Indy Star chickens out with retraction of Krzyzewski illustration 

Indeed. This is precisely why newspapers are dying. It’s not just craigslist, it’s this kind of crap.

I completely agree. I thought the illustration was funny and Coach K’s reaction illustrated just how high and mighty he perceives himself to be. It’s worth noting that the paper didn’t just apologize to Coach K — they included his wife in the apology!

I’m amazed that the Indy Star backed down so quickly and cravenly over something that is just NOT that serious. The designer was trying to have some fun! But I guess we can’t joke about Coach K.

The BEST are always reviled. Having said that, if you want to write the article…that’s fine, but the “illustration” was a photograph that was marked up. If you want to actually do an illustration, there’s a place for that…on the editorial page.

There’s no defending it. If the point of it was to be juvenile, then that’s a problem right from the start.

And, Andrea, come on. As soon as I saw you were writing from the design standpoint, I knew it was going to be an empty defense, and that you would make the weak claim that this is why newspapers are dying.

That’s because you are not really a journalist. Designers don’t report. They don’t analyze information to come up with headlines. They don’t make much effort to comprehend content. In fact, they criticize it and fear it.

Finally, if the BOO DEVILS version was watered down, it’s because a poor photo choice was made, simply so the designer could doodle on the photo. It’s sort of like (Warning – analogy ahead; designers will not grasp it) you intentionally running over a spike in the road so you would have an excuse to buy whitewalls. Then, when you found out the tire store was closed, you blamed the store for your car not being in good condition.

Simply: The designer screwed up. Screwed up with the idea. Screwed up with the photo selection. You and pinheads like Charles Apple don’t grasp that. That’s your privilege, but please do the world a favor and don’t pollute the newsrooms with your “ideas.” They’ve already suffered enough from the droolings of the design crowd.

Wenalway, I disagree with your premise that designers aren’t journalists. Designers very often write headlines, and the best designs happen when the designer understands the story completely and works closely with the editors and reporters. No, they aren’t out covering events or scandals, but neither are copy editors or desk editors. Does that make them any less important to the news process?

You come off as thinking a designer’s job is easy. I’d like to see you try to take an abstract or commonly covered topic and come up with a creative, original design that works with all the other elements on the page, makes sense to the reader, draws the reader into the story, helps the reader understand the topic better and hopefully adds another dimension to the story. And then do it again in a new way tomorrow, with the same content.

The laziest way to debate someone is to attempt to discredit their legitimacy or intelligence so you don’t actually have to dispute their facts. But Andrea wrote an insightful blog about an issue surrounding a very clever and controversial design. So maybe try respecting others a little more next time.

If you think that was a “very clever” design, then clearly you have little to contribute to any discussion about what warrants publication in a major metro daily newspaper.

That’s why designers are not journalists. They favor the silly and the stupid. They think that if something can be done, then it should be done. They have little to no analytical ability.

Copy editors, if used properly, are reading information, interpreting it, and sometimes screening out some of it. Desk editors do the same. They also are assigning coverage.

Designers do none of those things. They are not real journalists.

Finally, the laziest way to debate something is to create some sort of straw-man argument, such as: “Pulling this design shows why newspapers are dying!”

That’s the weak argument that is used here. The person who uses it is not a journalist. And that’s all we need to know. There is no credibility to the argument.