Conscious Choice: Get Out Your Reading Glasses

August 2006 | Choice Feedback

Get Out Your Reading Glasses

The new issue seems to be larger, which is welcome. What doesn’t work for me—and probably for others—is the smaller, paler typeface. That makes it very difficult for me to read it comfortably. It’s disappointing, because I won’t be able to continue getting it. I will keep checking in case the typeface is darkened.

— Jean Pierson, Chicago

Editor’s reply: We exist for you, dear readers, and our new design is not set in stone. If you’re out there, and like Jean, you’re having trouble reading this, don’t throw down your magazine in dismay—let us know! To shamefully misquote Margaret Mead, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the font of our magazine.”

CC Should Stay Practical

I have been reading your magazine for about a year now and have found it very refreshing. I seek it out every month. I like the new look and square binding.

However, I found the new issue to be a little too spiritual and lacking in practicality. For example, I would rather read articles on how I can make this world a better place and what I can do to improve my life and those around me. While I understand that many of your readers practice yoga and meditation, I believe that over-emphasis on these topics will marginalize the readers that do not. You run the risk of not being taken seriously by a lot of not-so-in-tune readers. Once you get the “liberal kook” label, it is hard to get rid of.

Please keep your articles practical. This does not mean you have to avoid the topics of yoga, Zen, and so on, but your objective should be to try to pull in more mainstream readers and not marginalize them.

Just words of advice from an old hippie that has seen environmentalism come and go from mainstream America.

— Phil, Internet

Where’s the Statement?

I searched in vain in the June 2006 issue of Conscious Choice for an Environmental Benefits Statement listing the resources saved by using recycled materials and soy ink. Have you traded credibility for slick?

— Helen Pachay, Villa Park, IL

Editor’s reply: Our environmental benefits statment is back in the magazine. You can check the “resources saved” in our masthead on page 8.

Congratulations on the “new” look of the magazine. I am wondering though: how do the numbers regarding “trees saved, ink usage, etc.” compare with the previous numbers of the magazine?

—Manuel Nunez, via email

Editor’s reply: This is a tricky question. We attempted to crunch the numbers, and because the calculations we use are based on “resources saved” as opposed to “resources used,” we were quite flummoxed (some were up, some were down, but it’s all still saved). We can say this: we’re still using 100 percent chlorine-free, post-consumer-waste recycled interior paper and 100 percent recycled cover, with soy-based ink. The weight of each page is a little thicker, but the trim is smaller and the paper requires less ink, so there is a net decrease in resources used. Does that answer the question?

Recommend this page to a friend

Top Ten pages recommended to friends: