New York Times

The New York Times is introducing some design changes in its news pages to differentiate hardcore news coverage from pieces that include opinions. I am not sure if NYT is the first newspaper to attempt doing this, but to me it feels like taking the notion of journalistic purity to the extreme. I haven't seen the redesigned edition but most likely it means using different fonts (in perhaps a size bigger) for the straightforward news coverage to differentiate it against opinionated or analytical coverage (examples are news analysis, journals, diaries and columns). Ok, I'm always for transparency and voluntary disclaimers (as far as possible) when publishing opinions by both the opinion-holders as well as publishers, but segregating news from opinions by virtue of newspaper designs is to me an insult to your readers.

Supporters of NYT may have argued that readers are so used to reading opinions in the garb of news coverage that it ought to be a moral duty of the publisher to forcibly seperate the two, in the broader public interest. However, the argument is weak as long as we remember that news coverage, insofar as is handled by human journos and not robots, will always be subjective. No matter how much objectivity they'll ever try and ingrain you with, your coverage of a car accident or a political rally will be markedly different from the next reporter on the scene. A news coverage is merely a 'transcription of vision', in other words, a distillation of all sensory data received or perceived by a reporter. How he chooses to distill it, deciding which part to retain and which to let go, is intrinsically subjective.

I believe that the decision is merely a ego-and sales-boosting gimmick. However, I would much like to see our very own so-called serious newspapers, the likes of The Indian Express and The Hindu publish something like this (NYT Reader Guide).