Reader Info
Advertising, subscriptions, staff, privacy policy, contact info, freelancers' guidelines, etc.




News Bites
Michael Miner on the media | RSS | Archive | Search


The Sun-Times gets to dump another salary -- Cheryl Reed, the editorial page editor, has quit, and quite spectacularly.

A couple of weeks ago I heard that she'd turned in her resignation -- she couldn't have been a happy camper after layoffs cost her about half her staff. But she was talked out of it (by publisher Cyrus Freidheim himself), and  editor in chief Michael Cooke issued a memo telling the staff to ignore the rumors: "She's with us for the battle."

She's not. She quit again Friday, and today wrote her staff a memo that must have made Freidheim and Cooke wish they had just let her walk the first time. The memo:

"I am deeply troubled that the editorial board members were not allowed to address concerns raised about the Obama [February 1] and McCain [February 3] editorials, even though the endorsements were turned in more than two days before they were published. Instead, wholesale rewrites were done by people who aren't even on the board, including one person who is no longer employed by the paper. 

"I was not even told that a McCain rewrite had been commissioned nor was involved in the process. Yet, the former editorial board editor and another former board member were deemed appropriate for that task. Not only does this undermine my position but it devalues and patronizes the editorial board writers who wrote the original endorsements: an African-American, a Latino and two white women. (As you know, both endorsements were rewritten by white men.)

"The irony is that for the first time in history a woman and a black man are running for President, yet, at the Sun-Times our diversity is disregarded. This is absolutely antithetical to the vision and purpose of my hiring. It also severely damages the integrity of the board and makes a mockery of the editorial process. No other major newspaper that I know of condones editorials -- and certainly not endorsements -- to be written by anyone other than the editorial board members. There is a reason a curtain exists between editorial boards and the newsroom -- to preserve the ethics of the decisions made.

"These actions violate the agreements laid out last Monday that the editorial board would write the presidential endorsements. That is what Cyrus and Michael agreed to do if I stayed. I'm appalled that in a matter of days,  promises to value and support the editorial board were discarded. I know you are angry and demoralized, and I am embarrassed that I believed their assurances to be genuine.

"No matter how much Cyrus or Michael like the endorsements the end does not justify the means.

"I resigned on Friday. I believe today will be my last day. It's been a pleasure working with all of you."

Reed was right. Monday was her last day. She showed up, issued her memo, and was promptly told to go home. She's been replaced by columnist Tom McNamee.

Who wrote the editorials? The editorial board consisted of Reed and Kate Grossman, both white women; Deborah Douglas, who's black; Teresa Puente, a Latino, and Mike Danahey, a white man who's filling in temporarily on loan from the Sun-Times Media Group paper in Elgin. Who rewrote them? I'm not sure Reed actually knows. The former editorial board editor she cited could only be Steve Huntley, whom she replaced, and the former board member would be columnist Neil Steinberg. But I reached Steinberg and he said, "It wasn't me." I was also told by someone at the paper she was mistaken in her reference to someone "no longer employed by the paper."

A year ago Reed, then books editor, told Cooke and publisher John Cruickshank that if given the chance she wanted to blow up the editorial section. In July they told her to. "We are returning to our liberal, working-class roots," she said in a letter to readers, and though "liberal" was promptly amended to the safer "progressive," the Sun-Times continues to bill itself on the editorial page as the "progressive, independent conscience of the city." 

It's a wonderful role for a strong, vibrant daily without a care in the world other than setting the world straight. The layoffs throughout the Media Group have taken a palpable toll on its papers, though apparently they did what they were intended to do. On Monday Freidheim, who's the company's CEO, announced it had slashed costs by $50 million a year and was putting itself up for sale. Freidheim spoke of a "solid portfolio of publications and websites." The Sun-Times, however, looks like it's eight weeks into a hunger strike and has begun to hallucinate -- a regular new feature boasts the paper's been "on Chicago's side for 60 years" and wanders through time, reliving old campaigns.

UPDATE: Here's Cyrus Freidheim's staff memo responding to Cheryl Reed, as posted on Romenesko:

"Today, Cheryl Reed announced her resignation as Editorial Page Editor of the Chicago Sun-Times. We are sorry to see Cheryl leave us and we wish her well in her future endeavors.

"In light of concerns that Cheryl expressed to some of you (and, apparently, to others outside our company), we feel the need to set the record straight. The decisions by the Chicago Sun-Times editorial page to endorse Barack Obama and John McCain were made by the full editorial board. Parts of those endorsements were re-written by others. The effect of this editing was to strengthen the editorials, not to change the positions taken. No change was made to either editorial that changed the message of the endorsements. The changes made, in our judgment, deepened and strengthened the messages.

"In every newspaper in America (and elsewhere), the publisher and editor-in-chief have the responsibility to ensure that the editorial product that goes out in their names is of the highest quality and clarity. We will continue to be mindful of this responsibility.

"Unfortunately, Cheryl's assertions about agreements or representations made to her are just not accurate.

"Both Michael and I are deeply committed to diversity in the newsroom and elsewhere in our company. Our recent actions with respect to the reductions in force were driven in large measure by our desire to maintain a staff that represents all of Chicago."

 


Comments
(please read our policy)
Teresa
February 4th - 11:40 p.m.
Where will it end?
sharpp
February 5th - 7:41 a.m.
OK but what were the changes?
Victor
February 5th - 10:57 a.m.
Would Ms. Reed mind posting her original editorial and let us be the judge of what Mr. Freidheim feels was missing from it?
so-called "Austin Mayor"
February 5th - 12:08 p.m.
MM,

Every time I think that the S-T has reached rock bottom, their brain-wizards find a new way to dig a deeper hole for the paper.

Trying to save a newspaper by cutting newsroom staff and undermining the editorial board is like trying to save you marriage by finding just the right woman to have an affair with.

-- SCAM
Hildy Johnson
February 5th - 1:17 p.m.
The worst of it was that the Obama endorsement was dull and gave no real solid reasons why anyone should vote for the guy. It put me to sleep from the first sentence. I've read college newspaper editorials in the past month that have given better arguments for supporting Obama. It sucks that management stuck their hands in the editorials, but it sucks more that they still couldn't revive a flaccid editorial.

It's terrible what has happened here and a continuing embarrassment to the once Bright One, but the supposedly progressive editorial page (what i'd really like to know is who was the genius who has given chriostopher hitchens the space he's gotten?) has no teeth and its editorials seem juvenile sometimes and uninformed most other times. Maybe this change will be one for the better.
Sun Times Death Rattle
February 5th - 1:53 p.m.
Cheryl Reed was mediocrity embodied. Maybe worse. The Sun Times editorials haven't been worth reading since Neil Steinberg was banished from the Board.

Hopefully, her "principled" stand (read: transparent cry for the Tribune to hire her) won't send her into a Carol Marin-like exalted orbit.
Bye now!
February 5th - 3:41 p.m.
This unfortunate drama has much less to do with the Sun-Times’ real and perceived problems than it has to do with a conflict between two pig-headed individuals used to getting their way by pushing people around. Cheryl Reed and Michael Cooke.
Reed didn’t so much lose half her staff to layoffs as she used the layoff opportunity to push three well-respected journalists out the door because their competence threatened her self-coronation as Queen Bee.
Cooke and Cyrus Freidheim elevated and empowered a wholly unpleasant person, and now they act surprised that she has chosen to act unpleasantly.
The departure of Ms. Reed and her outlandish ego should be viewed as good news.
Ann
February 5th - 4:31 p.m.
I read a news story about the resignation and immediately came here to see what your observations were because I knew they would shed some additional light on the issue, as indeed they did.
It made me realize how fortunate we are to have you covering the Chicago media scene. Thank you.
Michael Miner
February 5th - 4:34 p.m.
I haven't read the original drafts of the endorsement editorials in question, but perhaps they suffered -- as writing tends to do -- from the committee process Reed's memo alludes to. The Obama endorsement in particular must have been of great importance to the editors -- a milestone in the assignment Reed took on to return the paper to its progressive roots -- and if the editor didn't think the language was equal to the occasion, he had every right to change it. Why Cooke didn't change it in collaboration with Reed I do not know.
Koji
February 6th - 7:54 a.m.

Did anyone watch Cyrus Friedheim on Chicago Tonight last night?

He seemed flustered when questioned about the reports of staff being escorted from their desks ("we had a party right before!" he threw in, to soften, and re-direct the inquiry), and when asked about what exactly were the changes/re-writes to the endorsment, he responded:

"Some tone, some wording, some details, that's all."

yep, that's all, folks.

kdollarsign
February 6th - 10:58 a.m.
agree with ann, thank god for this blog. too bad I can't rap with harold anymore, as well. anyway, I'm not enmeshed in the paper's politics, but it seems the editorial endorsement would generally be subject to peer review.
whet
February 6th - 2:10 p.m.
kdollarsign, you can rap with harold at harolddaily.blogspot.com. He's also got a genealogy blog: midwesternmicrohistory.blogspot.com.
jcat
February 21st - 5:05 p.m.
Maybe they'll resurrect Mark Hornung and just have him run someone else's editorials again?

Just sayin'.
Peter Zelchenko
May 11th - 11:45 a.m.
Sorry to be so late, but my impression is that the problem is not the fault of the higher-ups at the paper, it is the fault of the schizoid nature of liberal America. There's no need to speculate: Mike Cooke surely was endeavoring to soften a too-progressive endorsement into one that would be more palatable to, oh, 100,000 or so readers.

We on the left may think that that is a crime, but they must do something to serve that readership. The solution, for a paper that proposes to be relevant to all of these diverse groups, may be simpler than you think. It involves some restructuring of the section to bifurcate opinions by the editorial board when it is split -- much like Supreme Court dissenting opinions, but briefer. When you explain these divisions to all readers, it enriches them and helps to validate their own nuances of opinion.

The solution also may involve rapid-response polling of readership through e-mail and texting, so that the editorial board does not work in a vacuum. That obviously would have built-in fringe benefits, as connecting the print and cyber realm often do in journalism.



The News Bites blogroll
Harold, Daily by Harold Henderson

The View From Here by Andrew Patner



Branzburg v. Hayes, the split U.S. Supreme Court decision (1972) generally construed by journalists and judges alike as affirming some sort of reporter's privilege in federal courts.

U.S. Appellate Judge Richard Posner's influential opinion in McKevitt v. Pallasch (2003) telling those journalists and judges they were wrong -- there is no such privilege.

John Milton's Areopagitica (1643), one of the earliest and most eloquent arguments for a free press. Said Milton: "As good almost kill a man as kill a good book; who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, God's image; but he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself, kills the image of God, as it were in the eye."

©1996-2008 Creative Loafing Media All Rights Reserved.   We welcome your comments and suggestions.