What is WRONG with The Scene?
December 12, 2007 | Everybody's got one
I apologize to my non-Lute readers for the following post, but I must take a moment to criticize PLU’s alumni magazine.
So, friends to whom this post is applicable, have you received your recent copy of The Scene? Are you as appalled as I am? Well, perhaps “appalled ” is too strong, but was your enjoyment of the magazine also distracted by the HORRIBLE graphic design?
Let’s start with the cover. What IS that?
Do you need a close up?
He’s falling over sideways and it’s just not a good picture. I stared at it for far too long, trying to come up with something funny he might be saying here, but I couldn’t, and that’s why this picture sucks. What is he doing? Is he talking? Lecturing, perhaps? Then show me the students! They used an action shot, but took out the context. It bugs.
Another example of a bad picture:
THIS is the photograph you use to illustrate the 14 million dollar renovation of the UC? Really? It’s out of focus! And look how much real estate the stupid ceiling takes up:
It would have been better if it was just a close up of students enjoying lunch and didn’t show the building at all. If the plan is to show the building, than show it.
I don’t even know if I have words for this horror:
WHEEL! OF! PROFESSORS! You might think this design maybe tied into something in the article? That something made this make sense? Somehow? You would be wrong.
This was the worst, though. This is the profile of a distinguished alum who happens to be a fancy-pants fashion designer, who is male, and lives in New York City. According to the Scene, “In November, Cockrell and his significant other had a son named Harlow.”
His “significant other?” Not his partner? This “significant other” doesn’t even get a name? Of course not! Then we might know that he might be a male, too!
This just seems super offensive in a magazine FULL of profiles of families where the names of husbands and wives are given throughout, and inconsistent with the University’s progressive policies.
Shame on you, Scene. For your bad design AND your wussy politics.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URI
December 12th, 2007 at 10:27 am, Tacoma Friend Says:
All I can say is they made my favorite PLU professor look really funny and he is really actually amazing and brilliant and awesome. Who are they marketing to, anyway? 13-year-olds?
December 12th, 2007 at 11:32 am, Rachel Says:
I hope you submitted your comments to the Scene Editor. This is a bad message to send to alums and, dare I say it, potential donors. Bump it up a notch, Lutes!
December 12th, 2007 at 12:59 pm, Noreen Says:
Wow! I mean, wow. I need some time to digest (and I have yet to get the paper copy to review yet). I will be back to comment later. That’s. Just. Bad.
December 12th, 2007 at 1:55 pm, Erik Hanberg Says:
I’m not a PLU grad, but Mary was horrified when she first saw the cover. She hadn’t even made it to the Wheel of Professors because she was scared to look inside…
December 12th, 2007 at 5:39 pm, Camille Says:
I haven’t received it yet, must wait to see it in person before full review can me made. Thanks for the heads up though. Y.U.C.K.
And I’d like to point out that said trendy fashion designer’s picture is in black and white. Also, his kid is really cute, no dispute there, but where are the pictures of his trendy designs? Isn’t that why he’s being interviewed in the first place? And I’m in agreement with you on the “wussy politics”. Take a stand, Scene, for goodness sake!
December 12th, 2007 at 6:37 pm, Heather Says:
Ouch! Right with you on the design stuff. Too bad. Such great content, not great presentation. I agree I would share your opinions with the editor.
That’s so bizarre about the fasion designer and significant other, because they have included names of partners in the past whether male or female. They have even included announcements of commitment ceremonies/weddings/kids born or adopted to gay and lesbian couples. I guess I wouldn’t have made that connection to “wussy politics” because of the Scenes track record in this area. I think I’d just chalk it up to poor writing. (Although like Noreen I haven’t seen a copy yet)
December 12th, 2007 at 6:46 pm, Heather Says:
The more I think about it the more I think this is a case of bad writing, and perhaps poor research.
#1 Word Choice: I would choose partner over sig other.
#2 Good research: I would know and include the partners name.
#3 Don’t leave holes for your readers: I wouldn’t have made the assumption that the sig other was male. They way the article reads “had” a son not “adopted” I would assume that the sig other was actually a woman. But here we are: left to wonder!
Okay…I am spending way to much time on this Reply….
peace out…hliv
December 13th, 2007 at 10:32 am, tacomachickadee Says:
I’m scared to look inside … I’d only noticed the “buddy Jesus”-like cover and went “huh?” … hadn’t had time to stare at it too long, and hadn’t opened it yet, and now, esp. as an ex-page designer, I’m officially scared to.
December 13th, 2007 at 12:20 pm, jamie Says:
That picture of Youtz is absolutely horrifying. What were they thinking? What was HE thinking? At least in the wheel of professors (ha!) he’s smiling.
Speaking of the wheel picture, what on earth is that scary face picture laying underneath the magazine? I can see that reappearing in my nightmares. Zoinks!
As for the U.C. picture, I guess at minimum it makes me want to go check out the renovation, because I’m having a hard time even placing where in the building it might have been taken.
December 13th, 2007 at 6:44 pm, ~e Says:
This is a design nightmare. I don’t have access to the paper copy so thanks for your illustrations, Jenny! Having worked at the Alumni office, I’m sending some emails to get some inside dish on this. This has to be the worst cover in the history of PLU Scene. And the inside lives up to the cover. As for the “sig other” line…without knowing the exact conversation on how this decision was made (perhaps Cockrell asked for his partner to be left out? who knows?)it’s hard to judge. But I agree the gray area that PLU keeps skirting with regards to gay and lesbian issues is appalling and unappealing in 2007. Pick a side and stick to it…I just hope it’s on the side of righteous INCLUSIVENESS!
December 14th, 2007 at 9:39 am, Jenny Says:
First of all, friends, I just noticed something else hilarious. Check out Nance in the Wheel of Professors. Doesn’t that trumpet behind his head make him look like an alien?
Tacoma Friend: Yes, poor Youtz.
Rachel: Nah. I think most of this stuff is too bitchy to actually complain about. I’d rather just mock them on my blog.
Noreen: I know! I never took issue with the Scene when you were involved.
Erik H.: I can only imagine the bleeding eyes of an actual graphic designer. I’m just someone who notices such things. I mock with no basis for my opinions.
Camille: Good point! Let’s see the fashion.
Heather: I totally agree that this is most likely a case of bad writing, not bad politics. Yes, I am making the assumption that he is gay, (fashion designer, fabulous) but I might not have made this assumption if they hadn’t said “significant other”.
The article was written by a student, but who is the grown up in charge of this student? THEY should not have let this through.
Thanks for your thoughts, love.
chickadee: Buddy Christ! HAHAHAHAHA!
jamie: Hi! I didn’t know you were a Lute!
Sorry about the scary face. It’s the cover of my HONG KONG guide book for our upcoming trip! You can see the whole thing here:
http://www.amazon.com/Lonely-Planet-Hong-Kong-Macau/dp/1740598431/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197650105&sr=8-1 I needed to tilt the magazine a little to get rid of the glare.
e: I look forward to a report on your sleuthing efforts! You make a good point, that there could be all kinds of reasons why they used those words, but I still think they should be careful that people don’t get the impression I did.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:00 pm, jamie Says:
Class of 2000. CS major, math & music minors. (Band geek.)
The Nance/trumpet thing IS amusing. Bongo lady doesn’t have it much better, it sort of looks like she might hurl them across the room.
December 15th, 2007 at 8:17 am, Swistle Says:
It is possible I am imagining it, but it seems like the comment form used to fill in my info for me, but now I have to do ALL THE HARD WORK of doing it myself every single time.
That guy looks like he’s trying to be the Fonz.
“Significant other”? I think that when you have a CHILD with a person, they are automatically significant ant it need not be said. “Partner” is, as you say, the correct term here. IOO. (In Our Opinion)
I once complained about something in the college newspaper, and the college-student editor wrote back “We are not responsible for human error.” Um, what? What ARE you responsible for, then?
December 18th, 2007 at 11:22 am, Jenny Says:
jamie: SB was 2001 and I was 2001. I bet we know you. Though we were theater geeks who rarely mixed with others, so perhaps not.
Swistle: Gah! I’m sorry! Is anyone else expereiencing this inconvenience? I don’t know why it couls have changed.
December 18th, 2007 at 11:22 am, Jenny Says:
I meant SB was 2000 also.
December 18th, 2007 at 11:43 am, jamie Says:
I only knew the theater geeks who were also band geeks.
Oddly enough, based on the pictures peppered about your blog, neither of you looks very familiar to me…