What's Black and White and Read All Over
From: portrait
Posted on: 04:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Arguments for:
- The WSJ does in fact provide illustrations like that, or at least used to.
- It's very clearly a reference to the WSJ. Check the Wikipedia article and also the article on hedcuts, this exact style of portrait that was pioneered by the WSJ.
Arguments against:
Additional comments:
- This is not limited to the Wall Street Journal, it should be changed to reflect that it's a usual occurance in most major newspapers.
- Disagreement: Can you name these other newspapers that use the same illustration style? Virtually every other major newspaper uses actual photos, not hand-drawn illustrations.
- What "rich-guy newspaper," other than WSJ, would fit this description?
- If my head is straight, then I believe most Newspapers used to do this before they could print photos in the paper.
- The first "rich-guy newspaper" that comes to my mind other than the WSJ is the New York Times, but I believe they use photos, not drawings. (I couldn't tell you for sure, as I don't read either on a regular basis.)
- I can tell you for sure they don't.
- Noting the reference to "hedcuts" in Args For: I think we should add a mention of what kind of drawing that is to the fact, either in the fact itself or as a sub-bullet. (I vote for the sub-bullet, personally: "This type of drawing is called a hedcut.")
- Seconded. And, rather than propose a revision, given recent discussion of them, revis'd accordingly.
- Note that what you did was to reword (rather than revise) the item, since you didn't change the underlying meaning. Changes like this are perfectly acceptable and the right course of action in this case. (The addition is still subject to consensus, of course, but it doesn't need its own new vote table.)
[ Back to STUFF index ]
|
