You need cartoons to read?

Two serious publications have recently fallen to the trend of larger print, more colors, more illustrative drawings -- and less text. As of Christmas, the Economist, arguably the best English-language weekly (strong ideological bias notwithstanding), has joined most other publications in coming ever more to resemble an old-fashioned comic book. The Wall Street Journal, which used to serve its texts straight, now also seems to hold that, if I am to read an article about this year's wines then it must draw me a picture of a person drinking from a wine glass, and so on. At the rate we are going, by the year 2020 every newspaper page (assuming that there still be such a thing) will carry one word, six colors, and at least two cartoons. By the way, thanks Arianna, for keeping the Huffington Post relatively free from such infantilization.

I confess that I'm an old-fashioned guy when it comes to text (and old otherwise, having just turned 79). I would love to hear from younger readers: do they find such illustrated texts and larger print truly attractive or necessary? I try to empathize. I agree that if a text looks the way newspapers looked 100 years ago, with tiny, crowded print like the back of an airline ticket, I too shy away from reading them. Still there is a world a difference between a bit more spacing and somewhat larger fonts -- and a cacophony of flashing colors, cartoons that bleed into the text, and such merry making. Should there be no difference between the way we present an article on, say, recent developments in democratic theory and the art of cooking lasagna? Does not the way text is presented communicate a subtext about how seriously we should take the content?

Particularly annoying (at least to one reader) are the multi-layered headlines, which further cut into the space available for text, in newspapers whose pages have been trimmed and whose number of pages have been curtailed. Thus, a recent Wall Street Journal page tells me first--in a line that runs across the page -- that the section before me deals with "personal finance"; then it informs me in big letters -- and another full line -- that the subject is "Money and Investing"; another large heading indicates that a particular story is going to deal with "The Little Island That Could" before I get to read another heading which finally gives me what I need to know to decide whether I want to read the given story. (Still before I get to the text, I get to view a picture of Singapore and a map, is case I don't know what a city looks like or where the island is.) No wonder the report itself is breathless and short. It must leave room for the next multi-layered headings.

I would love to hear if other readers find these devices attractive and get them to read texts they otherwise would shun. Or, do they too prefer to be given the needed words, straight, and unadulterated?

Amitai Etzioni is University Professor at The George Washington University and most recently the author of Security First: For a muscular, moral foreign policy (Yale, 2007).  www.securityfirstbook.com

Comments

[Dave Benson]

I'm 49 so I don't know if I can offer the youngster's point of view you're looking to find, but I think I can relate something of value.

When I was younger, particularly my years prior to high school graduation, I was a voracious reader of comic books and graphic novel-type books. I wasn't a very good reader at all during my public school years and even into college. Most text-based sources of news and information consisted of large blocks of black print on a white or off-white background -- almost like the newspapers of 100 years ago, as you described.

For most of my life up until around or about age 20 I just figured I was a lazy reader, not too smart and not inspired to read. The layered headlines, the pictures with brief descriptions and the flashes of color conveyed as much information as I thought I needed without getting mired in the minutiae.

Years later it was determined that I was, and am, dyslexic. Large blocks of black print on cream colored pages are deadly to dyslexics. We have trouble processing the information. I managed to fight through it as I moved through graduate school but I still find myself yearning for the quick synopsis, or executive summary, complete with graphics, to get the information I need without slogging me down.

As we move into these more modern times I believe (and this is only an informed opinion without any research) that our new technologies and new methods for disseminating information have created a generation of readers/media consumers who have grown accustomed to gathering their information in sound bites and snippets with a graphic enhancement thrown in on the side. News, information and entertainment comes at them (and us) so fast that they don't have the time, or don't want to take the time, to do any in depth reading and analyzing. The family dining together can be looked upon as a metaphor; we (society) don't sit down to an evening dinner as families anymore, we grab a quick bit or a fast-food meal and rush to our next appointment or event. As a result of both (reading and dining) we lack proper nourishment (intellectual and physical) and knowleged (society and family).

[AFN]

I'm 34 years-old, an on-again/off-again news hound, and an avid comics fan. I remember being shocked when the New York Times first printed a color photo on its page 1 and thinking "this is the beginning of The End." Likewise with the Wall Street Journal started including color on its pages. And so it was an end of sorts. The end of intransigently stodgy institutions. Even these titans would have to kowtow to the Internet Age.

I mourn that loss for nostalgia's sake - the idea I held when I was (more of) a youngster that The Times and The Journal were papers I would come to read as a "grown up". Little did I know then that I wouldn't even be reading the actual "papers" but the electronic facsimile thereof. And for that very reason I welcome the change. Most of my communication with my dad these days surrounds the NYT articles we forward to each other via email throughout the week. Thus the makeover of these dusty old juggernauts doesn't simply serve a cosmetic purpose, but a functional one, as it brings their formidable presence to bear on what was seen (and is by some still seen) as a lightweight medium. Note that the parent companies of The Times and The Journal respectively undertook infrastructure changes that were extremely costly in time and money to produce their new "looks". From that, I can only presume that the changes were to adapt to the advent of the Internet and not for appearances alone.

Finally, I submit that comics are not infantile in and of themselves, but are in fact an equal, if not higher form of written communication than print alone. The content of a lot of products within the comics medium can be and is extremely infantile, but the form itself is one that has been crafted throughout the history of written communication (literally, history itself). There, I've said it. But for an expert treatment of this premise, I refer you to Scott McCloud's seminal work, "Understanding Comics" (http://www.scottmccloud.com/store/books/uc.html).

Truthfully, I would insist not only that you should read it, but also the producers of the very same publications you pooh-pooh above for being too "comics"-like. I think what you'll both find is that a true understanding of the comics form could substantially increase readability and generative comprehension of news and other topics of importance. Further you'll see why the mere window-dressing of colorful pictures and stacks of bold headlines simply result in lousy newspapers and worse "comics". McCloud's follow-up to "Understanding Comics" called "Reinventing Comics" (http://www.scottmccloud.com/store/books/rc.html) discusses the lessons of the comics medium, applying them to new media and information systems such as the Internet. Too much to cover here, and I've butchered what little I did. So I leave you in Mr. McCloud's capable hands.

[Dylan Valente]

I like the maps, which are helpful when the article is about a lesser-known place. Yet I agree with Prof. Etzioni about the multiple unnecessary headlines. Also, too many articles sacrifice the traditional who, what, when, where, why entry for one that reads more like a work of creative writing, making the reader wait for the basic facts. That, for me, is more of a problem than unnecessary (but eye-catching) pictures.

[social satire comics and blogs]

Cannot disagree with Prof .Etzioni, quite unnessasary headlines, but the print media will rise again,
social satire comics and blogs