New York Post: Fortune Vs. The Ghost Of Portfolio

The New York Post seems none too thrilled about the Fortune redesign we told you about yesterday. In an article titled, quite sensationally, “Fortune borrows from Conde for its latest nip, tuck,” the Post surmises that many of Fortune‘s new aesthetic tweaks and features are borrowed from its former competitor, the now-defunct Portfolio magazine. In all fairness, both publications do contain pages and, occasionally on said pages, images and words:

[I]n a bid to have a more modern look, the latest redesign borrows a number of stylistic flourishes from Portfolio, ranging from big photographs and heavy italic type to the elaborate, informational graphics that serve as stories.

We’re not sure we buy it. After all, not even Portfolio was always Portfolio, and many magazines focused on the same industry seem to have the same “look,” from paper quality to page layouts to graphics to font selection. For their part, Fortune maintains that some of the new “old” graphics they’ve used in their March issue are actually a nod back to their own history:

The graphics here are really a throwback to the old-school illustrations we had in the magazine back in the day. (Before short shorts even…)

But we’d like to know what you think. Is Fortune, to quote the Post, “eerily reminiscent” of Portfolio in terms of design, or is this a total non-story?