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




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


Ann Marie Lipinski picked an odd time to quit her job as editor of the Chicago Tribune. Wheels were in motion -- she'd just launched a crash project to redesign and shrink the physical paper and also shrink its staff. Committees were meeting for hours a day about the first and editors were working out guidelines for the second. Now what? Has all that work been wasted? Gerould Kern, who takes over Friday, surely has his own ideas about how to cut, and onlookers who applaud Lipinski's news values must fear that Kern's ideas won't be as good. (He was, apparently, the guy in corporate who came up with the daffy idea of counting bylines to judge the value of staff.)

I've just been listening to someone inside the Tribune who's trying to think it through. (This person's years and experience add up to a perspective I've learned to respect and trust.) Lipinski had been editor seven years already, and Sam Zell and his cowboys were obviously not her style; if she thought of herself as a short-timer why put herself through the agony of deciding who stays and who goes? Yes, but who knows better than she does who's dispensable and who isn't, and who better to defend the Tribune's highest values than someone who's spent a career serving them?

Lipinski came back from a week's vacation in Korea with her husband and daughter with her head clear and her mind made up. It was time. She told her bosses last week, her top editors Sunday night, and her staff Monday. She works through Thursday and the farewell party's that evening at the Billy Goat.

But why did she take a vacation in the first place, while everyone around her was working overtime trying to reinvent the paper? This strikes my interlocutor as oddly insensitive. Lipinski had her friends at the Tribune, the celebrated Friends of Ann Marie -- or FOAMs -- but otherwise, this person says, she was not an impassioning leader. In recent months she'd been no Henry V -- or John Carroll or Dean Baquet, fallen leaders at the LA Times remembered for rallying the troops against the barbarians.

Of course, she's entitled to her own style. And those paladins in Los Angeles could make a strong case that they were right and the bean-counting bosses back in the Tribune Tower were wrong. But now Sam Zell and his crowd have swept those bean counters aside, and it's a lot easier to say the new crowd's arrogant and boorish than to say it's wrong. Plenty of staffers in the Tribune newsroom who'd lay down their lives for the traditional news values Lipinski represents think of Zell, nevertheless, as the paper's only hope of staying afloat.

So what was Lipinski supposed to rally the troops against? Well, against their deepening foreboding, the fear that things can only get worse. And inspiration wasn't her style. Which may be why the newsroom seemed oddly unemotional, I was told, after Lipinski made her announcement, even if the staff universally felt regret. Fearing the Goths in the hearth, it appears they'll miss what she stood for more than they'll miss her. 

As for Kern, he lost a battle for managing editor to Jim O'Shea after Lipinski moved up to editor, and thereafter moved out of the newsroom and up to corporate. There are surely editorial staffers hired in the past five years or so who have never heard of him. But out of editorial's eyes, he was in Zell's. It's curious the bosses could settle on  him so quickly -- they didn't even make him acting editor while they conducted a more careful search. Maybe Lipinski's resignation wasn't such a surprise.

I called William Gaines this morning and asked for his thoughts. A longtime Tribune investigative reporter, Gaines later taught journalism at the University of Illinois before retiring a year ago and moving back to Munster, Indiana. The Tribune's months-long investigation of City Council corruption in 1987 earned Gaines his second Pulitzer. He shared the award with two other Tribune reporters, Ann Marie Lipinski and Dean Baquet.

Baquet wound up at the LA Times. He became editor in 2005 when John Carroll, his predecessor, quit to protest staff cuts demanded of him, and the next year Baquet refused to make more cuts and was fired. (The publisher who fired him, David Hiller, fell out of favor with Zell and the other new bosses in Chicago and resigned Monday. That development was completely overshadowed here by Lipinski's resignation.)

Gaines was full of praise for Lipinski. He said she'd expanded the horizons of investigative reporting at the Tribune, which "had been predictable -- nursing homes, City Hall." In 1998, when she was the managing editor, she actually teamed him with jazz writer Howard Reich, who'd come across some old letters by Jelly Roll Morton complaining that he'd been cheated out of royalties by his publisher. Gaines did the digging and proved it was true. His series with Reich turned into a book.

Thinking about 1988 reminded Gaines of Ellen Soeteber, who was the Pulitzer-winning team's metro editor. Soeteber later moved on to become editor of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  That paper was sold in 2005, and the new owners decided to cut the staff. So Soeteber quit.

And Gaines remembered Jim O'Shea. He was Lipinski's deputy ME at the time of the Jelly Roll Morton project, and he and Gaines worked on several stories together. "It’s a passing era, I think," Gaines reflected. "Over the years we had a certain type of journalism I don’t think anybody else was able to match. It seemed like we could take on any challenge."

O'Shea was the Tribune's managing editor when the Tower sent him to LA to replace Baquet. Coldly greeted at first, O'Shea wound up resigning early this year after fighting with Hiller over staff cuts. 

And now we have Lipinski's inscrutable resignation. 

Are there enough swords to supply all the editors falling on them? Are we seeing the birth of a proud new tradition? 


Comments
(please read our policy)
Anon
July 15th - 10:22 p.m.
MM, I think you're doing your readers a disservice by not even considering alternative POVs. For the dozens and dozens of articles about the dying breed of metro editor, I never read one asking where these same people were sleeping when the web snuck in and ate their lunch. And if Kern was in corporate, especially if he was anywhere close to classified advertising, he deserves the same question. If people loved journalism as much as they say, and not just the comfort of a lifelong white coller newspaper gig, you'd think you'd see more passion and excitement about new frontiers online. Instead it's all pining for days gone by and running away from change. Maybe it is time for them to retire.
Len Strazewski
July 15th - 10:59 p.m.
I'm usually not sympathetic to journalists who have allowed themselves to become anachronisms. We all need to keep up but I do have great sympathy for everyone who devoted years to the Tribune and Sun-Times only to pushed out. Newspaper managements have made great use of the cliche, "You've got to love journalism," but friends, journalism needs to love you back--otherwise your career has just been exploitation.

It's difficult coming up with explanations for my journalism students at Columbia College Chicago as to why they need to learn hard-core traditional reporting and editing when the industry doesn't respect those skills or the people who developed them.
DX
July 16th - 8:30 a.m.
As for Lipinski, think of Marcus Brauchli at The Wall Street Journal. Brauchli as managing editor had a committee dedicated to guaranteeing him editorial independence from interference by new owner Rupert Murdoch. But after a mere 4 months of Murdoch's meddling, Brauchli failed to complain even once to the committee. Instead, he up and left. With, by the way, a nice $4 million parting gift in his pocket--leaving his fellow journalists to the not-so-tender mercies of Murdoch and crew, precisely what the committee was set up to prevent. Brauchli's excuse: He thought Murdoch should be able to run the place the way he wanted with his own people. But, again, THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN. It was the whole and entire raison d'etre for Brauchli's shield committee.
.
Now Lipinski apparently is leaving with no parting gift. But, after years in the big money editor's job, she probably can afford to leave. And she's getting out with her good reputation intact.
.
Except for the inconvenient fact that she leaves a newsroom full of reporters and editors who can't afford to walk out and who now (with the departure of George De Lama two months ago) have no longstanding, proven champion in the big glass offices. Moreover, those left behind are left under the nincompoop tutelage of Gerry the Byline Counter.
.
Brilliant.
Anon
July 16th - 9:06 a.m.
Ann Marie was a good editor overall, but she was not an inspiring person who helped reporters achieve their best. She was a terrible failure there; instead, she hadn't made a new friend since becoming editor. Her track record on minority hiring is horrible. There is no minority reporter at the Chicago Tribune assigned to cover the historical presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama. That should tell you something. And the "bench" of minority reporters is small. Instead of anticipataing change at the Tribune, and managing it into the future, she spent years building her own patronage army--called Friends of Ann Marie--who did very little work. She was so focused on protecting them and keeping these lazy reporters in positions of authority, she did not have time to see the oncoming train of change that pulled into the station at least three years ago. In that sense, she was very much like the classic 1970s Chicago ward politician who failed to understand the importance of having a staff that reflected the demographic changes taking place in the neighborhood. Instead, she lived in the past and along the way became the Ed Vrdolyak (famous Chicago ward healer) of the Chicago Tribune. Let's not rush to sainthood here!
holla
July 16th - 10:07 a.m.
she took a vacation because otherwise her paid vacation days would have gone to waste.
Mr. Anon
July 16th - 10:15 a.m.
Rally the troops? When Ann Marie sent an email to the entire staff equating designers, photographers, secretaries and clerks all as support staff to the reporters, it marked the outright condescension towards visuals that marked her reign at the Tribune. From a visual perspective, she squandered her talented staff with such attitudes during a time of relative plenty. No wonder Abrams is using terms such as "liberate designers and photographers!" and speaking about the powers of cartooning. It is a false choice to pit visuals vs. text, an immature position that leads to polarized thinking. In that way, her departure is unsurprising. She is simply incapable of shepherding the paper into a more visual era.
Anon
July 16th - 10:41 a.m.
Why is she leaving now? Because she has no clue how to do the truly dirty work that needs to be done to save the paper. (And because she doesn't want to be the one to fire the unproductive reporters she's been protecting all these years.) If you really scrutinize her reign, you'll find a self-absorbed woman who surrounded herself with sycophants (most of them male) and did nothing to advance the careers of other women in the newsroom. She was the Queen Bee. Good luck to anyone who dared cross her!
I fought the law and the law won
July 16th - 10:52 a.m.
As to whether Lipinsky was a good editor, I have no direct evidence.
But as to the withering emotional fire that an editor faces on finances and inventiveness, I do know a few things.
First, there are lots of derogatory comments on this failing from people who never had to face it, or haven't faced it for years. It's a brutal free fire zone on that topic now and has been for several years.
Trust me on this one. The answer from financial folks to the pleas and demands of an editor hoping to do better work with just a few more resources is often a polite version of "shut up and go sit down."
You can be told that as often as you have the tolerance for fundamental rejection. but people who write the checks have a decidedly low tolerance for debate and will send you into the darkness if you insist on your point.
The fact that an editor is supremely justified in asking for financial latitude has no bearing on the chances of actually getting the help.
True, those of us who spent our lives in newsrooms might be accused of a failure of vision.
We were not astute enough at commerce. We spent our careers trying to be better at a complex artform only to find out we should have been studying finances and marketing.
At some point, editors craved only the chance to think of great story ideas and surround themselves with great storytellers.
As to the Internet and why there was muted enthusiasm among senior newsroom folks, that too was largely out of their control for years (until very recently when money managers suddenly decided the Internet might save them, too. Some of us knew that all along and begged for support to launch initiatives..but got none...)
Many great ideas were simply vetoed by corporate managers who couldn't see the wisdom of any investment. If you believe editors were ultimately in charge of investment and development strategy, you just don't understand how newspapers worked.
Maybe Lipinsky simply got tired of a tilting-at-the-windmills war that was never going to be won. Critics may lament that her withdrawal shows some form of moral failure.
I suggest a more human answer. Fatigue makes fugitives of us all.
ed
July 16th - 7:36 p.m.
Amazing, ain't it, that someone can go from being toast of Chicago, to goat in the period of two days. It strikes me very unsual _ after reading several of these inside stories _ how such a distant, unattractive and unapproachable harradin could have been picked seven years ago as the best choice to lead the Tribune. What saps were the people who made that ridiculous decision. I bet they did it just from spite to divide the Chicago Tribune into factions of FOAMS and FLOTSAMS. Mind you, I must stress that I am a complete outsider, have never met Ann Marie Lipinski, and am unfamiliar with the Chicago Tribune's very interesting but apparently vicious, back-stabbing, and reptilian office politics.
big al
July 16th - 9:50 p.m.
Newspapers have suffered greatly from a business practice that isn't nearly as costly to other industries: Promoting and giving authority to sycophants. In a lot of businesses, it doesn't hurt and maybe even helps when the head of a division is mostly good at nodding agreement with the top bosses. But with a news outlet, where the journalism is the "cost center" and the businessmen have to be challenged to commit resources to the quality of the product, you need more dynamic personalities. You need people capable of challenging or persuading the bean counters and inspiring the foot soldiers.

Lipinski wasn't considered very good at either, making the newsroom vulnerable to Zell and any other forceful business tilt to Tribune Co. Kern sounds like he's even worse in both areas -- he wants to put a ruler to reporters' annual output to gauge their productivity and he is beholden to Zell, Michaels, Abrams and others for the (out of his depth) position he now holds.

Newspapers have been run for way too long by managers, while badly lacking real leaders. Look where they have wound up.
4th floor pussie
July 17th - 1:03 a.m.
Ann Marie Lipinsk was the czarina of a mild, suburban-read paper, not the editor of a national paper like The New York Times.

A leader is not someone whose "news values" only work when operating a monopoly. Any moron can run a monopoly enterprise.

It is not surprising that she was out of country while her staff toiled in agony - a real heroine!. What did she earn as a Tribco VP? $550k plus bonuses?
DX
July 17th - 9:40 a.m.
Re the wonderful opportunities for newspapers online: Someone needs to explain why it's such a terrific, forward-looking idea to give away for free your editorial product online in what has now proved to be a persistently low- or no-profit medium while aggressively shooing reluctant readers and advertisers away from your exclusive, high-profit print product. By going online, newspapers give the strong impression that they are trying to strangle themselves (perhaps in a kind of corporate auto-erotic asphyxiation in pursuit of the fantasy of nearly cost-free and journalist-free publication online).
.
At the Tribune, the point is made in defense of the problematic Internet operation that Col. McCormick himself was no wuss when it came to new media, investing in radio and TV as they came along.
.
But it's a stupid comparison. Radio and TV are, like newspapers, high-cost and (potentially) high-profit media. The Internet is exactly the opposite. Anyone can dive in with relatively little investment, and the audience is very dispersed, to such a degree that advertisers don't see much benefit from it.
.
There was a survey recently of UIC students asking them what online services they used and found most useful. Large majorities answered either MySpace or Facebook. Further, only 5 percent of them had ever even looked at any kind news site online, including news aggregators.
.
If news purveyors are hoping to capture young eyes online, they are damned fools.
.
jerz
July 17th - 12:39 p.m.
The thread throughout these comments and others on AML are emblematic of the myopia in newspapers. Newspapers that pay better than most are, after all, businesses.

Thus, it requires organic thinking about a business-type in transition and that's been very apparently missing not just in Chicago but nationwide. The irony is the early disdain for the web as if it were something college kids did in their dorm rooms. Actually the dot-com bust some years back assured business structure would include profit margins, understanding of operational costs and a deep understanding of opportunity loss.

As Kern's leadership begins, it is ridiculed for framing output of reporters against input from sales staff. The synthesis may be faulty but it's going down the right road.

All of you still working in the Tribune newsroom walk in the restroom right now and look in the mirror. No, really look at yourself and see if you can stand to keep looking when you ask "what did I do to help newspapers accept the change of an information age?"

Now try that water you've splashed on your face off, pull up your big boy pants and check the calendar. It's 2008. Not 1988, when Squires and Fuller ran big investigative pieces. When circulation piggy backed on the success of Michael Jordan and the Bulls.

The web has taught those who paid attention precisely what information consumers are interested in. Ironically, as I read through the manner in which photographers and designers have been treated -- the worm has turned. Visual information is among the most compelling bits carried around on a cell phone or viewed online.

Tribune staffers revolt! Tear your bibs off. Walk upright in an electronic age. And for god's sake, quit whining about Gerry and Rupert and blah, blah, blah. If you want to be a communicator evolve to the communicator you must become in an ever-changing journalism landscape.
Phil Greer
July 17th - 4:22 p.m.
Iworked at the Chicago Tribune for twentyfour years,as a staff photographer,chief photographer,director of photography and then senior photographer.The last editor the Tribune had was Jim Squires.After that no no person set in that chair.The Tribune editors were selected by who you know, we want people who will not rock the boat, who will go along with what the Tribune company has to say. That sounds hard but it is fact.The Tribune went from being a national newspaper to being the Daily Herald. Zone the Tribune cut back on national,international,state,and city news well it did not work.
Newsmen who cared about covering news were pushed aside.People who worked around the clock and turned in no overtime were passed over for editors jobs and people who worked from home and then wanted to bill the Tribune for a birthday party they gave there kids because they shot photos and did a story.
I stood in the editors office and asked the head of the graphic's department if there was a bridge over the Chicago river on Columbus Drive.She said No after I pointed to the bridge she said the readers don't know that so the graphic is OK. I said they drive across it ever day.A tornado hit just south of Chicago and we had photographers on the seen. The metro desk was told Reg Davis who later became my boss walked into the page one meeting and said we are not sure there was a tornado we have been calling but all the phone's are out of order.He was moved up in the Tribune chain .
Was it better before No!The problem now is who will be the gate keeper ? Where are the people who what to be journalist ? Were are the people who don't want to go home?Has the Tribune shot it's self in the foot yes. Do we need the Tribune you bet.If you build it they will come. Newspapers are the watch dog. I fear for Chicago the stae and the nation.
Phil Greer
July 17th - 4:24 p.m.
My spelling is bad due to J.Walker Black. It is a bad day in black rock.
anon
July 18th - 4:04 p.m.
Hiller was fired
Old Timer
July 27th - 4:19 p.m.
As anyone who ever worked at The Tribune can attest, arrogance thrived there and with it a stubborn resistance to change, even the necessary kind. Tribune staffers, from top to bottom, were so taken with themselves that they lost sight of their newspaper and its mission. Envy, gossip, backbiting and a slew of other destructive preoccupations gnawed steadily at the place and progress was among the chief casualties. They didn't enact a decent ethics policy over there until Jim Squires (otherwise a mediocre editor)came along in the early 1980s. The staff fought a stubborn and mostly successful holding action to keep the paper's head mired in the inner city while the most prized readership was fleeing to the suburbs and fueling success at the Daily Herald and others. The paper missed the rise of Harold Washington and the fall of the public schools until both were well underway, thus establishing itself as a follower, not a leader. Tribune writers, often skating on the edge of racism in the heavily racist city, ridiculed Jesse Jackson as a buffoon even as he was rising as a national political figure and significant presidential candidate. Mike Royko was recruited from the Sun Times only to spend the rest of his years doing work far beneath his proven abilities. Bob Greene, a petty man with an oversized ego and a really bad toupée, was so resented and envied that he was eventually discarded for dubious reasons, his undeniable popularity among readers notwithstanding.
The Tribune was, in brief, a stupid newspaper shaped at all levels by stupid, mostly overpaid people who spent far too much time telling each other that they were wonderful.
It all added up to a long, painful path to decline and decay.
Perhaps new owners less married to the past and less rooted in the Tribune's dysfunctional culture, can yet save the once-proud newspaper, but I wouldn't bet the rent. Even innovative, forward-looking newspapers are struggling to reinvent themselves and for the most part are failing miserably. The way to go with the newspaper itself is to give up on the masses and aim squarely at the better-educated, more affluent readers, who can still be served up profitably to advertisers. The website, meanwhile, can become that medium for the younger, dumber generation, but not for free. With luck, some of the website users will eventually become addicted news junkies and embrace the print version as well, but there are no guarantees. Meanwhile, perhaps cable and broadcasting can become part of a coordinate mix of media that distribute the rich Tribune-produced content across multiple media. The future is not as a "newspaper" but rather as a "news COMPANY."
The first step, I think, is to bring in more new blood, meaning people who have actually seen the world outside of Chicago and know it to be round. To that end, dumping Lipinski and others with minds buried in the arrogance and isolation of the past is a necessary step in the right direction.



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.