Chicagoist: Time Out Chicago Does Chicago Magazine's Work For Them

matilda

Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:22:17 -0600

I didn't realize vigorous competition was pettiness, Andrew. Then again, few of you are real reporters.

chicagomag

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:30:37 -0600

Geez, all right already! Normally, we roll out the stories over the course of the month, but here you go—a week ahead of schedule: http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/February-2008/Nothing-But-Net-171-Great-Chicago-Web-Sites/

Andrew from Gapers Block

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:19:00 -0600

It's so not worth fighting like wild dogs. Gapers Block's mission is to get people to slow down and check out what's going on around the city, not be your sole news source. Chicagoist does that too, but it's not a zero sum game. Why waste time with pettiness?

matilda

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:37:54 -0600

Andrew: Fair point, but shouldn't the decision rest with Chicago magazine? Does TOC get to judge how to best serve another magazine's base? I understand the frustration about the delay, but that does not excuse this action. TOC is acting like it did something noble when, really, it only mooched off someone else's effort. That's not criticism. (And I say this is a fan of TOC, which does its job well most weeks.) Another issue: Why do you celebrate getting along with Chicagoist staffers? This is Chicago, and media should fight like wild dogs going after meat. (I say that in half-jest, but only half.)

Spook

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:34:32 -0600

Time out's slogan should be...... Time Out Magazine. The Very Latest in Wasting Trees

Andrew from Gapers Block

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:17:36 -0600

Matilda, I think TOC's publishing of the link list amounts to media criticism, i.e, "They're sitting on this story for no reason, so we're going to do it for them." Chicago Mag's policy seems be to wait until the issue's cover date to publish stories online -- but by that time the articles have been available in print for a month. It makes sense for most stories, but it's completely wrongheaded for a story about the internet. If nothing else, publishing it early would have been a service to all the print subscribers, so they wouldn't have to type all those URLs in manually. Besides, if TOC hadn't published the list, we may not have gotten the truly valuable feed list Chicago Metroblogging created. (Also: it's true, Chicagoist and GB staffers get along. We aren't the Trib and Sun-Times.)

Fancypants1

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:42:57 -0600

can't believe they'd list chicagoist under "news reporting."

matilda

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:25:16 -0600

Wow: So one media outlet steals the work of another, and this is good? All because some cheapskates could not wait until the story went free on the Web? And TimeOut considers this worthwhile journalism? Why not spend those few hours on something original? I mean, can't the intern call a few bars and ask about Tuesday-night specials or something? Pathetic hacks.

JoeM500

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:10:43 -0600

thanks for bringing it to my attention (because i don't read other outlets) word.

whet

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:47:41 -0600

Though I wouldn't push things by making "Gapers Block" possessive.

Tankboy

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:14:57 -0600

No, I'm calling it "bringing it to your attention."

Freak_Deaky

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:04:32 -0600

So let me get this straight, Chicagoist paraphrases a story of another outlets own parahaprase of another story. And you're calling other older media outlets lazy. We think Chicagoist needs to read the definition of lazy.