Snapshots

We Rule. We Drool.

by Duane Swierczynski

It's been a week of ups and downs. Let's start with the ups, just to get them out of the way.

I'm happy to report that City Paper was named 2007 "Newspaper of the Year" by the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association. We scooped up first-place awards for news coverage and diversity, and second-place awards for op-ed page excellence and our special sections. Very cool stuff.

Also, Edward Pettit's cover story from two weeks ago [Book Quarterly, "We're Taking Poe Back," Oct. 4, 2007] has taken on a strange life of its own. The Baltimore Sun has fired at least two defensive shots back at us. Philadelphia magazine jumped in, too, as did Carlin Romano at The Philadelphia Inquirer, who wrote a hilarious poem ("The War Over E.A.P.") about the fight. The Inquirer even ran a poll. And as I type this, I've just heard that CN8 plans to bring Ed on "Your Morning" to mix it up with someone from the Sun.

I'm telling you, if on the off off off off off chance Poe's body is someday exhumed and reinterred here in Philadelphia, I think our work here will be done.

Now for the stuff in the down category.

No, not our staff. Not our page counts, either. I'm talking about the dimensions of the page. Thanks to a brand-new spiffy printer at the plant in Conshohocken that produces City Paper, we have to lose a little off the top. (It's not just us. You might have noticed certain other papers in town shrinking a bit, too.)

So starting next week, we'll look a little more square than we used to. And our stories will be a bit shorter here and there. (Look on the bright side: You won't have to wade through as much "Editor's Letter"!) Beyond that, you really shouldn't notice too much of a difference.

Although this shrinking trend does make me worry a bit about the future of newspapers. Maybe someday we'll completely migrate online, or to handheld video displays you can roll up and stick in your back pocket. Or maybe by 2017 we'll be the size of Tijuana Bibles.

A few weeks ago we published the City Paper City Guide, a kind of "annual manual" geared toward newcomers. Though it features some original pieces, it's basically a best-of compilation of the service stories, reviews and A&E roundups we've published over the past few years. Stuff the newbies missed.

Part of the City Guide was a quick tour through various Philadelphia neighborhoods, along with a photo from each neighborhood.

Including one from Port Richmond.

Which Port Richmond really, really, really really really doesn't like, if the phone calls and e-mails we received are any indication.

I don't want to reprint the photo here and make matters worse, but it can be described in two ways. One — and this is what we intended — is that the photo shows the neighborhood in its gritty, hardboiled glory. We were tired of endless shots of Boathouse Row and the Art Museum and all of that; we wanted to show newcomers the real Philadelphia. The Philly we loved, warts and all.

The other way to see the photo: that Port Richmond looks like a dump.

And after speaking to a half-dozen Port Richmond residents about it this week, I have come to agree that, yes, the photo does make the neighborhood look like a dump.

This was not intentional. And of all neighborhoods to inadvertently insult ... ugh. I love Port Richmond. I grew up not too far away, and went to high school with a ton of guys from the neighborhood. I've been to countless block parties and graduation parties. I buy babka and chrusciki from Szypula's on Richmond Street at Christmas and Easter. I shop at the Port Richmond Bookstore, and eat pierogies at the New Wave Café. So it personally pains me that the photo caused so much angst in Port Richmond.

On behalf of the City Guide team, I apologize. We were going for something, and we missed. We missed by a country mile.

(duane@citypaper.net)