Chicagoist: Creative Loafing Buys Chicago Reader

guest

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:28:39 -0600

Liz Armstrong was awesome--an oasis of funny in a sea of serious (not that there's anything wrong with serious) and kind of poignant when she herself was serious.

guest

Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:28:30 -0600

I'm really concerned about this sale. If you go to the Creative Loafing site, it's rather cluttered and a bit ugly. The event listings - one of the Reader's greatest strengths - are jumbled and difficult to navigate. The content seems to emphasize brevity over quality. Also, I don't get a sense the Loafing "brand" has any deep connection to the communities it allegedly serves. The Reader may vary in quality and have it's flaws, but it's also independent and local. For all the cliques even the controversial Ms. Armstrong had a deep curiousity and appreciation for Chicago. The new publishers are moving most of the tech staff out of state - how is that going to help the Reader keep a local feel? Will they continue to try to use local art and illustrations whenever possible if the design department is in another region? I'm sorry but that alone indicates the Reader ain't nothing but a name to these people. What is wrong with using local vendors? The news stories also hint that they might start PRINTING the Reader out of state. What will that do to the timeliness of the content?

guest

Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:07:36 -0600

numbers 8 and 9, you invalidate your otherwise reasonable posts with the hopper love: she's liz armstrong with a bigger vocabulary--though she's only neglibly better associated with what these words actually mean--and a bigger full-of-shit identity-politics chip on her shoulder, the quintessence of the off-putting & empty, jargonized & nondescriptive, hypocritically fetishized hipster-elitist trend at the reader which you otherwise bemoan. perhaps the *worst* writer in chicago.

guest

Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:13:53 -0600

City Paper didn't own the Reader. Both the Reader and City Paper were owned by Chicago Reader, Inc, whose owners' main offices are in the same building with the Chicago Reader at 11 E Illinois St.

guest

Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:40:13 -0600

Tank: Thanks for the info. I had suspected as much about the hiring and cliques, but then again, that's how so much of journalism operates (I speak from experience). I disliked Liz as much as you, but I give the Reader credit: People read her all the time, whether from love or hate or hoping to watch a car wreck. As for Time Out, I am amazed at how well edited it is for a listings publication.

Tankboy

Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:05:10 -0600

Well, I'm sure Dan Savage is pleased The Stranger wasn't sold. I'm equally sure no one at The Reader is safe in their job now, either. While i too have my qualms with the paper's direction the past few years, I did always respect its independence. At the same time, that independence was won through healthy ad revenue that's no longer there. That, plus the fact that Time Out Chicago has made the other primary reason most folks picked up the paper, the listings, largely irrelevant, means we'll probably see quite a few changes in the next year ... most of them not for the better as far as the paper being a valuable resource for the public. And #8, I'm with you about Hopper, but The Reader also knows how to pick some real stinkers based on the cliquish nature of the editorial staff (see: Liz Armstrong), and at this point culling the weaker writers brought on board due to interpersonal friendships might be the one thing the new owners could do that I would view in a positive light. Related answer: The continued survival of NewCity is a mystery to us all. Personally, almost everyone I know that has written for that paper, or sold ads for it, or worked in the design department, were laid off long ago.

guest

Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:40:27 -0600

The Reader has gone seriously downhill in the decade or so that I've lived in Chicago: Cover stories have become less newsy and more poorly sourced; and inside stories, at least for the front section, have focused much, much more on quirky people rather than city news not covered by the dailies. I am grateful the Reader seems to less often run massively long stories just because they can, though. The paper really has only a few must-read writers, among them Ben J and Toni M and John Conroy (Jessica Hopper is a damn good writer as well, easily one of the best in Chicago, though I can read only so many essays about punk-ish music and what it means/meant/will mean). The Reader in the past few years seems to have struggled with its voice and identity and a lack of energy. I hope that Creative Loafing, which seems to have a respectable reputation, can manage to jolt the paper, which still is rooted in the hippie days of long ago, and perhaps even improve the Reader's city news coverage. Perhaps something good will come of this, and the Reader will not become, say, a poor imitation of a New Times/Village Voice media publication. Related question: How the hell does NewCity still survive? That book is thin as hell, and really offers nothing unique, and seems to have strength in only a very few areas, among them books coverage.

Spook

Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:36:46 -0600

Joravsky it is! Long May he write for the Chicago Reader!

Scott the Jerseyist

Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:21:20 -0600

For my wife and I, the Reader is a weekly ritual. Hope they don't butcher it too much!

Ferdy

Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:19:26 -0600

Joravsky.

Spook

Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:13:06 -0600

They had better Keep Ben Jarvosky! Ever since Chicagoist Kevin became a Precinct Captain for the Regular Democratic Machine, Ben Jarvosky is one of two journalist who resists the Daley Dark side!

Ferdy

Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:25:03 -0600

I'm worried about a friend and long-time Reader employee. He's close to retirement age and may find that the inevitable cost-cutting we all ought to be prepared for will leave him nothing for retirement but an inadequate severence package.

guest

Wed, 25 Jul 2007 07:59:44 -0600

That's "Fayetteville," Yankee.

pantagrapher

Wed, 25 Jul 2007 07:55:12 -0600

I remember the last time I worked at a newspaper and the new owner told everyone not to worry. A year later, only two people from the old crew remained.