Thursday, August 09, 2007

New York Times’ paper size

I picked up a copy of the New York Times yesterday and as I heard on Monday, the width is cut down to twelve inches. If you’re wondering, I did measure it and it was right at twelve. While I had my tape measure out, I took the opportunity to measure the local paper (i.e. Pioneer Press) and much to my surprise it was twelve and a half inches. A full half inch larger? As you can tell, it doesn’t take much to interest me.

To be honest, I don’t know what the standard paper width is, but I’ve always assumed the Pioneer Press used it. For all I know they do, and the Times decided to cut an extra half just to be different (or save more money). Or maybe the St. Paul paper, likes to be different and give us an extra half inch. If my wife didn’t limit my subscriptions to one paper, I’d measure the Star Tribune to see what its width is. My memory is a bit shaky, but I think it’s closer to twelve an a half inches than the Time’s twelve.

The price of the Times has increased from one dollar to a dollar twenty five. If I heard this, I don’t remember it. Thus it caught me by surprise. First of all we loose a few inches, then we’re charged more? Isn’t it supposed to work the other way? That is, pay more for something more.

The good news is, as far as I can tell, the content is unchanged. Though Friedman was not writing, the editorial page had a few interesting opines. My favorite was the paper’s calling for drinking less bottled water and more tap water. This is something I’ve been harking to for a number of years. Why spend all this money (and resources) for a twelve ounce bottle of water? Get yourself a nice Nalgene bottle and refill it.

No comments: