Tribune vs. WSJ

Before one can even begin to talk about the quality of the writing of a newspaper, attention should really be paid to the layout of each. I truly believe that the quality of journalism resides not only in the text itself, but in the placement of text and the layout of pages. I believe the primary concern of the front page of a newspaper should be to alert readers to the most important, breaking news stories of the day. It should not be for large photos and fluffy features stories that belong a few pages into the front section and not dominating the front page of a newspaper.
The Chicago Tribune is meant to be a paper that delivers the most important news, while the Wall Street Journal is primarily focused on economics. Nonetheless, it is the WSJ that provides a box entitled "What's News." It gives brief teasers for major stories from around the world, including a group of attacks in Afghanistan that killed 11 people and President Obama's return from his 10-day Asia trip, two news stories that are not even mentioned on the front page of the Trib. In fact, there is no story about Obama's return in the entire front section, and the deadly blasts in Afghanistan are not mentioned until page 12 of the front section.
Furthermore, the Journal just looks like a more legitimate paper in terms of the fonts used, the size of the text, the number of pictures and ads, and the stories included. In 2008, the Chicago Tribune revamped its entire paper in an effort to make it more "reader-friendly." While the layout is certainly pleasing to the eyes, it just seems to have forfeited any attempt to be journalistic. Here's one positive comment on an article about the new design:

Newspapers are not all about the editorial. If that were true, then people would pick up bland, text only newspapers and read them.

In fact, readers hardly read the stories at all. They read headlines, photos and captions. Fish around on the web for some newspaper focus groups and you will see that most readers actually think there is more inside of a newspaper that is designed like the new Chicago Tribune than with a New York Times design.

Readers scan, not read. Give them informational headlines, photos and captions and they might just read the story. Don't give them those things and they won't dig into their pockets to purchase the paper.

Newspapers should be for their readers, not for journalists.

I think this design is nice. I think they could have gone a little bolder with it too.

This commenter says that readers scan papers, which is true. But if that's the case, shouldn't a paper's goal to be to convey as much important information as possible, in an accessible format on the front page? It's true, newspapers need to make money. But when papers like the Tribune focus so very much on a pleasing layout- including enormous teasers, excessive sports photos and information on the front page, and gratuitous advertisements- the core value of journalism is put on the line. Yes, print journalism may be a sinking ship. But as the WSJ shows, it's possible for a paper to have an approachable, reader-friendly layout while still conveying important news to readers.