This paper is set up in content-full columns that demand a close attention to detail. The lines read downward and flow right to follow the content. There is barely a space on this paper without some sort of information to take in, sort of telling that maybe it wasn’t as accessible to use multiple sheets or that folks wanted fewer pages that would take them a while to work through. The text is very small, almost small enough the reader would need a magnifying tool to be able to understand the words on the page. In book reading, it’s an accomplishment (at least to me) when I get to turn the next page, and it can sometimes turn into a self-competition that makes me read quicker. This newspaper is the complete contrast. For this, you sort of utilize the headlines of the sections to dictate your interest in reading it. For example, the headline that says, “Poetry,” would intrigue someone trying to read a new poem, and then follow up with the editors take on the poem. You can pay for the newspaper in advance, so it’s an out of mind expense where you can just enjoy the reading without having to locate change to purchase.
Well if the (in modern day spelling) missing  orangutan had not been posted in the newspaper, it not sure if this case ever would have been solved. There’s this way in which society relied on these forms of communication as a medium for so many platforms (I.e. job search, missing items, news, entertainment, etc.). And it interplay’s with the analytical power, like if the handprints clearly matched with being something ape-like, then that is just the straight facts of analysis. But when it comes to using this form of literal social media (just printed) as a resource for finding an  orangutan, that’s where simple ingenuity plays in. I think this story asks us to think about how we frame our mindsets. Nobody had even considered an ape, for obvious reasons because it sounds ridiculous, but by relying on these instincts, there was the opportunity for success.
