Fair enough. Now please post a segment on how the deceased stranger's family's life was changed in 28 seconds. Would that not be more balanced coverage?

Why wouldn't they put his head in front of the red box?

Interesting! Definitely has sparked my interest for this issue. The video's a great promotional tool, the cover topic is controversial and the design is effective. For sure an improvement over recent issues.

what is the matter with you people? are you a pr firm or a magazine? what a biased description of the incident.

I like the look, my one beef is the little top of his head behind the transparent red, it just doesn't feel right and I think having him in front of the red will give it that little extra dimension it needs.

I'm looking forward to reading a sympathetic story. Good on ya TO Life. Great promotional tool.

Read the summary of Richard Pecks decision. I like the cover but also agree that his head should be in front of the red box

1) This is a profile story on him, not a news story about the incident. Bias and balanced coverage isn't an issue.
2) They put his head behind the red box because the box translucency is a new facet of their cover approach and branding, and this being the 2nd redesign issue, it probably seemed like a good idea to reinforce it. But I agree that viewing the cover as a standalone entity, his head would look better in front.

An interesting story to be sure, and the promo video is quite slick... but that cover is their usual awkward mess, esp where type is concerned.

Anonymous: "Why wouldn't they put his head in front of the red box?"

Uh, bad art direction maybe?

Agree that the red head doesn't work. Gives him a kind of Rick Astley look

@Anonymous 12:50 pm. Bias isn't an issue in a profile piece? Interesting perspective.

Rick Astley? You're showing your age there, Anon. :)
Any junior designer or J-schooler would have put the head overlaying the red box. Terrible, terrible mistake, or, if they did it on purpose, bad judgement.

In the age of social media and web 2.0, the notion of "objectivity" has gone stale. To survive, magazines have to have a strong point-of-view. Magazines have to sell if we all want to keep reading them. No point-of-view (i.e. taking sides), no sales. Instead of being sad about this, as magazine professionals, we should be looking at how to take advantage of it. TO Life has done that here. (For the record, I don't work for TO Life and never have.)

I like the red box overlaying his head. Why is everyone so unimaginative? Could you do better? Think outside the box people. Your reactions prove to me why Canadian magazines are in trouble....

Children! Wow! Meow meow meow! Please take a step back and take a breath. For crying out loud, it isn't the end of the planet as we know it. Everyone has an opinion. Must one be wrong and one right. Different tastes are allowed. I don't know if this is the reason "Canadian magazines are in trouble". I suspect the economy may have something to do with it. In case anyone noticed, there is content to this magazine. No one will cancel a subscription or buy or not buy the magazine because of a red box over a head. The reasons magazines are in trouble is because we already have too many people with the gift of just knowing what the reader will like or will not like. Based on the cat fight which has gone on over the covering of a bit of a head, obviously some are blessed with the ability of knowing everything, based on a sample of 1.

The cover (red transparency included) is just unimaginative and the cover lines are both boring and poorly written. Uh, "how he got off." Really!?! Missed opportunity to do much better. The promo vid was pretty good, but the copy about "would your life change..." Can we say DUH! Is that the best you could do? Of course his life effing changed. Who's wouldn't.

OK, Skeptic, let's read a couple of those "much better" lines.