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




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


Chicagoland  woke up to a new Tribune Monday, and the creators of that retooled daily opened their office e-mail to an ecstatic outburst from Lee Abrams, the Tribune Company's innovation chief and irrepressible memomeister. He said the "bold, and sometimes painful steps" taken by the Tribune, and a sister paper, the Hartford Courant, which unveiled its redesign Sunday, would "create a renaissance for these important news brands."

His eruption continued:

Being based here in Chicago, I was closer to the re-invention activity than most of our other newspapers, as the action was an elevator ride away. What is remarkable about the Chicago Tribune is that few thought they could evolve. Comments like these symbolized the perception:"Chicago Tribune . . . they'll never change . . . good luck"--A company veteran in a T-6 market April 2008

"The staid Chicago Tribune is attempting to modernize, though it is unlikely they'll be able to because of their conservative change resistant infrastructure"--A Blogger on a UK website, July 2008

"This place is toast . . . we'll never change . . ."--A Chicago Tribune employee April 2008

Well, there were roadblocks. But those were removed, and the New Chicago Tribune is more than a new version of the timeless Tribune, but it represents a completely new attitude in the newsroom, marketing floor . . . everywhere. A coming together and focus of some real smart and passionate people to create a high quality newspaper that is aggressively tackling the problems with actions. Key to the reinvention process is that we'll never have to do it again, because it will happen every day. There's a new flexibility and freedom to have so much belief on the brand, the city and the people that we can take chances . . . try things . . . have the attitude of re-invention locked into our genes so we can compete . . . and prevail without the shackles of sacred and tired old line thinking that is weighty enough top sink us all into the land of the obsolete. It's a whole new day . . . and attitude. . . . and take a look at the Orlando Sentinel's front page yesterday on newseum.org. Brilliant. Another example of the reinvention simply being the first step in a new attitude that opens the doors for daily reinvention that's going to set the tome to grow this business.

Along the lines of continual evolution, I had the pleasure of visiting Allentown and Baltimore last week. Both newspapers relaunched . . . but that was just a plunge. Now, they are re-inventing themselves DAILY. I was afraid of pushing back to old habits. Hardly, as these guys have used the reinvent date as a starting point and now they are more inventive than ever. I thought Allentown did an good job with their re-invent . . . it wasn't really that WOW though, but it is clear that they are a model of daily re-invent as they are on fire with new ideas and angles. They're continually launching new features, upgrading existing ones and THINKING about the newspaper . . . an a 24/7 basis. This is SO important because a redesign is just a first step in a whole new attitude.The Baltimore Sun is equally alive with evolution. And notable is that their recruitment classifieds called "Find It" (a complete and dramatic rethink) has GROWN in revenue by 9%. Key word there: GROW.

This gibberish about "daily re-invent" as something to get "locked into our genes" is probably no more harmful than your average halftime pep talk in a high school locker room. But then Abrams made a suggestion sure to make old-school journalists squirm.

A few ideas popped up in our discussions. One is that in our quest for local takes on Global stories, why not offer election polls based on neighborhoods? We have National State and regional, but imagine if you could see results for your neighborhood? Then there's a very controversial item: "Special Advertising Sections".

The Baltimore Sun did some very nice special sections . . . BUT--they were plastered with the line "SPECIAL ADVERTISING SECTION"OUCH! Why not just say "Don't read this because it's a bunch of ads and no credible content"I understand the importance of seperating these from the traditional news, that's fine, but how about another name??SPECIAL FEATUREA PUBLICATION OF (PUT PAPER HERE)etc. . . . The idea being "Special Advertising Section" is worded as a turn off
. . . . A bunch of ads. We can reword this and the readers, advertisers and pretty much everyone will have a better experience, AND clearly keep it separated from traditional news reporting. The things I saw the Sun do were really well done. . . . but that "Special Advertising Section" thing seemed to cheapen the content. There's GOTTA be a better way to present these sections.

What  Abrams seems to be saying here is that in addition to "traditional news" and traditional advertising there's some two-headed new beast that, if it's news, isn't traditional, and, if it's advertising, is so untraditional it deserves the protection of subterfuges and euphemisms. It's hard to describe, but it's said to look like the future.


Comments
(please read our policy)
Ian
September 29th - 10:06 p.m.
Monday's Tribune was a sprawling mess with the infantile hand of Red-Eye splashed all over it. Gotta love those 'navigation' boxes at the top of page. Perish the thought I might get lost skimming these 24 pages.
Anonymous
September 30th - 7:44 a.m.
This redesign mania, especially at Tribune's papers, is a pure and simple case of designers gone wild. In the Baltimore market, readers do NOT like the redesign. It is unnerving that management thinks that catchy visual gimmicks are a replacement to high quality journalistic content. When people buy a pound of meat, they consider fat content (what they want to avoid) and could care a less as to how "pretty" the packaging is. That is a universal constant: content quality is the number one thing people demand no matter the product they buy.
Poynter.org should do more investigating this matter instead of hailing Abrams as a genius. The new Trib owner and the top execs he has imported from radio are literally killing newspaper journalism. The exodus of readership of newspapers, especially at Trib owned papers, will now be accelerated, thanks in large part to the misplaced priorities of gimmicks over meaningful journalistic content.
debartolo
September 30th - 7:56 a.m.
just wait one cotton picking minute --- i spend a few years filing a lot copy for the trib's special sections in the 1980s - covering everything from the auto show to education to just about every suburb & city neighborhood we have - and the editorial standards expected by the special sections editor, karen calloway, were every bit as high and as "traditional" as they were in the main paper.

did we run some fluff?

absolutely.

but it was credible fluff mr. abrams.
corvid
September 30th - 8:26 a.m.
The redesigned Tribune is a godawful mess. I understand the need to cut back on newsprint. But why cut even further into the news with a lot of crappy clip art and fiddly factoidal garbage? I guess maybe because they just cut loose most of their good reporters and need to fill with something, anything. Still, given their dirty rotten motives and disregard for the reader, you'd think they'd at least come up with an attractive redesign. Instead, they spew out this, a sort of Frankenstein's assemblage that looks like the product of a 3-year-old on a sugar high. Silly and shameful.
Robert Pruter
September 30th - 8:53 a.m.
I have come around on newspaper redesigns, persuaded by Eric Zorn that once one overcomes the initial shock of the new with time one gets use to the redesign. That is exactly what happened with the last redesign. However, I am sure I will still find the two-tier Chicago Tribune banner still jarring a year from now.

What is interesting is that newspapers use to think that redesigns needed to take months and months and gobs of money. I think the latest redesign proves you can completely remake a newspaper in a matter of weeks and probably at a fraction of the cost of previous redesigns.

I can see integrating the advertising section with news. That is the first thing I pitch when I get my newspaper.
Gerould Kern's twin
September 30th - 9:50 a.m.
This is a terrible news product... Gerould Kern is laughing in his office right now; as he continues to dismantle what was once a good newspaper.
Unindicted Co-conspirator
September 30th - 11:52 a.m.
Maybe people would take Abrams a bit more seriously if he knew how to spell "separating" correctly.
After thinking about that, nah, no one except that crook Zell takes him seriously.

During Xmas shopping season, the Trib has run various special ad sections on Thanksgiving & Sundays that are all full page movie ads. I quickly glance at them & put them into the recycle pile.
corvid
September 30th - 12:53 p.m.
I suppose this is one of the nifty advantages of the redesign: a higher percentage of pages we can swiftly add to the recycling pile.
Karen Callaway
September 30th - 2:10 p.m.
Thanks, Anthony, for the praise re the Special Sections. But also having just read what Lee Abrams wrote about "SPECIAL ADVERTISING SECTION"s (his caps & quote marks, not mine), I want to clarify something about those sections that may not be apparent to anyone reading his words or these Comments. At the Chicago Tribune, at least, Special Sections were NOT(!!!!!!) Advertorial sections (the correct name for what Abrams is referring to). They were produced 100 percent by members of the Editorial Department; they were feature sections that had advertising in them, just like the rest of the Editorial part of the paper---news, sports, business, Tempo, Good Eating, etc. Much as the Advertising Department would have liked to (and occasionally tried to), it did not suggest or control the content of those sections. (Anthony will remember my saying---often, over the years---that I had a better church and state divide than the federal government.) The Special Sections Department was a part of Editorial, not Advertising. The sections Abrams is referring to in his memo are the ones created and produced solely by the Advertising Department, with absolutely no input from Editorial. As such, they are correctly labeled. To change the label to something that might have the word "Features" in it instead of "Advertising" is misleading---and disingenuous. The reader well knows what a feature is, and it's a story that also is produced by the Editorial Department. Lighter in tone and subject than, say, the latest bombing story out of Baghdad. It will have that same Baghdad dateline, but will be about (to create an example) the soccer league the Army has organized in several neighborhoods in that city. As for the content of the Advertorial sections: It is either produced by the staff of a company buying an ad in said section or by a freelancer hired by the Advertising Department (some are very good---I should know, as they used to be hired by my department). But the mission of the articles written for those sections is not the same: Their purpose is to get the reader to buy only A product or B service, or to visit only C restaurant or D store, all of which have bought advertising space in the section and are getting a "story" as part of that ad buy and know that the "story" will be complimentary. This is all well and good; there is a place for such information. But it is not in a section using the word "Feature/s" in the label, because that implies the Editorial Department has been part of creating the text, pictures and focus of the section. It is in a section clearly labeled with the word "Advertising." Because, ad or text, that is what it is. Conversely, Editorial (News or Features) does not pay companies or restaurants or museums or whatever when it writes about them. It is free to be critical, if needed, and definitely to use more than one source if the story warrants it. To use one of the sections Anthony mentioned as an example, take the pair created annually for the Auto Show. Those writers took a clear look at the cars and the industry, and if there was something that needed to focused on and discussed and criticized, they did. And, no, the car companies and Advertising didn't like it; they only wanted positive things said. I rather liked (as one would expect) Mike's summing up of what Abrams is musing about. Abrams can employ all the euphemisms he wants, but the content of such sections, no matter how well written or slickly presented ("really well done," to quote him), will remain what it is: Puff, with each article written solely to please that one advertiser, not to provide the reader with any objectivity or balance.
gdretzka
September 30th - 5:33 p.m.
Having been assigned to write for and/or produce several of the special sections Karen Callaway described, I can attest to the amount of autonomy we enjoyed and to the journalistic standards that were maintained. She might also have mentioned that staff members, as well as freelancers, were compensated in various ways, usually in comp time, or, for restaurant sections, several very good meals that were expensed thru normal channels.

People in Chicago may not recall the furor caused in LA after it was disclosed that Times management had colluded with the owners of the new Staples Center to share revenues from an advertising supplement disguised as the Sunday LA Times Magazine. The shit that hit the fan from that debacle brought down several editors and may inadvertently have led to the subsequent Tribune takeover. To paraphrase FDR, it was a section that will forever live in infamy.

My suspicion is that Lee Abrams would have seen no conflict with that arrangement and, indeed, might now be inspired by it. On news-radio stations in L.A., it's not unusual either to hear the same anchors pimping products in commercials as reading the news. I recall several times when an anchor would plug a stock or product in what sounded as if it were a commentary, but actually was an advertorial.

Mr. Abrams' job is to make money for Sam Zell, not maintain a division between church and state or the Tribune's good name. If the "partners" benefit, it will only be after Mr. Zell cuts off the biggest slice for himself. Beyond the purchase of the news product, the readers don't matter at all. Let them eat color graphics and factoids.


dying
October 1st - 5:49 p.m.
Today's page three speaks for itself. Beanie Babies, I think it was.

Please, Lord, send to this city a media executive that cares about it.
debartolo
October 2nd - 8:34 a.m.
well dying, if you take another look @ page 3 & get past the headline (beanie babies can buy delux apartment in sky), you'll see that the beanie baby thing was just a nice, clever lede ... the 7 graph story was about ty warner, the founder & ceo of the firm that makes these toys ... he just bought a $40 million, 10,000 sq foot condo - meaning he sold a hell of a lot of beanie babies.
Studebaker
October 7th - 11:08 a.m.
Suggestions for Abrams:
1: Try not to ramble so much.
2: Respect newspapering experience..you'll be surprised at what these newspaper folks know..Just ask them
3: Find a kid to type your ramblings...kids can spell pretty well.
4: Go reinvent rock and roll...please.



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.