Chicagoist: The Reader's Other Redesign — Now With More Firing

Bronto

Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:20:14 -0600

Wow this town is watering down.

red herring

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:21:25 -0600

"The Reader" and all readers in Chicago are losing out over these firings. The same thing is happening at the Village Voice. As for 11 Central Ave it is a PARODY of rich people. You have got to be kidding. How did you miss that?

Ferdy

Sat, 08 Dec 2007 10:40:11 -0600

To be exact, Paul Douglas, who helped the civil rights movement enormously and preserved the Indiana Dunes for future generations by helping it get designated a National Lakeshore, said that one the keys to government was to refrain from undue self-esteem--as in self-regard or conceit. Henderson made fun of the older use of the term at a time when the rush for self-esteem--quickly turned into the conceit now rampant in our society--was in full swing. Read this , and see if he deserved that cheap shot. Anonist - I'm sorry about the name calling and bickering. It's not something I court, but I'll give as good as I get. I'm not interested in being the punching bag for anyone who presumes to know what I stand for or tell me what I should believe or not believe.

anonist

Sat, 08 Dec 2007 08:56:46 -0600

Wasn't the switch to user accounts exclusively supposed to rid Chicagoist of all this name calling and bickering? I'm just amazed no one has mentioned Lincoln Park yet. It's the same shit over and over again, user accounts or not. Now it's just more personal. Way to go!

Ferdy

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 21:01:10 -0600

Matilda - You are such a bore! Go buy yourself another skim latte and worry about all the poor people at the mani-pedi parlor. I have been downsized, and it's not fun. But business is business, right? You're an urban professional, right? Nothing personal, dahlin'.

Kevin Robinson

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:16:34 -0600

Chicagoist was the first to write about Richard Mayers, the white supremacist running as a Green in the 3rd Congressional District. We were also the first to write about Howard Brookin's unethical campaign tactics in the last aldermanic race.

Spook

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:03:57 -0600

Owch!

matilda

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:58:27 -0600

Ferdy, I get the feeling your shit list rivals Nixon's in length. And if you don't mourn the loss of those who have lost jobs, I doubt you care much about public affairs and investigative reporting in Chicago. Poor you: Had to suffer through a ... well, it wasn't a misquote, so I am not quite sure what your beef is. Maybe he just poked a hole in your hero.

Ferdy

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:52:30 -0600

Aside from Conroy, I don't mourn the loss of the fired. Henderson, in particular, has been on my shit list for a very long time when he used something I wrote to snark at the great statesman Paul Douglas, for no reason at all! I'm bummed by the lack of long movie reviews. Rosenbaum seems to be going into semi-retirement and getting a bit dotty, too. J.R. Jones is great, but he doesn't do the long-form review very often. The arts coverage, in general, has taken a dive.

Spook

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:40:05 -0600

"man-pleasure hole" funny a bit homophobic, but heck I didn't say it. I will have to wait till I get home to check it hate's puppies as one never knows if officer computers are monitored and Tanky, don't forget the national campaign you organized right here on Chicagoist that galvanized the indie music hipsters world around law justice judicial reform! How's that going for ya? Sorry I missed the last Smashing Pumpkins benefit. I reard in the Washington Times that your "string her up by the thumbs over hot coals speech" was very moving :-)

Chuck Sudo

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:34:43 -0600

Yes, and Cheetah Gym, as well.

Ward Up

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:32:57 -0600

I'm with Chuck and Margaret on the role of Chicagoist. Every once in a while a solid first with big news, and first with smaller citified items all the time. The big role is a discussion of something reported elsewhere followed by comments by all the names I see above. We see a re-debate of news that appears elswhere; there is NOTHING wrong with that. And it is out of love for the Reader that Chicagoist is weighing in. Viva Chicagoist (no sarcasm).

Tankboy

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:23:00 -0600

And don't forget my beloved Cheetah Gym ... we broke that one too!

Chuck Sudo

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:56:46 -0600

Well, Olly, maybe we don't have that much in original we have been known to get in our licks. Or maybe you just ignored that we were the first to report on Double Door getting a reprieve, the wine bill HB 429 screwing over out-of-state wine retailers, or that we were the first to break that Bell's left Illinois. All of these are stories in which other publications (including the Reader) followed our lead. You can call it being defensive if you want. I call it a point of pride. There's room for both original content and disseminaton of other media here at Chicagoist.

matty

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:48:09 -0600

and i've never heard 11 central ave before but if it's some sort of jan schakowsky soccer mom liberal but not in my backyard kind of show then i already hate it.

matty

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:46:03 -0600

for the record: i happened to love liz's articles. they were funny and kind of quirky and were a TOTAL guilty pleasure. I mean, i'd rather read about her fucked up ass nights out than suzanna homan or some overweight corporate lackey from the red eye. have a little fun people!

spookhatespuppies

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:20:29 -0600

Shut your man-pleasure hole, spook, and click on it. I'm sure you'd agree with everything in it.

Spook

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:12:38 -0600

Why am I afraid to look at "spookhatespuppies" youtube video, especially after I just ate lunch? I mean not like reading his/her above comment was a "joy"

spookhatespuppies

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:58:43 -0600

I just think the Reader likes the smell of it's own farts. [url]http://youtube.com/watch?v=kAO4EVMlpwM&feature=related[/url]

Navin

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:43:15 -0600

Does this mean there will be less reporting on TIFs and police brutality? If so- cool! Totally dude, you slack jawed mouth breathers shouldn't be given too much to think about. Oh! I'm also glad to see that I'm not the only one that thinks 11 Central Ave. blows.

matilda

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:16:20 -0600

Spook: OK, I see the point. But the phrase "educated elites" is a stupid propaganda term. Why not just say what one means instead of using idiotic cliches?

Spook

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:11:11 -0600

Matilda the intellectual bomb throwing Hun! You might want to slow your roll just a tad on this one, cause Huge G besides for using a phrase that you find distasteful, seems to be in lock step agreement with you! And instead of "educated elites" I call them "Gooo Gooo liberals". But to answer you question, “as opposed too” I think it’s that WBEZ should stop catering to the “educated elites” aka the "Gooo Gooos" and cater to the “Public intellectuals” i.e. those that are preoccupied with truth telling and frank speech, knowledge spreading and sharing, and engaging in Socratic questioning even if it’s at their/our own expense. As opposed to surface cocktail party public policy ivy tower debates that the WBEZer’s find so "stimulating" feel me? p.s and speaking of truth telling I’m feeling a bit threatened, by you and Vise Beer, I’m feeling a bit like Ralf Ellison when James Baldwin and Toni Morrison thundered onto the scene, not that I claim to be a writer, I’m just reading a certain book waiting and ridding on the train.

Tankboy

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:01:30 -0600

Spook, I'm with you, 11 Central blows my mind with its stereotying and pandering to the upper middle-class demographic with its "aren't we so open minded and worldly?" family. Ick, ick, and ick. As for The Reader, as if these firings weren't already a bad sign, an even worse sign was the recent return of Liz Armostrong's writing in that periodical. Again; ick, ick, and ick.

pantagrapher

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:32:10 -0600

I think one of the problems with newspapers adapting to the marketplace is that there quickly spread a dreaded Conventional Wisdom about how to stay afloat: put your money into design and ad sales and avoid being gray at all costs. What the bean counters have seemingly failed to consider is the long view. When newspapers are supported more by advertising than by readers, who will those newspapers serve? And how long do those newspapers think it will take for readers to figure that out? They may be saving some money now, but in the long run they're only quickening their own demise.

mojowen

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:16:58 -0600

11 Central Ave blows my mind. As does Ben J's explanation of TIFs (every. single. time.) Poor journalists who keep getting fired. When everyone's gone, what will Chicagoist link to?

matilda

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:05:18 -0600

Slaphappy: No boners for me, but I do get joy from pointing out the idiotic thoughts of others. Seriously, some dipshit uses the phrase "educated elites" and you call me out? Then again, perhaps the world would be a better place if we just played by the "I'm OK, You're OK" type of discourse.

fed up

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:58:09 -0600

The reader has been in a slow decline for years. The TIF articles are excellant but not enough people care. Maybe the fired reporters could get jobs with craigslist and write articles that would appear next to the ads because thats where all the readers formers readers are.

huckeyes

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:52:00 -0600

This really shouldn't be a suprise to anyone. They should feel lucky the reader still exists. Papers have been losing readers and revenue for years. A lot of these journalists should hang on tight but be ready with a resume at all times. Papers will dwindle and dwindle until they find their niche market in the modern times, and those who refuse to change with the times will be gone.

Slaphappy

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:50:23 -0600

Matilda, you're one nasty piece. I'm starting to think that attacking and insulting others gives you a boner.

Olly McPherson

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:47:06 -0600

I agree--the firings should be criticized. But the "stale and pedantic" parting shot seems gratuitous, particularly when your "Chicago web site" doesn't even attempt to match the Reader's coverage. Their business model may have been flawed, but it relied primarily on producing content. Your business model revolves primarily on linking to content that others have produced (with some original content in the less-costly and less-labor-intensive form of interviews and first-person impressions). Chicagoist has its own niche, but it seems like sour grapes to criticize the Reader for cost-cutting when you profit from its output and, presumably, don't pay them anything. In that same vein, do you pay your contributors? The Reader does.

matty

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:35:25 -0600

I don't think there's anything wrong in criticizing the reader. it's been making some provoactive moves and it's only natural to have a response.

Margaret Lyons

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:27:22 -0600

Who am I to criticize the Reader? I'm one of its readers. And I love their police misconduct coverage, which is why I'm mad that the paper's fired its most prodigious, aggressive and interesting reporter.

Olly McPherson

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:21:35 -0600

Who is Chicagoist to criticize the Reader? What original content have you produced on corruption in politics or police misconduct or anything for that matter? Are you going to fill the void in coverage caused by these firings? I find that unlikely. I guess your business model of linking primarily to content produced by others in working well for you. But, hey, at least you're not pedantic.

matty

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:17:32 -0600

The reader is all ads these days. The writing has been cut, there is zero food commentary and the music are just more advertisements. They're going "time out" style but with none of the character and youthfulness that makes time out worth buying.

matilda

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:08:39 -0600

Hugh: "Educated elites" As opposed to the uneducated rubes such as yourself? Ditch the bullshit GOP cliches. It's propaganda. (Strangely enough, it is propaganda the Bolsheviks in 1917 would have found useful, too.) Thunder: I know what a TIF is. You know what a TIF is. But in mass market journalism, you can be sure there are readers every week who do not know what a TIF is, and writers and editors want to talk to and suck in those new readers as well, not just to the converted.

Thunderbelly

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:00:37 -0600

Ben Jovarsky is great, but if I could do with out having to read the definition of a TIF one more time. If you are reading his article, chances are you know what a TIF is.

Hugh G Rection

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:51:32 -0600

@ Spook I'm with Spook. There's nothing public about public radio in Chicago (and many other cities) unless by public you mean educated elites. This has a lot to do with the stale quality of the programming and music. So if Chicagoist (an entity that exists largely due to the work of others) comments on and re-packages a Reader story, does that make Chicagoist stale by extension? Seems like you're biting the hand that feeds you with your condescension.

Spook

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:45:02 -0600

Matilda Where did you come from!?! Margie, please write a post on 11 Central Ave. When I first heard that F*cking Sh#t while I was getting ready for work, I honestly thought I was imaging it, like Huey form the Boondocks does when he hears Bush Speak- and I am kinda crazy and all. 11 Central Ave sums up why WBEZ should not get a public dime. Let the folks who live in the 11 Central Ave Coop fund them, after all, all BEZ programming is targeted to them and they can affoard it!

Chicago J

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:34:28 -0600

Does this mean there will be less reporting on TIFs and police brutality? If so- cool!

Margaret Lyons

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:33:13 -0600

I love Ben Joravsky--which is why I'm afraid he's next. As far as WBEZ goes, they bring in money. People pledge. But if anyone has heard that 11 Central Ave thing they do Friday mornings...well, I'd demand a refund.

Spook

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:30:53 -0600

p.s. Yall Its interesting that We acknowledge, that the Reader is stale, but because WBEZ gets public financing, WBEZ is allowed to remain stale like the open six month old blue cheese that I tossed out from the back of my refrigerator last week. The same pressure for change should be placed on WBEZ! Yall wit me on this?

Spook

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:23:51 -0600

Margie, don't make me hve to take off my belt! Ben Joravsky has been carrying the Reader for years. Like a Farmer's Market in June, he is the only thing fresh there. Who should be sleeping with an eye open is Michael Miner, look up pedantic and you will just find the picture of that old prune. I bet he lives in Hyde Park! And speaking of Hyde Park, what are you a U of C, B school wannabe? Tossing around "business model" like I will be tossing back beer in 8 hours!

matilda

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:23:22 -0600

Less investigative and public affairs reporting. Just what Chicago needs. So, is Creative Loafing keeping the Liz Armstrong-type writers/critics who can write long and deep about entertainment and other fluff but who couldn't write a meaningful public affairs story if their lives depended on it? It's hard enough living with our local governments without good reporters trying to keep tabs. The whole world is becoming a RedEye/Time Out Chicago world, it seems. And most citizens don't seem to care--as long as they know every fucking detail of Britney's life, or the best Thursday night bar specials, or the best TV shows to watch on a specific night, what's to worry about? These departed writers, along with Ben J and Mike D, were the only reasons to actually read the Reader anymore. Good luck to them. I hope their talents land them meaningful and fairly compensated work as soon as possible.