- either way, a new, sharper looking Washington Times has made its online debut.
No longer is the site for the conservative paper -- circulation 200,000 -- a drab looking white and blue, but rather a much more dramatic red, black, and white (hence the paper's new motto: "Brighter. Bolder.").
No word yet on whether or not the paper's strident conservative editorial leanings will similarly become brighter or bolder.
|
Advertisement: DCist Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Even though they are making changes, are they still going to write shitty articles?
Just curious.
"Brighter. Bolder. Moonier."
....Still unread.
What's black and white and red all over?
The webpage of the nation's third crappiest newspaper (Sorry Sacramento Bee!).
(horrible joke. I got nothin')
Red and black? Isn't a little sad that the Times is now following trends established by the Examiner? Holy Anschutz!
Maybe My Chemical Romance are the new editors?
Well, I'm sure the articles are still horrible, but the page design is certainly better now.
Is it just me, or did they just take the Post's basic layout and tweak the colors slightly?
They do look similar, Rob. Perhaps more egregiously, I have heard rumors that the Times plans to master subject-predicate agreement sometime in the next calendar year! Could complete sentences be far behind?
Looks very German circa 1932 through 1945. Were they going for the fascist look on purpose or was that a scary coincidence? Hmmm....
My high school art teacher once told me that red and black symbolizes suicide. Holy Father would not approve. You're supposed to do it en masse with the rest of us, silly!
w.times does not have a 200,000 circulation--barely half that: http://abcas3.accessabc.com/ecirc/index.html
That looks like some kind of generic template used by college newspapers. Actually, it looks like someone took five minutes to make it in Notepad.
I think it's pretty good. I don't see any similarities between the times and the post. While I like the post's overall look, their information is overwhelming and jumbled around the page. The times seems to put some thought into laying out their content more logically, at least.
Those of you that feel motivated to commit suicide when you see black and red, please do us all the favor, have at it! You're taking up too much space as it is anyway.
Looks not really professional but better than before.
"No word yet on whether or not the paper's strident conservative editorial leanings will similarly become brighter or bolder."
Should we encourage various view points on the market place of ideas? Also, I am I the only one that finds the Washington Times breaking stories one or two days before the Post or NY Times?
Take their coverage of judicial issues for instance. Charles Hurt might be the best reporter covering this area that is not working for CQ. He was first to break the interest group memo scandal and covered it in a balanced fashion showing both how interests groups have a hold over some Democrats while outlining the illegal actions of Republican staffers.
I, for one, would be sadden to see their news coverage go, but also I find humerous how similiar their editorial coverage of so-called "war" issues is to the New Republic (a moderate to left mag.). Both take a strong defense, pro-Isreal viewpoint, with a clear belief that man's natural disposition is to do bad things.
For what its worth, I think its great there is a conservative newspaper because its brings balance to the more liberal papers out there. Your pretty much set for the day if you read the New York Times, Washington Post, and Washington Times. You get differing viewpoints on various topics of the day.
Just my thoughts.
Just to clarify, the person who posted as "ms" is not me. Same initials, but I comment as "dcist matt." Thanks for the CQ praise, though.