First let's ask the simple question: why choose now to make a hit and run attack upon the forum posts of CFP.com - especially in such old forum posts? Rhetorical, pay no mind.

Next, I'll answer your questions one by one:

"Sounds like journalism is lost if this is the future: Standing around staring "in awe" at a page design. That is not journalism. If you're not practicing it properly now, it's all downhill from here."

Staring in awe at a good examples serves to guide us in the right direction. Look at the newspapers who comprehend the direction journalism should be going - the direction of adaptation. Then look at the ones are who are stagnating and wonder what they're NOT doing. Besides a whole lot of things, they are not heeding the warnings and trends of their fellow journalists. As students, it is definitely our job to watch those such as the VP and the Collegiate Times who will help lede the way. We should be standing in awe of those papers and discussing why it works but only for a short time while we execute that type of expert journalism in our own way - custom tailored for our own audiences. Simply wandering around like morons will do nothing more than secure our inevitable death.

"It won't do much for you if you forget everything as soon as you're hired at a newspaper, and I see that a lot. There's a reason why professors are harsh if you botch a name in a story or series. If you're just going to say, "The desk should have caught that" and go right back to poring over the SND annual, then you shouldn't have gone to J-school, and you shouldn't be in a newsroom. "

Your heart is in the right place and your example solid, but your major premise could not be more wrong. Yes you should be a good critic of yourself and constantly double check what you do but being a good journalist is not about drills and classroom assignments.

Being a journalist, more than anything, is about thinking and conveying messages in all forms. You don't need school to teach you that, you need life experiences, curiosity and and natural ability to communicate. I currently work with two people who did not have the chance of attending a journalism school because the major didn't exist where they graduated. But they are much better writers than average journalists because they are naturally curious and naturally writers. The rest comes from angry editors and pissed off copy editors teaching them style and organizational skills. Yes it's frustrating and may take a while, but they will be far better journalists than anyone who graduated from a J-school - that I can guarantee.

And to be more on point, your attitude is not becoming 1) of a graduate or 2) of someone who understands journalism. Instead of offering some kind of insight into our discussion, you simply attempt to knock us down. But it's too bad that you spend your time crusading against good journalism. It's unfortunate you've made it to CFP.com to do the same. But I suspect you'll soon find the world of journalism changing before your eyes and much like a sperm who cannot enter an egg, you will spend the rest of your life smashing your head against the soft outer shell thinking: "I could've been somebody."

Mike:

Your misspelling of my name is precisely what I am talking about. You seem to have missed the point entirely.

Younger journalists such as yourself seem to have a far different view of journalism than I remember my peers having.

Most of the rest of your post is so far off the cliff that it's not worth responding to. Again, that simply shows how things have changed. You and your peers probably haven't been focused on writing for so long that you can't express yourself well in that format. You think it's all about visuals, and thus, you're sunk in a format like this one.

I will comment on the last paragraph, though. I hear this sentiment from your peers often; they think somehow they'll be the ones to "save journalism." However, I've heard this for a few years now, and not much saving has occurred. If anything, you are rapidly losing the chance to save the tattered remains of the industry, and quite a bit of that decline is the result of the misguided belief in "visual journalism."

You say I crusade against good journalism. I say I crusade against its most corrupt forms, which are driven by the lie that somehow visuals are more important than content. Apparently you have chosen to believe the lie, though, and nothing will shake you from it. To build upon your example, you already have aborted your credibility by doing so. You and your fellow young designers are simply the back-alley abortion providers, bending your wire hangers into elaborate shapes and twisting logic as you do so. Then you use these hangers to rip life itself from the womb of the industry you claim to be saving.

I don't see "sudents" creating a better end product, though. I see people drooling about a finished product. Those are two different things.

The "criticizms" stem from hearing the same non-constructive "criticizms" in newsrooms and at design sites. So I respond in kind.

The difference, though, is there's no proof the design approach has done anything other than lower the quality of the product and alienate readers. You say it works; I say it doesn't. The difference is you have no proof to back up what you say. Simply chanting an opinion again and again doesn't make it fact, despite what designers think. Sooner or later -- or in this case, much, much later -- the design crowd has to offer some tangible results.

I hope that clears up your confusion.

First of all, you're kind of clown for using spelling errors as a way of asserting your professionalism and superiority. You spelled things wrong in your last few posts but we didn't complain, so shut the hell up. Now that that's out of the way, let's respond to your poorly thought out agenda against designers.

There is no proof that average news writing has done anything other than lower the quality of the product and alienate readers. From overly convoluted words and concepts to elementary and painfully simplistic writing, to formulaic, easy to predict styles, writing has done nothing in the way of encouraging readers to pick up a newspaper. You say it works; it doesn't. The difference is, I have proof to back up what I say from EyeTracker studies and the like. Where you have proof that your craft is failing, I have relative examples that are based on audience needs that prove people like organization and layout, not to mention beautifully executed creativity. Let's see you make a newspaper that is all stories and headlines and not even layed out, just kind of pasted where ever it fits.

Simply chanting an opinion again and again doesn't make it fact, despite what writers think. Sooner or later - in in this case, much, much sooner - the writer crowd has to start thinking about their audience instead of themselves and start writing for them and doing it well and maybe when that happens they will be able to produce statistics that prove people read stories and enjoy them rather than begrudgingly put up with them in order to suck any information they can out of what their eyes of the misfortunate of skimming.

I hope that clears up your confusion.

In response to your slightly less angry rant, what you don't understand is that clinging to the old way of journalism from your peers is not the answer either.

If you want to talk about the answer; it involves a rethinking of journalism entirely. Visual journalism is not the answer but neither is the bullshit you call writing. Our readers are sick of us and if you want to access them, you must write and design for them in a way they want.

Look at why blogs and reality TV are popular. As a writer and a designer, I think they are both pure crap. But I'm wrong because it doesn't matter what I think anymore, it matters what the reader likes and if that's what they like, you give it to them. Holding back and pretending it doesn't exist is what really alienates readers. So if you want to talk about the future of journalism, you're going to be wrong because frankly, you're too damned old and stuck in your ways to understand what comes next.

But again, thanks for trying.

Okay tiny, I will play your game with you for a minute. I've been researching you (yes, I have enough time on my hands to google your name and read your posts about BFD.com and etc.). I will give you this, you're not completely ignorant.

You seem to actually be on a crusade for better journalism as a whole. But your abysmal failure at communicating is what's holding you back. You spend too much time hating on anything that is trying to access readers. But at the same time, you like successful papers such as the Kansas City Star. I was pleasantly surprised that you enjoyed that explosion page but it occurred to me you liked it because the story, headlines, picture and page came together as a whole to create a better story. Which means deep down inside your demon heart, you are still a journalist.

But then I realized you're a walking contradiction: You say we spend our time drooling over pages while you devote entire hours of your life posting about how much you hate something instead of trying to make it better. And no, posting everywhere does not make anything better, you simply make people hate you and not want to listen. But luckily for you, I will listen.

So please, please, please, before you continue your unending rants, tell me what it is you are actually trying to do. What goal do you seek? What, to you, is good journalism, and dare I ask, good design? What are you trying to accomplish?

But for fun (because I know you crave it so), let's respond to your most recent response.

First of all, you have neglected to make any relevant point whatsoever.

Second of all, I copied your style with half-baked logic. Hmm, figure that sentence out.

Third of all, what, master debater, is attracting more readers?

Fourth of all, circulation has declined, readership has not. Get your words right. I happen to work at a newspaper whose circulation AND readership has increased. This is happening everywhere. Where's your retort (in the form of facts)?

Fifth of all, what the fuck are you talking about? Do you even know anymore?

Sixth of all, stop bitching about misspelled words.

I await your generic response with nearly abaited breath.

"Abaited breath" -- wow. You just keep digging yourself a bigger hole in the writing turf. Well, I guess I should give you that "generic response" since you're actually trying to grasp the point now and not just chanting. You're sort of all over the place, so I'm not sure exactly what answer you want.

First, I have to correct yet another erroneous sentence of yours. I said you made a weak attempt to copy my style, and that you used half-baked logic in your attempt to do so. Again, I realize you're at your weakest in the writing arena since you and your peers shun proper written communication.

People can hate and not listen all they want; it just shows their heads are lodged firmly in the sand and that they will never improve.

So my crusade likely will not succeed. I have little doubt that newsrooms will keep clinging to their same, failing approaches as their circulation and credibility continue to decline. The method of putting the creation of a Picasso For A Day ahead of all else has never made sense and it never will, but the dim bulbs inhabiting today's underperforming newsrooms won't ever grasp that.

Yet I still hope that maybe someday the dim bulbs will burn out, and some positive change can occur. Cue up the Journey music; don't stop believin'!

Well Mr. Knilands, it appears you have given no real answer once again. You continue to blindly flail at us with your weak responses and chant that we are liars, everything is Picasso, and that you hold the secret formula to journalism's future (though you never say what it is except that it somehow involves editors).  

I asked you plain and simple, what you thought the answer is, and you gave me nothing but spelling corrections, personal attacks and - dare I say - Journey.

Therefore, I kindly ask you to leave College Front Page and never return. For your comments are not warranted nor are they in the spirit of good journalism and improvement. In fact, the mere sight of your name attached to a post, makes my face instantly start to hurt.

Good day Mr. Knilands, do not bother us again until you have something worthwhile to contribute.

Actually, I'll take a glimpse into your future. I'm quite certain it will be one filled with display type errors that you will ceaselessly blame on "the desk."

You've already produced one page with perhaps the most heinous combination of redundancy, master-of-the-obvious statements and nonsense that I've ever seen. Of course, I'm sure that was all someone else's fault.

Have a fine career of ruining credibility and blaming someone else. I just hope you'll be dangerous to the facts at the more deserving newspapers.

Mike, you were right, Knilands appears to troll the internet looking for designers to start fights with. Apparently his peers, those in the professional journalism field, have worn thin on patience and thus he is relegated to argument with students. Debasing in itself, but quite a statement I think. Hope you are having a wonderfully busy summer ruining another newspaper!

The following excerpt if from News Designer.... 

Reading anything by Robert Knilands -- to me -- is like listening to talk radio. It's amusing, but ultimately bereft of any constructive information. I suppose I've had my guilty pleasure for the day, then.

Posted by: Christopher Harrop at September 28, 2005 08:32 AM
Maybe -- but my station is about to add comments from listeners.

I warned you guys that you were alienating readers. You didn't listen.

Posted by: Robert Knilands at September 28, 2005 08:49 AM
OK. This little four-year-long charade needs to stop right now.

Robert Knilands, drop the name-calling. Drop the preschool-like crying because you're not getting your way. And be a journalist for once in your life.

Explain yourself. Don't call me a name. Don't tell us all how you feel about design. You think it's stupid. WE ALL GET THAT.

"... the con-artistry of the design-based approach."

Explain that, please.
Who is being conned?
How are they being conned?
What is the design-based approach of which you speak?
What approach would you like to see?
Why will this approach work?

"I warned you guys that you were alienating readers."

When did you warn "us guys?"
How were we alienating readers?

All I've ever seen is you going out of your way to call designers "dipshits" and the like. I've waited four years for you to elaborate on WHY I'm a dipshit.

I've waited four years for you to tell me HOW YOU KNOW I'm a dipshit.

You sure make a lot of points without explaining them. You sure tell me how horrible of a journalist I am without telling me how you know I'm a horrible journalist.

I can only assume that you treat your readers the same way.

I can only assume that you as a copy editor let "facts" pass you without checking them.

I can only assume you send a story along to readers without bothering to ask "how do you know that?" about every supposed fact in the story.

I can only assume you are as bad of a copy editor as you are a debater.

Now, in a professional way, using facts and actually explaining yourself for the first time in your life, prove me wrong.

I'm making an assumption. That's a thing a good copy editor like yourself should be able to rebut without ever once resorting to calling me a name, or bashing on anyone.

If you're the editor you claim to be, you'll prove me wrong and you won't have to act like a first-grader in the process.

Posted by: Josh at September 30, 2005 12:02 AM

Josh: Robert is a troll and people ignore him in the hope that he'll go away. He doesn't because inevitably somebody gets fed up with his crap and reads him the riot act, which is exactly what he wants.

Even a troll may have a point now and then, but he's still a troll.

Posted by: tom at September 30, 2005 07:00 AM

Mike:

By the way, I did some checking and found some interesting things.

You seem to be infatuated with the tired ploy of using too many giant numerals. You employ the same dull strategy of most designers. First, you write a pointless headline like "5 Reasons to be a Design Dolt." Then you number each capsule; preferably the numerals are colored and at least 4-5 times as large as the type in the capsule. 

That's no surprise, though, since in one profile you indicate your main goal is "prettiness."

Of course, that doesn't apply to text. I see where you praise one page because it used the word "cunt" three times. Brilliant!

And you're already speaking about your current paper as if you're a veteran. I'm sure that goes over well.

I need to ask around to find out if any of my contemporaries acted this way at your age. But I think they would have been laughed out of the building if they had.

Things change, I guess ... 

Now you (and others) can tell me how you're going to "save journalism." And then I'll laugh.

Onstott gives you quick help in an Internet emergency. If you're a page designer, and you're getting obliterated in a battle of wits (as usual), call on Onstott.

Let Onstott enrich your Internet travels. Subscribe to Onstott today.

Onstott gives you quick help in an Internet emergency. If you're a page designer, and you're getting obliterated in a battle of wits (as usual), call on Onstott.

Let Onstott enrich your Internet travels. Subscribe to Onstott today.

Get daily installments of Onstott today on my blog 7 days a week for the low low price of... FREE!

http://apictureaday.my-expressions.com/index.html

Props to the Internet Machine. 

Based on a familiar song:

"Hey There Designer"

Hey there Designer
What's it like to misspell city?
I'm laughing at your way
But still you think your page is pretty
You're a fool
Lead bars can't be as dense as you
I know it's true

Hey there Designer
You don't worry about the mistakes
You don't care and you won't even
Give your page another quick glimpse
Open your eyes
Listen to the facts; they're your demise
We know your lies

No originality
No originality
No originality
No originality
Originality

Hey there Designer
I know words are oh-so-hard
But just release some drool
Someday you'll have the will and wish so hard
You'll wish you're good
You'll have a lie to spew for food
You'll wish you're good

Hey there Designer
You've got nothing left to say
If every simple thought that's linked to you
Would take respect away
You'd fake it all
Even more stupidity you'd bawl
You'd fake it all


No originality
No originality
No originality
No originality
Originality

A thousand words seem pretty hard
But you've got lines and shades and bars
That's art; to you there is no other way
Your readers all make fun of you;
you say they're dumb because you know
It's a Picasso For A Day
Designer I can promise you
That by the time that you get through
The words forever ever will be lame
And you're to blame

Hey there Designer
You're no good and no, that tip's free
Two more jeers and you'll be oozing drool
And we'll be laughing hysteric'ly like we do
You know it's all because of you
You can drool whenever you want to
Hey there Designer you just drool
It's like a pool

No originality
No originality
No originality
No originality
Originality

No no
Noooooooooo
No no
Nooooooooo
No no
Nooooooooooo
Nooooooooooooo
No no