PDA

View Full Version : The *NEW* Kansas City Star- Is it worth the money?


banyon
06-05-2006, 07:54 AM
I haven't bought my copy today; I probably will around lunch or so. I did watch that "Nick Haynes, Week in review" (or whatever it's called) show on Sunday on KCPT and they had the Star editors on there trying to defend their changes. Old people were apparently mad because they say the type is too small for them now. I guess they are also shrinking the thing and it is colorized a la USA TODAY.

Did anybody else grab one today?

http://www.kansascity.com/multimedia/kansascity/archive/redesign/thumbs/2aNewsA1_thumb.jpg

KCChiefsFan88
06-05-2006, 10:03 AM
It looks pretty cool. I noticed also they updated the pictures of the columnists on KCStar.com.

Whitlock and Posnanski get fatter and uglier with every update

http://www.kansascity.com/images/kansascity/kansascity/14743/thumb_217363773332.jpg

http://www.kansascity.com/images/kansascity/kansascity/14743/thumb_217364068192.jpg

Douche Baggins
06-05-2006, 10:04 AM
Whitlock is slimmer.

Pos needs more sun.

58-4ever
06-05-2006, 10:05 AM
Whitlock is slimmer.


Only slightly.

Douche Baggins
06-05-2006, 10:10 AM
http://img331.imageshack.us/img331/8304/jasonwhitlock6eq.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

58-4ever
06-05-2006, 10:26 AM
http://img331.imageshack.us/img331/8304/jasonwhitlock6eq.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

ROFL He looks more baked than Nate Newton.

sedated
06-05-2006, 10:38 AM
Pos needs more sun.

You can't blame him for his ghostly face.

He has been locked in his basement watching Royals games all summer.

chiefqueen
06-05-2006, 11:19 AM
Whitlock is slimmer.

Pos needs more sun.

Nice to know their new press can airbrush.

StcChief
06-05-2006, 11:25 AM
The online kansascity.com works for me.

buddha
06-05-2006, 11:26 AM
I heard that Whitlock has actually lost the equivilent of a fourth grader.

banyon
06-05-2006, 11:49 AM
I got my copy at lunch. It is definitely more USA Today than New York Times. It's clear to me why they reformatted this: advertising. Now they can run these detailed high color photos for ads. I got a section "B" in my paper that was just a 4 page ad for Dillard's. There was no actual content in the section. So I said "okay, right. Garbage." Why would anybody bother to look through that section if it is just ads?

The Sports page looks fine, but so does USA Today's. The problem is, when I buy USA Today, I pull out the Red Sports section and throw away the rest, because it is not worth the paper it is printed on. Well, in sections A & B, that's what we have now. Less words, more pretty pictures and graphics to surround the few words remaining. The blurbs on A-2 were so brief in "Today's Top 10" that it was little better than the top news links on Google News. The problem? Google News has links if I want to know more. The Newspaper of course does not. That's why the info is supposed to be right there.

I bet that a year from now, they jack up the price to $0.75 justified by these "improvements" just like USA TODAY did this year.

I don't know, If the paper continues to look like this, I may just grab the Sports section on occasion like I do with the McNews and get my other news elsewhere.

Cochise
06-05-2006, 11:58 AM
I think that I probably average about 2 purchases of a print newspaper a year. Royals and Chiefs opening day is pretty much it. I can get news anytime I want, up to date, on the web. Why go to the trouble of a subscription or going out to buy one?

KingPriest2
06-05-2006, 12:35 PM
I think that I probably average about 2 purchases of a print newspaper a year. Royals and Chiefs opening day is pretty much it. I can get news anytime I want, up to date, on the web. Why go to the trouble of a subscription or going out to buy one?


Most of the time there are articles in the paper that you can't read on the web.

For ex. 2 Sunday's ago they had a big feature on the Royals as one of the losingest teams of all time. But it was not on the web

There have been other examples as well.