October 22, 2006
THE J-CONSULTANT MAFIA STRIKES AGAIN....Yesterday the LA Times announced that on Sunday it would unveil a "more dramatic look and new features to make it easier to navigate." You can imagine my excitement.

Today, the dramatic redesign showed up on my driveway. It appears to consist of three things: (a) bolder, blacker headlines, (b) a picture bar across the top teasing some inside stories, and (c) bigger pictures above the fold.
In other words, precisely the changes made to every paper that's hired a design consultant in the past 30 years. And more to the point, exactly the look of the Times' corporate parent, the Chicago Tribune. So now the Times looks like every faceless second-tier metro daily in the country. Yippee.
Needless to say, the unavoidable result of this is that the front page has room for only four stories now, not the usual six or seven. Yippee again. And since pages 2 and 3 were given up to "navigational aids" and "briefing" items some time ago, this means that there's now a grand total of four actual pieces of news in the first three pages of the paper. If my navigational needs are catered to any further I'm going to need an LA Times decoder ring just to find anything worth reading.
Here's an idea: to make it easier to find the news, devote the first three pages of the paper to news. That's easy! And then assume that anyone with an IQ high enough to be interested in a newspaper in the first place is well aware that they can find sports on the sports page and entertainment on the entertainment pages.
I know, I know. I'm a fossil. Don't remind me. But a beige box on the front page of today's paper informs me that "On weekdays, the changes are even more pronounced." Be still, my heart.
—Kevin Drum 1:00 PM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (55)
I still read the Tribune. It is difficult to find news in it. There are only three or four stories that I consider national or international news and about three or four single-paragraph stories. I used to make fun of people who chose their paper based on the sports section. I now understand them completely.
It used to be that newspapers were necessary to understand the news. Nowadays, a reliance on newspapers is a guarantee of ignorance.
What is happening to newspapers now is the same thing that happened to local news twenty years ago and national news ten years ago. How did that work out for you, newcasters?
Posted by: reino on October 22, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK
Oops--by local and national news, I mean TV coverage.
Posted by: reino on October 22, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK
I missed the trailer for today's changes, so imagine my little "WTF?" this morning when I unwrapped the paper.
It can't be long now until they turn it into the USA Today, LA Edition.
At which point, all of my news and opinion will come from the internets.
Posted by: craigie on October 22, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK
Well, I thought the lead story in the LA Times sports section about "da Bears" was very interesting.
Plus great coverage of Hawthorne Race Track in Cicero.
Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 22, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK
I suspect these changes (to the front page anyway) are less about aiding navigation than they are about selling papers on a newsstand. Bigger headlines and pictures above the fold make the paper stand out in a crowded visual environment.
One thing that's interesting is that while papers are busy reducing the visual density of news on their front pages, cable TV has been doing the opposite. Rather than have a single talking head fullscreen reading a story, these days you get the newsreader ensconced in a corner with a perpetual crawl on the bottom and flashing sidebars and overlays to blast you with mostly unrelated information at all times.
Posted by: jimBOB on October 22, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK
For a tutorial on what a newspaper front page should look like, I offer HuffPo. Lots of ledes, all referencing complete stories inside.
Posted by: SteveAudio on October 22, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK
You think the Times/Trib are bad, look at any tabloid paper (not available in Los Angeles as far as I've seen). 4 stories on page 1? Forget that, how about one headline. Not one headline story, just one headline.
Oh my God, this sounds like the standard Republican defence of American policies ("we're still better than Stalin and Hitler"). We're all going to hell.
Posted by: don hosek on October 22, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK
The KC Star did a similar retooling recently. I was underwhelmed.
Posted by: Global Citizen on October 22, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK
Kev, nothing wrong w/being a fossil. Here in Dallas, the stupidest change was about 2 years ago.
On the back page of Metro (B sec) they put a pic of the front page of each section.
Well, unless you turn to that page first thing in the whole paper, you've already seen P1 of A, B and, immediately next to the page page of B, the P1 of C. Duh.
Posted by: SocraticGadfly on October 22, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK
Don:
Most New Times-brand tabloids are pretty good, and usually a lot better at times on local news coverage that the seven-day daily in town.
Posted by: SocraticGadfly on October 22, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK
Who are these changes supposed to attract, exactly? I never get that.
It seems to me that certain sorts of people read a newspaper, and nothing you can do to that newspaper is going to attract the people who don't read. What am I missing?
Especially since these things are supposedly tremendously profitable already.
Posted by: craigie on October 22, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK
The REAL problem with newspapers is that they're all organs of the Democrat party (excluding a few centrist publications like Wash Times, WSJ, NY Post, and a couple others). Compared to that, listening to moronic consultants is a minor sin.
Posted by: American Hawk on October 22, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK
If you believe in a wider conspiracy, the purpose of all this not to attract people to news, but to direct them to non-news.
Then it will be easier for the people to believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and all that.
Posted by: gregor on October 22, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK
centrist publications like Wash Times, WSJ, NY Post
Now Hawk is just phoning it in. Wash Times centrist? The reverenc Moon will be wanting his money back if that is the case.
The WSJ reports honestly on the news pages because businessmen rely on facts. They make up for this with a batshit-crazy editorial page.
As to the NY Post? I'm just nonplussed that that rag could even be mentioned in the same post as the WSJ as a source of serious news.
Posted by: Global Citizen on October 22, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK
And what's with the multiple fonts for the headlines? At least the ChicagoTrib seems consistent.
Posted by: Daryl Cobranchi on October 22, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK
I picked up the Times this morning and promptly said, "What is this ugly sh*t?"
Yet another great (O.K. maybe not great, let's say pretty good) newspaper spirals towards mediocrity. I already turn from the front page to page four, skipping the uselessness of pages 2 and 3. I foresee a time in the near future when I don't bother with the front page either, knowing the real news (if it exists at all) is buried deep inside.
What ever happened to that David Geffen/Richard Riordan scheme to buy the Times? They certainly couldn't run it as poorly as the Tribune does.
Posted by: Samba00 on October 22, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK
For some perspective, as an LA TIMES subscriber: I think the way forward for headlines at the paper was actually illuminated by the *Black Dahlia* advertising insert for the film the LAT included with a Sunday paper a few weeks ago (not quite the same effect, but you get some sense of the impact at this link http://webapp1.latimes.com/theblackdahlia/).
So I think they should go retro! In the 40's apparently the LAT had screaming 2 IN high two-word solid black headlines about a sordid sex murder. (of course, they actually had competition from other papers back then . . .). Yeah, the press has really degenerated since then . . .
OTOH, I used to live in Chicago, and I loved everything about it EXCEPT the Tribune. I truly hope the LAT doesn't get dragged to their level, since it is (even now) a far superior paper in so many ways . . .
Posted by: trixi on October 22, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK
What a weak effort from today's American Hawk. I was hoping that the first parody-troll/chain-yanking post would be somewhat entertaining, but that was just lame.
Oh well, back to the pure excitement of the 1-4 Packers and the 1-5 Dolphins on Fox.
Posted by: Dwight on October 22, 2006 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK
Dwight... don't forget AZ at Oakland later!
Craigie: You're right.. there's little newspapers can do, IMO. The decline was there well before the Internet, although that has hit metro dailies harder than others.
Hawk almost makes you pine for an Al.
Posted by: SocraticGadfly on October 22, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK
If you want a real newspaper, despite the stupid libel laws, look to the UK.
OTOH, a lot of German papers go even snazzier w/the design than American ones.
What we need is something like the Guardian: A progressive newspaper established as a nonprofit foundation that can still have an appropriate nonprofit status to write opinion.
Posted by: SocraticGadfly on October 22, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK
Biggest error on LAT front? Mixing serif and sans-serif fonts. That's a pretty standard-level no-no.
Posted by: SocraticGadfly on October 22, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK
OTOH, a lot of German papers go even snazzier w/the design than American ones.
Maybe, but I thought Kevin was talking about serious newspapers. Take a look at the frontpage of the daily German newspaper "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" (FAZ).
FAZ Monday edition
On the right with italic headings, two editorials. In the middle, three top stories continued on following pages. Down below four "smaller" stories also continued. On the left information about some top stories about topics other than politics (sports, economics etc.) on pages inside the newspaper.
Oh, and by the way, the first part of the newspaper (normally 10-12 pages consists entirely of domestic and foreign policy topics.
Posted by: Detlef on October 22, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK
As a newspaper copy editor, I agree with Gadfly. Plus, I don't like all-caps heads, unless the Times is trying to appeal to people who miss the old Hearst papers in L.A. (and I'm talking about the days when the Lord of San Simeon was alive, not the waning days of the Herald-Examiner).
Other than that, I don't see anything inherently wrong with the design. Is there a law that says an "elite" paper has to have "Caps-and-Lower-Case" headlines? Or since the New York Times and Washington Post do, it's de rigueur, just as every college must follow Harvard, Yale and Princeton's lead?
About a year ago, the Baltimore Sun, another Tribune product, drastically and similarly changed its look -- for the better, as far as I'm concerned.
Don't get me wrong...all things being equal, I wish the Times wasn't run by the Trib people, and believe that editorially, it has declined (just as the Philadelphia Inquirer has after its "golden" Gene Roberts era of the eighties). But a paper's design and its content are two entirely different entities.
Posted by: Vincent on October 22, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK
I think the web re-design of the New York Times looks fantastic.
Posted by: Linus on October 22, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK
I am glad that the op/ed is moving to the back of the front section and I do hope that next Sunday's Calendar change means that it will again be a one section tabloid. However, the new front page (I was going to say home page, oh dear) is an abomination. Oh, and the ad inside the front section from the new pubished offered nothing.
Here's what to do to bring back the Times:
1. Rehire Paul Conrad
2. Rehire Bill Boyarsky
3. Make Mary McNamara a thrice weekly columnist like Steve Lopez
4. Bring back a focus on actual news and analysis
5. As Kinsey noted, completely revise the latimes.com -- it is an embarassment.
Posted by: miles on October 22, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK
Bravo, Kevin.
The L.A. Times blows.
Not enough coverage of Halloween night rumbles between ballbat-wielding minorities that exist only in my mind.
Sincerely,
A hack
Posted by: A Hack on October 22, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK
THe problem appears to be that they didn't chose a very good consultant. These changes are about ten years old and not even particularly well executed (btw, that "picture bar" is called a skybox). There are some fantastically well designed newspapers in this country -- The Hartford Currant being the best of the traditionalists, the Baltimore Sun and the paper in Norfolk, being the best of the contemporary papers.
But I will say that time after time after people (mostly those under 40) say that newspapers are hard to navigate. I grew up reading newspapers, and so can navigate them pretty well (although, it bugs me when things move around from day to day). Most people from generation, smart people even, have had trouble finding their way around a newspaper. It's odd to me, but them's the facts as we know it.
Posted by: DC1974 on October 22, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK
Perhaps our host could make a nifty graphic from the raw data here showing the LAT's circulation vs population. Despite SoCal's pop going up 50%, their circ has dropped. (Similar NYT chart here).
One of the problems the LAT has in the blogosphere is that there's very little cost incurred by those - including me - who point out all the ways that their reporters lie and mislead.
But, the b-sphere isn't L.A. If they want to sell papers here, they're going to have to match the population: over half the workers in L.A. are barely literate.
My solution: pass out free copies of the new "Soup Can Literacy Level/Big Pictures/Prizes!" edition of the LAT to each LAUSD "graduate".
---
If anyone has any tough, detailed, completely factual questions for politicians I'm trying to match those questions with citizen journos who'll go out and try to get them answered.
Posted by: TLB on October 22, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK
When I opened my TIMES this morning and saw that "bolder blacker headline," I immediately thought of the ad that ran for years in the back pages of cheap magazines: "Woman nearly itches to death!"
. . . jim strain in san diego.
Posted by: Jim Strain on October 22, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK
Yeah, I had the same reaction today when I picked up the paper. Ugh. Less info. More fluff. And a strong visceral sense that I'd need to reset the trust-o-meter to zero until I'd had time to evaluate whether the changes in outward appearance were matched by changes in editorial integrity.
One thing I also noticed in the inside house ad touting the changes, was a little "meet the people behind the Times" section, in which a couple of the profiled editors had their email addresses listed as 'firstname.lastname@latimes.com', in an apparent case of 'real address TK' substitution failure. So I guess I can add that to the list of reasons to be suspicious that the newfound interest in repackaging things in a more colorful fashion goes hand in hand with a de-emphasis of old-school editorial excellence, of the sort that would previously have (hopefully) caught such a blatant error.
Who needs proofreaders, anyway?
Posted by: John Callender on October 22, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK
It was a double whammy when my sunday NYT didn't come (and the buggers wouldn't replace it, just give me a credit) and then the LA Times announced a new era of fluff.
It would be better if Geffen et al managed to buy the paper and make it more responsive to those of us who want a serious paper in LA, but apparantly the Tribune doesn't want want to sell such a money-maker. Friends of mine at the paper say the Tribune-installed management is screwing everything up by promoting younger transplants from Chicago over the vets who really know how to run the paper.
Maybe Geffen could buy the LA Daily News instead and give the Times a run for its money?
Posted by: Happy Dog on October 22, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK
You missed change (d): banner ad across the bottom of the front page of the calendar section.
Posted by: Wireless Enthusiast on October 22, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK
Well, it was refreshing to read the headline in the Tribune shown above which states "2 GOP Bastions Under Siege"
If only there many, many more.
Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 22, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK
For some reason, the media thinks they have to address the lowest common denominator in their quest to regain/retain readers. This means enticing pictures, titillating, cute headlines, and shorter less intellectually stimulating writing. In reality, what they are doing is shrinking the paper in an attempt to control material costs, and reducing features and staffing in an attempt to cut payroll expenses. In my eyes, I'm more interesting in quality than junk.
Posted by: acf on October 22, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK
about selling papers on a newsstand.... jimBOB on October 22, 2006 at 1:18 PM
Not exactly a lot of newsstands in LA. Most sales are subscription or coin kiosk.
lauded the Soviet Union and the way it taught him how to be a good American. .... mhr at 3:07 PM
Any one who knows Stalinism would recognize your Bush adulation as typical of Stalin's true believers. The only difference is that nowadays you call him "Bush" and will be voting for his agenda in a couple of weeks.
Posted by: Mike on October 22, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK
I recently retired from a paper now descending briskly into faceless second-tierdom. Successive design changes played an integral role in its decline.
Designers are now intent on making newspaper fronts more eye-catching. To do that, they are reversing a trend from the '90s of making fronts look "cleaner," often with lots of white space between design elements (pictures, headline, text, etc.). The spaces are now filled with "reader drivers," typically shaded boxes with blurbs to stories inside. This produces a look like a Kandinsky abstract with words superimposed.
Blurbs, data/factoid graphics, story labels and other design elements proliferate at the expense of prose -- although not necessarily of information. A well-written and well-designed news graphic can convey some information, such as statistics, that would be mind-numbing in the body of a story. A graphic also can illustrate a trend more forcefully than a written observation.
These "infographics," as they're known in the trade, are too large relative to their content in most newspapers. (The most informative infographics I see regularly, those in The Economist, are quite compact. Writers, editors and designers are effectively forced to distill the subject to its quantitative essentials. You don't see evidence of that discipline and coordination in American papers' graphics.)
The most obvious change in this LAT is a four-story front. Thirty years ago, 10 or 12 would've been normal in this paper.
The reproduction is too small to read some headlines, let alone stories, but it appears two are features, one timely, the other can't tell. That's not unusual for a Sunday edition. Watch for the balance of news/news feature or analysis/feature stories Tuesday-Saturday to see if front-page content really is softening.
The most striking thing about this particular front page is its color coordination. On first glance, you get the sense you're looking at swatches for decorating a sun room. (How long will it be before photographers are assigned to "bring me something in chartreuse?")
Concerns about content are justified. Even more ominous than redesigns such as this is the move most papers will make this year to narrower pages. That, plus fewer pages due to declining ad revenues, assures a reduction in content.
Posted by: allbetsareoff on October 22, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK
If you have a good international newsstand, thumb through the German "Die Zeit" sometime. It's a weekly, so they have more time to really get it right, but it sets a very high standard of newspaper layout. The photos and graphics in it have also become more pronounced in recent years, but everything generally remains in a harmonious, visual balance. I also really like how they use the entire back page of the first section for a detailed listing of the edition's contents.
I'm certainly no newspaper connoiseur, but it's probably the most beautiful, readable design of a newspaper I've ever seen. (Its contents don't suck either.)
Posted by: ami in deutschland on October 22, 2006 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK
Consider yourself lucky Kevin. The recent redesign of the Baltimore Sun was an absolute abortion.
Posted by: Sharon on October 22, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK
What a coincidence...right when they lay off yet more reporters they redesign the paper to hold fewer stories.
Posted by: PanJack on October 22, 2006 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINK
Vincent: I'm a do-it-all weekly editor; I use initial caps/small caps for subheads.
Posted by: SocraticGadfly on October 23, 2006 at 12:06 AM | PERMALINK
Opened this morning's LA Times and was horrified about how absolutely trashy is had suddenly become. No dignity at all. UGH!
Posted by: Observer on October 23, 2006 at 1:21 AM | PERMALINK
What a horsey design.
Posted by: Tilli (Mojave Desert) on October 23, 2006 at 1:39 AM | PERMALINK
I still mourn for the days when the ink came off on your fingers. Now that's being a fossil.
Posted by: Paul on October 23, 2006 at 6:11 AM | PERMALINK
The Detroit Free Press is another newspaper that's going down the toilet, in pretty much the ame way as the LATimes. They's switched to narrower paper, pg 2 is a quide to the rest of the paper, pg 3 has switched from being a continuatin of the front page to advertising. The number of stories on the front page has dropped to 2-4 and much of the news content feels more and more like canned features rather than current reporting. Stranger is that its added a second sports section and has taken to printing the likes of Jonah Goldberh and Michael Goodwin. A week back it's headline -- it's top strory of the day -- was that no one had clinched the National League Pennant. This isn't a newspaper -- this is a bird cage liner.
Posted by: beb on October 23, 2006 at 8:57 AM | PERMALINK
beb, the Free Press is now run by Gannett, which used to own the Detroit News, and as someone who spent 2 1/2 years at a Gannett paper, I'm sure they are trying to standardize the product to Gannett style (which may result in improvements for small dailies, but downgrades for its larger ones). Since the News is still around, has it changed in any way?
By the way, Kurt Andersen has a piece on the LAT in this week's New York mag. His smug, Manhattan-centric angle: don't try to be a national paper like the NYT, but be local to the nth degree.
http://nymag.com/news/imperialcity/23173/index.html
Posted by: Vincent on October 23, 2006 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK
The LA Times graphic designer Joseph Hutchinson is INCOMPETENT and a yahoo. This redesign is tacky, tacky, tacky. And headlines, in the main section no less, where most of the words aren't even capitalized? That's the very essence of second-rate.
Get rid of Hutchinson!!!
Posted by: Janet on October 23, 2006 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK
"The REAL problem with newspapers is that they're all organs of the Democrat party (excluding a few centrist publications like Wash Times, WSJ, NY Post, and a couple others). Compared to that, listening to moronic consultants is a minor sin."
American Hawk lowers the rhetoric to the standard righ-wing ignorance. "All newspapers?" It's all too clear that you haven't actually read very many papers, much looked at them.
The Chi Trib is, and ALWAYS, has been an "organ" of the Republican Party. The Hartford Courant is quite conservative. Most of the newspapers in this country are more conservative than even the Tribune, which is centrist. The paper I work for in suburban Los Angeles has done a number of stories on the sleazy land deals of a local congressman. He got endorsed for re-election anyway, I guess because he's Republican. The governator got the nod also, despite the fact the he got in bed with special interests faster than you can say "Gray Davis." The papers you mention are NOT centrist, they are conservative or right-wing if you prefer.
Last, but not least, the Times endorsed the Republican incumbent for governor of California. I'm not sure that's based on political leanings so much as endorsing the local movie star over the Northern California pol.
Posted by: Bob on October 23, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK
The new LA Times front page is hideous, but I do like that they finally moved the editorial and op-ed pages from the back of the second section to the back of the first section. That's a step in the direction of being a big-boy newspaper. Now, if Andres Martinez could occasionally support the interests of paycheck-to-paycheck working people, instead of fronting for the corporate investor class, the Times really might start to accomplish things.
Posted by: David on October 23, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK
Couple of things . . .
1) The redesign was done in-house. Joe Hutchinson, their creative director, led it, not a consultant.
2) There was no mandate from corporate. This was the end of a process started by their editors.
And to "Bob" who thinks the Trib is a house organ of the Republican Party . . . how would you explain the endorsement of Democrats in the 6th and 8th Congressional races?
Posted by: Steve on October 23, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK
The LA Times graphic designer Joseph Hutchinson is INCOMPETENT and a yahoo. This redesign is tacky, tacky, tacky. And headlines, in the main section no less, where most of the words aren't even capitalized? That's the very essence of second-rate.
Janet, many excellent newspapers use downstyle headlines. Sorry if it appears "tacky" to you.
Posted by: Vincent on October 23, 2006 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK
One last thing, particularly those who are heaping derision upon Hutchinson . . . what part of the Times newsroom leadership do you think he bypassed to put this redesign into the paper?
This was done with the full endorsement of Dean Baquet and other editors.
Posted by: Steve on October 24, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK
digital surveillance cameras xmx digital surveillance cameras http://digital-surveillance-cameras.blogspot.com
fuji digital cameras xmx fuji digital cameras http://fuji-digital-cameras-pro.blogspot.com
underwater digital cameras xmx underwater digital cameras http://underwater-digital-cameras.blogspot.com
compare digital cameras xmx compare digital cameras http://compare-digital-cameras-pro.blogspot.com
casio digital cameras xmx casio digital cameras http://casio-digital-cameras.blogspot.com
digital camera ratings xmx digital camera ratings http://digital-cameras-ratings-pro.blogspot.com
waterproof digital cameras xmx waterproof digital cameras http://waterproof-digital-cameras.blogspot.com
canon digital cameras xmx canon digital cameras http://canon-digital-cameras-pro.blogspot.com
top selling digital cameras xmx top selling digital cameras http://top-selling-digital-cameras.blogspot.com
canon digital camera xmx canon digital camera http://cannon-digital-camera-pro.blogspot.com
top rated digital cameras xmx top rated digital cameras http://top-rated-digital-cameras.blogspot.com
digital slr camera xmx digital slr camera http://digital-slr-camera-pro.blogspot.com
used digital cameras xmx used digital cameras http://used-digital-cameras-pro.blogspot.com
panasonic digital cameras xmx panasonic digital cameras http://panasonic-digital-cameras-pro.blogspot.com
buy digital cameras xmx buy digital cameras http://buy-digital-cameras-pro.blogspot.com
kodak digital cameras xmx kodak digital cameras http://kodak-digital-cameras-pro.blogspot.com
comparison of best digital cameras xmx comparison of best digital cameras http://comparison-of-best-digital-cameras.blogspot.com
cheap digital cameras xmx cheap digital cameras http://cheap-digital-cameras-pro.blogspot.com
slr digital cameras xmx slr digital cameras http://slr-digital-cameras-pro.blogspot.com
best digital cameras xmx best digital cameras http://best-digital-cameras-pro.blogspot.com
compare prices digital cameras xmx compare prices digital cameras http://compare-prices-digital-cameras.blogspot.com
sony digital cameras xmx sony digital cameras http://sony-digital-cameras-pro.blogspot.com
digital video cameras xmx digital video cameras http://digital-video-cameras-pro.blogspot.com
digital cameras xmx digital cameras http://digital-cameras-pro.blogspot.com
Posted by: digital surveillance cameras on October 24, 2006 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK