| I found myself sharing a table with Dawn Clark Netsch at a dinner last week and she said she'd noticed changes in the Reader. Was the paper OK? "We've got a story on page one by John Conroy," I said, and that was answer enough. A week later I'd have had to say no. John -- and Tori Marlan, Harold Henderson, and Steve Bogira -- were no longer with the Reader.
Laying off these staff writers, which editor Alison True did at the beginning of this week, was surely one of the hardest acts of her life and certainly a low point in the history of this newspaper. "Over the years," True said Thursday in a message to the staff, " John, Harold, Tori, and Steve have produced some of our most important and exciting stories. Their achievements have included brilliant investigative work, prestigious awards, and possibly most important, spurring social change in a city that always needs it. . . . I can't emphasize enough that this action in no way reflects a judgment on the value of the work of these particular writers, and in fact it's my fervent hope that they'll continue to work with us on a contractual basis."
They're gone because the Reader couldn't afford to go on paying them their salaries -- "As you might guess, this move represents a shift in the financial structure of our relationship with contributors," True wrote.
They're gone because a few years ago Craigslist moved in on our classifieds section -- and classifieds represented a huge portion of our income. They're gone because the old Section One -- the editorial section -- was for decades the tail that wagged the dog here, and when revenues fell it became impossible to continue to allocate the same funds to it.
I called the boss, Ben Eason, in Tampa and reminded him that the last time we'd talked he was saying John Conroy deserved a Pulitzer Prize. (That's a popular idea around here. He's been writing about police torture since 1990, but there's no Pulitzer for persistence, no matter how important the subject.) The first time Eason and I talked, just after Eason had bought the paper this summer, I said that Conroy was, in effect, the canary in the coal mine -- as long as he was OK readers would know the Reader was OK.
"I know, I know," said Eason, who was informed of True's intentions before she made her move. "All I've done is, I've said this is what the budget number is. This is what we’ve got to have. And it’s the same number that’s been out there since August."
Eason and Creative Loafing have some interesting, and let's hope brilliant, ideas about the future of the Reader and the CL chain of six newspapers. "It's ultimately to me a navigation problem," Eason told me. "How do you keep putting out a newspaper at a quality people expect and how do you migrate this stuff to the Web, which is ultimately the future? We’re in a fight over who can tell you more about the street corner in Chicago. You've got a mobile phone and you're hungry or you want to rent an apartment and you're consulting your cell phone, and its going to be Google or Yahoo and they’re getting their information from somebody. Those guys" -- Yahoo, Google -- "they’re not even pretending to be journalists," said Eason. But "we're the journalism right behind them, the stories and information that's still the most comprehensive and best stuff out there. But the challenge is make that turn. I guess I felt that if I was doing fundamental damage to the Reader I wouldn't have bought the Reader."
While writing for the Reader, Conroy's published acclaimed books on Northern Ireland and torture. Bogira, who's been on leave working on a book, published a terrific book on Chicago's criminal courts, Courtroom 302, that HBO is planning to turn into a miniseries. Our last cover story by Marlan, who recently completed a Patterson Fellowship, concerned a Yemeni student who's still being held prisoner in Guantanamo two years after he was recommended for release. Henderson blogged for us, tossed off features on just about anything, and had the most eclectic mind at the paper. Does their departure do fundamental damage to the Reader?
I want to say no, because the remaining staff is top drawer. But I expect readers to mourn the departed. Newspapers haven't come to the point where no one will notice.



Harold Henderson will be sorely missed. He has the most interesting articles in the paper.
And: "They're gone because a few years ago Craigslist moved in on our classifieds section"? I'm semi-sympathetic and a fan...but also a realist. The statement could well have read: "They're gone because after Craigslist moved in on our classifieds section, we dithered and hoped that this emerging new business model would just go away."
Somewhere, the ghost of a blacksmith is agrily waving his tools at one of those durned "Tin Lizzies."
(As for Eason, he all but says, "Well, these jobs were doomed since we bought the paper -- we just didn't confirm it until now." And Yahoo! and Google are now the first competition you want to mention? Really? There's another swing-and-a-miss at trying to fully grasp the emerging paradigm(s)...)
John Conroy's dismissal is one of the best Christmas gifts ever given to to Mayor Daley.
A few days after staffers received the e-mail from publisher Mike Crystal about the sale of the Reader, Mike Miner made a very good point to those of us who were feeling betrayed and dejected by the news: that Crystal might have very well announced the paper was folding for good. Bearing that in mind, it would be foolish to suggest that responsibility for the layoffs that have happened over the last few months belongs at Ben Eason's feet. The problems existed long before Creative Loafing entered the picture.
As someone who left the editorial staff a few weeks ago I don't necessarily think I've retained the right to speak on this matter. But as someone who still has the utmost respect and admiration for everyone I worked with--and is absolutely heartbroken over the pain this transition has put them through--I feel compelled to point out something "fundamental" to Mr. Eason. Based on the culture you've created, the standards you've established, the professionalism you've demonstrated, and the priorities you've set, one thing is very clear. The "we" you used above? You haven't earned that. By a long shot.
I must disagree.
Conroy was the central timber holding up the roof of the coal mine. The disaster at the Reader is not impending -- it is upon us. The mine has collapsed.
Game over.
I hope the survivors continue to work in Chicago, but they won't work in that hole again.
-- SCAM
:P
PS -- current NewCity?, sadly yes; old NewCity (c. mid-to-late '90s) was BETTER than that (when it had actual multiple stories, columns, comix, etc.).
Is the future really RedEye?
Fucking shoot me now.
Good luck to the departing staffers. You will be missed.
But we live in an increasingly stupid and narcissistic culture, so good writing that turns a critical eye on the city and world around us will continue to find a smaller and smaller audience, regardless of whether the ad revenue can support it.
Prove me wrong, morons!
Didn't Chicago used to be known as a newspaper town?...
It sounds callous, but in retrospect several people I know who got the axe in the first few months of the year agree with me.
Let us introduce you to our good online resource:
chicagoreader.com
Time Out--ever considered a dash of content? New City--tired of being only a tax writeoff? If anyone out there has been thinking of starting a new, reader-oriented publication, your staff is waiting!
"Over the years, John, Harold, Tori, and Steve have produced some of our most important and exciting stories." Some?? Try most, at least on the important side. Looking at the staff writers remaining on the masthead: Joravsky may match Conroy for persistence for continuing to call Daley's TIF con a con; Isaacs has had one significant cover feature that I can recall, and that far from her usual beat; Williams is consistently literate and genial, qualities also in decline at the Reader; Kendrick can be witty and Sula amusing; and Paghdiwala, while promising, is rumored to be headed for the door next.
There are things to save the city from and things about it worth saving. I'm really, really depressed about losing influence on the former, but I do think there is actual value in covering the latter. I hope that remains the case.
I was just complaining about the Reader to a friend, saying it values straight news and commentary rather than the feature writing that once made it truly unique.
Then this happened, and I said, of course -- they made this choice a long time ago. And it was the wrong one then. What about now?
It's already been embarrassing, Bigguy.
Most of the media has the attention span of a crack-addicted gnat, while the Reader at its best was able to doggedly pursue an important story for years. Does Eason think that restaurant listings are more important than Conroy's police torture series or Joravsky's TIFF elucidations? If so, the Reader is surely doomed to irrelevance and decrepitude. Expect to see more editorial spin blaming the web, Craigslist, and newsprint prices.
The Reader, R.I.P.
I've been out of Chicago for over 1.5 yrs. The only reason I've had to come back to the Reader site was to check on Conroy's reporting on CPD/Burge Torture. Instead I got this news that the Reader has been sold and now gutted of local journalists with ridiculous integrity and background. And who knew, just in time for my move back to my only home. This really sucks.
I second Stillman. If I want to know about a street corner in Chicago I walk there and check it out for myself. Ditto for a restaurant. The Reader is far more than listings, but how could Mr. Eason know that? He did not grow up here reading the kind of serious journalism and outstanding feature stories that made the Reader what it is. What we seem to be dealing with here is a perception issue: Eason perceives that the Reader needs to offer something he thinks readers want, and a city full of readers and loyal fans perceives (and *knows*) the Reader to be something entirely different.
Though I work in another department—one that is ironically (but understandably) adding bodies—I cannot describe the sadness I felt when I read Alison’s email. The respect and admiration I have for the writers on floor three knows no bounds. While my enthusiasm and energy can sometimes be annoying, I would not be this passionate if the “product” I’m selling to advertisers weren’t so important. And it’s mainly the articles, **not** the listings, that get me pumped to “sell” the Reader. (In the upcoming issue of the Reader expect to see six new businesses advertising in our gift guide that have never run ads in the paper before, along with a new restaurant)
So yeah I used to do some freelance writing (and realized how difficult it was to make a living), and four years ago became a sales rep. We’re a dime a dozen. Investigative journalists—the serious kind capable of writing books and lengthy in-depth articles on a frequent basis—aren’t. It’s that simple.
It’s damn near impossible to quantify the net worth of a Tori Marlan or a Harold Henderson on a budgetary spreadsheet, but I’m hoping that the impact of their loss will not lose readers, though I know that’s a selfish hope. We want our cake—the loyal following, revenues, Pulitzers, etc.---but right now that cake isn’t sitting so well after stomaching the recent news.
Please note I don't blame anyone for this... It's our society in general. We're ADD, and companies need to make profit now more than ever. Newspapers not excluded.
Just as the headline to this blog implies- leaner and meaner. It pretty much says it all. Not sure where gristle falls into this, or blood, but both of those are involved in stripping muscle to bare bones.
I promise this is my last blog comment. Earlier I promised to retire from commenting, so I went back on that, so I apologize. Rest assured I'll focus on selling so that the money can go to supporting a paper myself and tens of thousands of others still look forward to reading each week.
I have always felt the Reader is doing the leg work for the dailies and television news...see an article about a neighborhood issue and it will be in the mainstream press two weeks later. The reporters at the Reader should be paid retroactive finder's fees by the big media in town.
Which of Richie's cronies was feted at a fundraiser after he was indicted? Let's have a fundraiser for those laid off if they end up in need of rent money.
My best to all at the Reader who were laid off and those who most likely will be in the future. Maybe I have a problem with change...I still miss the annual end of year review of local b.s., especially Don Rose's Janies. (Can we find Don's annual list of political attrocities anywhere?)
Independent investigative journalism is particularly needed in Chicago, where the mayoral office has been regarded by many as a birthright exempt from scrutiny since this particular Daley was elected in '89. The Reader was once in the forefront, but now it seems to be headed towards shallow consumerism and "creative loafing." The gnashing of teeth will continue, as it should.
It's amazing that Creative Loafing gets all the blame. The Reader's been sliding for years. It's not terrible, but there are fewer reasons to pick it up. The shrinking readership, the smaller size, the sale by the old owners, the layoffs -- why isn't anybody blaming the people still in charge? They are still in charge, and the specifics of these layoffs were their choice.
That still does not answer my central question. The problem had already started before Creative Loafing entered the picture. I'm very, very sorry. Now you are stuck. Hope you learn to work it out, One. Good luck. We are pulling for you.
We all knew Creative Loafing would be bad for the Reader. You have no choice but to overcome.
They do NOT do investigative reporting. They come from a completely different and car-dependent culture. Their readers won't care about what's on the street corner unless it's a parking lot. They have their hobbyhorses: here in Atlanta they regularly beat up on MARTA but none of their readers ride public transportation.
The "journalism that's right behind" Yahoo and Google is named Hollis Gillespie.
Yes. Time was when the Reader was read by people like University of Chicago students -- and professors. The dumbing down process that accelerated with the expensive 2004 redesign caused many of them to bolt. True and Yablon managed the redesign -- why weren't they fired when it failed, and when the decline in readership only accelerated? The Reader is one newspaper that might have been able to resist the stupidification process that afflicts media in general, and been able to resist by making far fewer cuts than it has made now. The editors greatly underestimated the intelligence of their (in many cases former) readers.
Even now, told that they had to cut X dollars out of the editorial budget, was cutting these four the wisest possible choice?
Even now, told that they had to cut X dollars out of the editorial budget, was cutting these four the wisest possible choice?
What does a coach do when all of her players are starters?
How much has been saved?
Presumably the fired hacks can still freelance for the Reader?
Hear, hear. It seems that these people actually believe that the Reade is all about movie/music/restaurant listings.
Which is transcendently stupid, since listings are the one element that can be so easily replicated by a few enterprising post-collegiate kids with a website.
The Reader editors seem to think that it's necessary to burn down the newspaper in order to save it.
I'll miss sharing pages with features only the Old Reader could get away with: a jail-yard apple orchard, the life-path of a jazz
flautist, staph infections at Cook County, the poetics of graveyard
maintenance, a Guantanamo Bay detainee who shouldn't be, the continued recycling boondoggle. Remember? Long, literate, important stories, the kind Creative Loafing
absolutely forbids us to publish (Eason would *kill* us).
Except, all those stories were published after the sale. This
week's cover on Pilsen's beautiful, endangered Thalia Hall reminds me
of ancient Reader stories I read late at night in the archives when I started this job. Our numbers are painfully diminished, but interest in Hannah Montana remains low.
Jon Conroy is a journalistic hero in the old school sense of the word. His writing has shed light on the issue of torture in Chicago and around the world, and the end result is a net gain in the quality of life for the people in this town, and a net gain in lives over all.
Sad and funny and ridiculous.
Indeed as the person above wrote: "John Conroy's dismissal is one of the best Christmas gifts ever given to to Mayor Daley."
Most certainly, and Richard "the Vampire" Devine, as well.
hear hear- the Liz Armstrong column was really a straw that broke many a back I know. It just really lowered the bar.
But I'll still pick up the Reader for the core writers, and I do most certainly try to take my business to those who advertise in the Reader and support the writing.
I just can't believe they axed Conroy.
I never thought I'd hear myself say this (but I never thought they'd axe Conroy either):
The Reader is history. My decades-long relationship with it is over.
When I need listings, I'll go to New City, which is less cluttered with ads.
Sorry, I'm not one of those readers you view as dispensable. I'm exactly the sort of high demographic reader you covet. To hell with you and your worthless rag.
Carter- I appreciate that, as do the advertisers that I work with each week. Any business advertising in the Reader is directly supporting its production. The only reason the paper is free is because of advertising.
As for New City, I would never knock another free paper in town, but it is less cluttered maybe in advertising but not content. My head swims sometimes trying to follow the layout.
Oh, and to J.- the only thing that is worthless is your anger. It's not going to get anyone anywhere.
And to Tasneem- Sorry to hear you're leaving. I like reading your stories and hope that your wanderlust will involve writing more stories, and if so, send links or tell us where to find them.
Enjoy your future as a glorified coupon clipper - one that I'll no longer bother to pick up or drop by online. "Creative Loafing", huh? How sadly appropriate your name is.
Oops, I did it again.
Lord, yes. And I think Liz Armstrong's writing would be fine from time to time, it just wasn't worthy of a weekly slot (the whole "check out where and with who I got bombed this week!" shtick got old quick). She did a story a month or so ago on music posters that was great.
But the point above about content is dead on - really, the Trib is pretty devoid of it. The Sun Times has been a bit better (note that Mark Brown finally took a clue from Ben on the TIFs), but has always been a little more geared to people who really work in/for the city govt. The Reader is still the best snapshot of the City's cultural vibrancy as a whole.
And I really like that dirtfarm comic to boot, that dude is bent with a capital B!
On the contrary, whoever you are -- anger is indeed worthwhile, so long as it's righteous.
And this anger is righteous. Don't get me wrong. I've been defending The Reader publicly for quite some time (even defending Liz Armstrong's column -- but that's for a different thread.) The reduction in sections, the sale, the tabloid format, the firing of the delivery staff, the other local production cutbacks. Sure, I didn't like any of those things, but argued strenuously that, bad as they were, they didn't mean the end of The Reader As We Know It.
It was the continued employment of first-class journalists which made me do that. I had fond hopes that The Reader's fine journalistic tradition would continue, albeit in reduced form, given the whithering competition from the web.
But Eason just cut the heart and soul out of The Reader. Sure, tattered remnants remain. Miner is first-rate, but he's a meta-journalist (no offense, Miner -- you are great.) And True who, by all accounts is a wonderful person, and a great Editor, is plainly being kept on just long enough to preside over the gutting of the paper, before she too is replaced with some hack selected by Eason.
Look at Creative Loafing. How does that business model work here? It works by stealing market share from "Chicago" magazine.
Eason is timing the inroduction of his free version of "Chicago" in a manner designed to keep readers like me on board, hoping we won't notice the death by a thousand cuts he is imposing on what used to be the only real source of independent journalism in this town.
I got news for Eason. People in my zip code can already get "Chicago" free (and, like me, without even asking for it.) If I wanted a fluff lifestyle rag, I'd read my free copies of "Chicago."
Soon, the only thing worthwhile in The Reader will be the listings. And, like I said before, I'd just as soon read New City for that, since it's not as cluttered with ads. Better, New City is independent, and hasn't been taken over by a corporate hatchet man.
Eason will not get my high demographic eyeballs. My anger is righteous.
I imagine this group does look for a lot of late-night eateries...!
Sadly for The Reader, and justifiably for Eason, he will lose exactly the market he is trying to reach with his gutting of the paper.
Who need another fluff lifestyle rag when we already have "Chicago" and "Time Out"?
Eason intends to be the new "Time Out" or "Chicago". What he will end up with is a gussied up "Conscious Choice." And that business model spells doom.
Remember the old Saturday Evening Post? They ran several good stories in every issue. The key is good writing. There is no central "it" place on the Web right now for great literary fiction. There's the New Yorker, but they're kind of their own thing. The Harper's web site prints nothing from their magazine. All the other greats, Esquire, GQ, Colliers, are either defunct or not paying attention.
Why not start running regular fiction? If the Reader still pays the same rates it did a few years ago, I know it will attract the very best.
Sam
Good writing in the Reader? Great idea! Not so long ago, that is what the Reader always provided. Its reputation was built on good writing and storytelling, and the best reported pieces were invariably the best written.
That is the problem. The Reader has turned into just another arts-and-culture paper. It chose to fire all their best literary journalists because it had abandoned the very things that made it unique before Eason even arrived on the scene.
Why don't all the insiders posting on this comments list stop being defensive and actually listen to the many criticisms here?
Because they are busy circulating their resumes,and worrying about how much longer they'll have a job. They last thing they need right now is to get caught doing anything which hastens their departure.
I really sympathize with them. They are very good people, and should not have to deal with this.
They are victims. Not perpetrators.
Eason's the perpetrator.
absolutely forbids...Except, all those stories were published after the sale."
Um, Tasneem? The Guantanamo Bay detainee was written by Tori Marlan - who has been fired. Also, I know for a fact some of these stories - which require extensive research - had been accepted before the sale.
Some of these stories were done by freelancers, and that budget has also been slashed.
As these firings make clear, the Reader was in a transition period. What matters is the level of quality as the true changes take effect. And it doesn't look good.
For example, I've noticed a decline in delivery - they've started cutting drop off spots and delivering papers laters in some areas, including the part of Wacker where I work, allegedly one of the Reader's most valued demographics.
So I'm skeptical about what's to come.
The Reader is a weekly paper, and so each week is usually planned the week before.
I'm guessing the editors were working on the fiction issue maybe the week before it comes out...? And if people weren't notified yay or nay maybe it's because the new, leaner staff is so busy editing there is no one to send out letters to everyone that submitted a story?
That's not true.
The recent round of layoffs is only the latest and most public change here. We've been making reductions all year long, and it would be a mistake to assume that we didn't consider any of the other reasonable options suggested by readers above before making such difficult cuts.
Merry Christmas, everyone, but an especially Merry Christmas to John Conroy, Tori Marlan, Harold Henderson, and Steve Bogira.
You are right: The Reader is a big success right now.
That is where you disagree with many of the people who have posted here.
What are you wearing?