Friday, August 19, 2005

 

one Jimmy Greenfield was more than enough

I didn't even need to read RedEye this morning to be disgusted. There was Jimmy Greenfield's face staring out at me -- not just from its usual position on page two, but again on page three, then again in the sports section's five on five. Come on people, one was more than enough.

Greenfield (and the various page two "columnists") represent what, to me, is RedEye's greatest flaw -- the lack of a real opinion section. Now you could argue that the Red is so hip that it can wear its opinions on its sleeve. But random snarky comments do not a column make.

Consider "PowerPoint," one of the many places where you can see Jimmy Greenfield today. It offers "insta-opinions" by two RedEye columnists on a sort-of controversy, the movement to put women with "real bodies" in advertising. Jimmy and Maegan, a quarter (COMP!) for your thoughts?

My first reaction to this feature is that it shows typical RedEye laziness. The usual way you get "insta-opinions" is REPORTING. To be fair, Red is sometimes quite good at going out and talking to people, but it doesn't seem to be something they do as a habit.

But the more serious problem with "PowerPoint" -- and all of RedEye's "opinion" features -- is that they're just opinions, and nothing more. The columnists tend to offer random assertions, personal anecdotes and (unfortunately) relationship advice. When Red occassionally draws on the idea that we're supposed have opinions about the news, we get cutesy items like "PowerPoint." I understand that it wouldn't make sense for RedEye to run 1,000-word essays. But what I wouldn't give to read a few young columnists who made it their responsibility to develop arguments about the news, rather than their own navels.

ALSO: I'm tired of being teased. It's bad enough that the Bean will only show a bit of its rear from under that tent. But does RedEye have to tell me he'll be coming out *three times* in as many pages? First, in the "EyePass" Lane on p. 3, then in a tease hed on p. 4, then the tiny story on p. 7. It gets to the point where you're using more words on your teasers and heds than your stories, people.

AND: Where did Red's editors (and the editors of a million other publications for 20-somethings) get the idea that we really love big lists of bold numbers? The "numbers" sidebars on today's first sports page are particularly unreadable. The whole point of "numbers" features -- like the original Harper's Index -- is that they unite disaparate stats in an interesting way. RedEye almost never succeeds at this.

BUT: I like the "It was a good/bad day to be..." feature on p. 13. There are ways to deliver otherwise dull news items with punch -- sometimes, RedEye actually stumbles upon one.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?