DESIGN CHANGES IN U.S. FRONT PAGES, 1885 – 1985 Kevin G. Barnhurst & John C. Nerone A design revolution is said to have transformed newspaper front pages in the past twenty years. 1 The revolt toppled “traditional” makeup, replacing it with “modern” layout. 2 Click and Stempel first noted the shift in 1974. 3 By 1981, so many newspapers had been redesigned that García reported, “The look of American newspapers is rapidly changing,” 4 and by the end of the decade, Moen cited “enormous activity in the field of newspaper design in the 1980s.” 5 The goal of newspaper redesign, according to Ben Bradlee of the Washington Post, is to provide “readability, clarity, organization, order” 6 — qualities closely associated with the “modern” style. Commentators describe the specific elements of this design style: The “modern” front page has horizontal layout with fewer columns and simplified headlines, 7 many “visual” elements, 8 and clear organization. 9 Designers disagree over whether this design revolution has made newspapers look more alike or more distinctive. Garcia has argued that redesigns have produced “cookie-cutter” front pages in U.S. newspapers. 10 Nesbitt has argued that front pages have actually become more diverse as newspapers added to the range of “tools,” or design devices, available. 11 These debates question whether progress has been beneficial or harmful. According to most commentators, the cause of the layout revolution was mainly the introduction of new technology, although competition from other media is also cited. 12 But these explanations are unconvincing. Newspapers have been notoriously slow to adopt new technologies. They have not rushed into pagination, they are one of the last commercial holdouts of letterpress printing, and they initially resisted the 35 mm camera. Historically, the pattern has been that newspapers gradually adjust to the push by some (often younger) staffers for new techniques, and not that new techniques invade and transform the newspaper. 13 Likewise, newspapers have been slow to respond to competition from “visual” media. Magazines and specialty newspapers began using photographs long before they were common in the American daily press. Color television became the rule in the sixties, twenty years before color pictures appeared with any regularity on news pages. Yet technology and competition remain the received explanations for change. Utt and Pasternack also suggest two other factors: “a greater concern among news people for appearance” and “the trend-setting national daily, USA Today,” 14 that is, a groundswell among journalists for change and a revolutionary leader among newspapers. Concern for appearance has certainly been a factor. The leadership role of USA Today is less clear. USA Today adopted graphics and color after other newspapers had done so, 15 and other innovators such as the St. Petersburg Times reduced their use of color and graphics in reaction to the advent of USA Today. The literature of newspaper front page design is infused with a brand of conventional wisdom based on the idea of progress. The “traditional” style is described with terms of opprobrium, such as “dull” and “seemingly endless”; the newer “modern” style is celebrated as “fresh” and 1