Thursday, November 19, 2009
Media / News Bites More Chicago in the New York Times, Courtesy of Reader Executives
Posted by Michael Miner on 11.19.09 at 03:52 PM
As a New York Times subscriber, I received the following email:
"Your edition of The New York Times is about to get local. Every Friday & Sunday.
"Starting Nov. 20, we’re adding special coverage of Chicago, produced for The Times by the distinguished journalists of the Chicago News Cooperative, every Friday & Sunday. So, you’ll not only start every weekend with the most insightful journalism in the world. You’ll also get special coverage of Chicago.
"Arts & culture, style & sports, politics & public affairs, Millennium Park & Magnificent Mile — our Chicago report covers them every week."
This is the Chicago News Cooperative's first foray into producing journalism, but its plans go far beyond the Times, as I explained in this blog a month ago when the CNC was first announced. It's the inspiration of Jim O'Shea, former managing editor of the Tribune who's known around the Reader as a member of the editorial board that's now overseeing the Reader and the five other weeklies in the old Creative Loafing chain. A regular column will be contributed by Jim Warren, a former Tribune managing editor who's known around the Reader as our new publisher.
So we're all curious here to see what kind of journalism they do when they don't do it for us.
I'm sure they're even more curious — and a whole lot edgier — at the Tribune, which must regard the CNC-enhanced Times as direct competition. O'Shea and Warren aren't the only ones at CNC who came out of Tribune ranks. There's also Dave Greising, who resigned as a Tribune financial columnist to join O'Shea, Dan Mihalopoulos, who covered City Hall for the Tribune before quitting to do the same, and photographer Jose More, who left the Tribune last year. Also lending a O'Shea a hand part-time is former Tribune sports editor Dan McGrath. McGrath recently gave the Tribune two weeks' notice, and two days before what would have been his last day anyway he was fired over a freelance story he'd done for SI.com that hadn't been cleared first with his Tribune bosses. Touchy.
Comments (25)
Showing 1-25 of 25
Re McGrath's firing: Sounds like they're a little touchy there at the Tribune.
It looks as if the NYT is sort of dipping its toe in the water here. Can't imagine two days a week of coverage will do much to boost their Chicago sales. It will be more telling to see whether this tips a significant number of frustrated high-end readers (coveted by advertisers) into finally dropping what's left of the Trib. Maybe they'll appreciate a complete paper that treats them like serious readers rather than "frenzied families" and "carefree couples."
like
dislike
Part-time publisher ... what a concept. The Reader must really be on the road to recovery. I guess writing a column for the New York Times beats playing computer Solataire when a publisher runs out of things to do.
Has Mr. O'Shea ever considered the possibility that sharing Mr. Warren with the CNC's sole business partner might constitute a conflict of someone's interest? Or, that Mr. Warren might invest more effort into his New York Times column than serving the needs of the Reader, its employees and advertisers?
Or, is it Mr. O'Shea's ego that needs rescuing more than the Reader's bottom line? After all, the Los Angeles Times he helped dismantle has somehow managed to hang in there after his self-martyrdom. At a time when too few jobs are available for real journalists, some pretend journalists have too many.
Dear "skeptical,"
Beautiful:
"At a time when too few jobs are available for real journalists, some pretend journalists have too many."
Oh, my. Andrew Patner and Skeptical please tell me what you mean by "real journalists"? A real journalist would be able to write a column per week and do a lot more than be publisher of a weekly newspaper.
What are some examples of real journalism in Chicago? Chicago Now? Come on. Why attack something that's trying to get some decent news out in Chicago--unless of course you're a fan of the Tribune. Coop looks pretty good so far. It's not costing a dime if you already get the Times; the Reader is free. We're reading the REader, apparently, and the Coop looks like a very talented group. What's the problem?
Agreed that Skeptical went too far with that "pretend journalists." O'Shea and Warren are the real enough deal. They have the background.
The nagging little problem is that they've been managers for a long time, high-profile guys who could take credit for the work of a lot of other "real journalists." But then--unlike many of the others who were quietly tossed off the lifeboat without a flotation device--they could afford to take the hush money, walk away and, using their connections, rustle up some grant money to emerge again.
Sure, resistance to Zell would have been difficult and maybe futile. But you are what you do. Or don't do.
Sure, it would have been difficult and might have failed. But you are what you do. Or don't do.
Sure, it would have been difficult and might have failed. But you are what you do. Or don't do.
Can't blame them for doing what they can to live long and prosper. It's just their quiet abandonment of our once respected Tribune that sticks in the craw a mite. They (and Lipinski and a few others) could have tried to stand their ground, rally their troops and resist the Zell disgrace. They may even have had good legal grounds to do so. But they chose not to, and others--readers and the real journalists--paid the price.
Sorry, those 3 little grafs beginning with "Sure" should be deleted. Don't know how I screwed up, but I intended to put the first "Sure" graf at the end of the comment. Wish I could afford a proofreader, and maybe a grammarian.
Pelham is incorrect.
There was no quiet abandonment of anything. What he or she may not know is that people like Lipinski, O'Shea, Warren and other talented journalists at the Tribune did stand their ground and rally their troops for a very long and stressful time. In the end, O'Shea and Warren both got fired. Lipinski, who devoted her entire career to the Tribune, well might have been fired eventually as well had she not resigned when the message in the tea leaves became clear.
Those managers swiftly were replaced by a new team who signed on to the new direction mandated by a new and very different ownership.
There are no legal grounds that I know of that can stop an owner from changing the kind of content in a newspaper. What some people might consider dross, others might consider gold.
But to suggest that people like Lipinski, O'Shea and Warren simply took some "hush money" and walked away is just glib, ignorant and utterly untrue.
Dear Wired: Do you actually believe what you wrote, as it pertains to the publisher of the Reader ("A real journalist would be able to write a column per week and do a lot more than be publisher of a weekly newspaper ..."). If so, do you also believe that running "a weekly newspaper" is somehow less taxing than overseeing the operations of any other substantial business?
Let's forget for a New York minute that writing a weekly column (or, indeed, two) for a publication not one's own -- and presumably being paid to do so -- constitutes a conflict of a) interest and b) loyalty. How much time should a publisher devote to his/her primary employer ... 35 hours, 40 hours, 50 hours? How much of that publisher's free time, then, should be devoted to making sure he/her is writing the best possible column for one of the most demanding newspapers on the planet? Then, too, how much of his/her time should be devoted to eating, sleeping and meeting family needs?
Remember, Wired, at last count, there are only 168 hours in the average week. How much time is left for living a life worthy of executing learned commentary?
The same applies for the wee Irish fellow, who, in addition to "inspiring" the CNC, is a member of the editorial board of the Reader and its sister publications ... and, we're told, is writing a book about his valiant efforts to save the Los Angeles Times from further layoffs and budget cuts, after he agreed to do what Dean Baquet and John Carroll refused to do.
Isn't Mr. Miner really asking in his column: where do these news executives' first loyalties lie, the Reader or the CNC and, by extension, the Times? What happens, for example, if Mr. O'Shea and/or Mr. Warren become aware of parallel investigations of parking meters, say, or police brutality, by the staffs of the Reader and CNC? If I were the Reader reporter working either story, I'd want to know that the information I was gathering in my company-owned computer was privileged ... or that a CNC deadline might not be moved ahead to trump a Reader cover piece.
I do believe that Mr. O'Shea and Mr. Warren are honorable people, but, as news execs (a.k.a., "pretend journalists"), could they resist the temptation to boost one company's business over the other? To me, such a predicament practically defines the concept "appearance of a conflict of interest." But, then, I don't work for the Reader. I am merely a reader ... what, me worry? (And, not being a subscriber of the Times or Tribune, I'll do what I always do ... peruse them on the Internet. And, when the Great Wall of News goes up, borrow my brother's subscriber code to access them.)
I would think that the poobahs of the New York Times would have similar concerns, unless, of course, they consider the CNC to be a minor-league franchise or still buy into the "Second City" theory. If not, why not simply add a couple more folks to the bureau and cover Chicago as if it were a real city?
And to Mr. Tuxedo, if you believe that the Tribune editors mentioned in your missive fought the good fight until the bitter end, I refer you to the history of the above-mentioned Baquet and Carroll at the Los Angeles Times. Those gentlemen quit before the Times could be put on the downward spiral. (By contrast, the Tribune editors hung on until they were fired and offered a soft pillow upon which to fall.)
As far I know, neither of the Times execs accepted a sweet buyout package, with a non-disclosure clause. The publishers, Puerner and Johnson, likewise, quit when the writing was put on the wall by their former bosses in Chicago. Mr. O'Shea, who left the Tribune voluntarily for a prestige job in L.A., quit only AFTER the Zell regime was installed and became an intolerable burden to any editor. He quit AFTER he helped ruin the careers and lives of nearly 100 highly trained professionals. And, guess what?, after hundreds more layoffs, the Times remains a better paper than the Tribune was when Ms. Lipinski, Mr. Warren et al were jettisoned. Meanwhile, Times subscribers consider the current product to be an abomination and dark shadow of its former self. Its circulation is hundreds of thousands short of its base only a decade ago.
The New York Times is attempting to take advantage of the diminuation of the Tribune and Times ... but on the cheap, at least in Chicago.
To "wired": I'm afraid that I have a hard time engaging in discussions about people with people who don't sign their names. I think that "skeptical" goes a long way towards answering your questions, but I wish that he or she, and "Pelham" and anyone else here, would give and sign his or her real name as well. I know that this is neither my column nor my website, but I just wanted to explain why I do or do not answer questions that are put to me here. Thanks.
Andrew -- Generally speaking, it's always better to have a real name attached to comments printed anywhere. If I'm reading Skeptical (and a couple of other folks) correctly, though, she/he is working from an inside knowledge of both the Tribune and LATimes and could be vulnerable to reprisal. If not a current employee, she/he might have been required to sign a confidentiality agreement, so any comments could constitute a breach of contract. (I was in such a position, myself, after leaving the paper under different circumstances.) As such, lots of money and security would be at stake.
Michael has written previously about the Tribune's draconian confidentiality policy and the dampening effect it has had on free expression. Unless I'm mistaken, there's been precious little discussion of the current state of the Tribune from former executives, who would have insight on such items as overgenerous bonuses, platinum parachutes, their own blunders and corporate greed. Jim Squires' post-Tribune book contained some prime examples of the latter, but much was construed as ax-grinding.
I, for one, would happily read informed, name-deficient insider material on how Jack Fuller -- a prime architect of the then-lauded Times-Mirror deal -- and former TRB bosses Charles Brumback, John Madigan and Dennis Fitz$imon$ feel about the dismantling of the company since their departures.
But, yes, it would be better if they spoke in their own identifiable voices.
I hear you, Gary. And I'm certainly not saying that these people don't or might not have much to contribute.
But a) I still can't engage with an interlocutor if I do not know who that person is, and b) if there are people who signed confidentiality agreements in exchange for money and are then making statements hiding behind pseudonyms, then they are committing fraud -- taking hush money and talking anyway. What they have to say might be interesting, but they're hardly speaking from the moral hugh ground.
Dear Andrew:
You engage with anonymous people you agree with; "skeptical," for instance.
Dear "wired":
Please re-read my post. I did salute "skeptical" for a great line, and might have done the same with you in the past, I can't recall. But I posted this last note to say that hereon in I can't engage in colloquies regarding other people with either of you or anyone else who doesn't sign his or her name. Thanks!
-------
To "wired": I'm afraid that I have a hard time engaging in discussions about people with people who don't sign their names. I think that "skeptical" goes a long way towards answering your questions, but I wish that he or she, and "Pelham" and anyone else here, would give and sign his or her real name as well. I know that this is neither my column nor my website, but I just wanted to explain why I do or do not answer questions that are put to me here. Thanks.
------
Skeptical and Wired have both established personas here, posting consistently under those names. I don't see the big deal with engaging semi-anonymous posters.
WBEZ had Laura Washington and an academic on to talk about the Times CNC experiment. Both felt it wasn't a very diverse bunch writing. One of them suggested that CNC should be trying to unearth more unusual and undercovered stories. This seems backwards to me, because of my sense of the strategic goal and the market the NYT is hoping to pull in.
I would guess that the goal isn't to provide Chicago coverage to people who already read a Chicago paper and pick up the NYT. Why bother. My guess is the goal is to get readers just enough Chicago news so that they're comfortable buying the NYT instead of a Chicago paper.
I'd be curious what other people think.
As a separate, semi-related issue, I question the point of the Warren piece on Axelrod. Few readers would feel better informed about Chicago after reading it, which must be the point of the section. It wasn't interesting or novel enough for the general reader to make the main paper, nor local enough to be appropriate on the Chicago page. It added nothing to the paper.
I fear the relationship that this suggests - that Warren has enough power to trump other people's judgments on his work. Someone should have had the guts to tell him to write about something else. The last thing the NYTimes needs is for the Trib's "emeritus columnist" culture to infect the Chicago section, where the old bulls are untouchable.
Andrew Patner, I used to post under my own name all the time on various forums until anons started harassing my family. You get paid for your ass-kissing over at WFMT, but I don't see why I should have to subject myself to asymmetrical abuse for expressing unpopular opinions in my spare time.
Gee, FGFM, I can't imagine why anyone would harass you, you seem like such a lovable person!
having engaged both supposedly named & clearly anonymous fellow posters on a few different forums, can't say it really much matters....except when it comes to calling each other an asshole, as is evidenced by the last exchange -- identified posters at least attempt to be subtle, the anonymous don't bother...there are always exceptions, of course.
"Gee, FGFM, I can't imagine why anyone would harass you, you seem like such a lovable person!"
Well, the guy who gave me the most trouble was an anti-Semite who came after my family and me because he thought I was a Jew, so it's nice to see that you tacitly approve of that sort of thing. Like I said, you get paid for playing patty-cake over there at WFMT and your public online activities are basically self-promotion. I don't get paid for this sort of thing and if writing anonymous commentary was good enough for Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, it's good enough for me.
Today (Sunday), the Chicago page seems to give somewhat of an answer to the question of diversity raised on WBEZ. There were 3 women's bylines . I can't say the class or racial diversity, though I suspect it isn't much. By the way, I think my previous post might have given the impression that I didn't think diversity was important. I do. I was editorializing on the other part of what they said.
In other ways, today's Chicago page was interesting. The Chicago State piece isn't exactly ground-breaking, but it is a good overview of a story that hasn't gotten a lot of coverage. Being opinionated, I have my quibbles - it uses Quinn's delay in appointing trustees as a sign that he "neglects" the school. He appointed four trustees several weeks ago, and his appointments, all political, reflect not neglect, but a continued use of the school to satisfy political allies rather than to provide educational opportunities. Still, overviews are what I think the Times Chicago page needs - don't try to give us the latest news in a twice/weekly page and a half. Give us perspective - which will be useful both to those who don't get a Chicago paper and those who do. This was a good effort.
James O'Shea's newsbrief on the new tax bills is pretty silly. He seems unaware that the tax bills have shown the portion of your tax bill taken by individual agencies for years. What is new is the categorization. James celebrates this uncritically, and tells us that municipalities account for such and such amount, while "things like the Water Reclamation District and the Park District" take 12%. What are things like the MWRD and the Park District, James? The MWRD is an independent board of elected officials that mostly treats sewage. The Park District (if you live in Chicago, and that's what he implies by capitalizing it) is directly accountable to the mayor -- it's a municipal agency whose budget mayors have always tried to distance themselves from by pretending it's independent.
Perhaps the county puts them in different categories because in many suburbs, an independent park board makes the decision on taxes and spending. And maybe that's too much detail for James' newsbrief. If so, he should go with the default - criticism of categories that confuse more than they explain, since most county taxpayers live in municipalities where the city or village controls the parks.
The hard-hat frustration piece was interesting. Though I'm not a fan of uncritical pieces on how groups of people are feeling, this did have some factual information - like the MBA of the union vet mentioned in the piece. It left too many questions unanswered for me -- for instance, finessing union membership racial diversity in an article that professed to be about "hardhats". My sense is that "unions" are racially diverse because government unions and certain other not particularly powerful unions have a lot more blacks and Hispanics, while the construction trades remain undiverse. I could easily be wrong. But it's a pretty obvious question, so his unsupported statement that "times have changed. unions now have more blacks and Latinos" seemed more likely to be based on naivete than on knowledge superior to my own.
Still, I think there's great improvement. This edition moved towards something like what Whet Moser defined as the role of a newspaper -- in a very tiny microcosm, today's ecition did reflect the city, in the diversity of people, classes, issues and specifically political issues that define it. It touched a variety of neighborhoods, and classes; there was a focus on government budgets that is lacking in the local papers. It didn't follow the lead of other news sources, instead, staking out its own news sense. It wouldn't satisfy me as my primary source of news on my home city, but it was an interesting read that did fill me in on important issues. And given that it will be the primary source for many Chicago readers of the NY Times, I think it's a promising second week.
By the way, one of the Chicago stories from Friday made the NYTimes homepage this afternoon - under the Education news topic head, and headlined "Chicago News Cooperative: To Pay for Longer School, Some Parents Try Raising Money."
This is actually what I hope the CNC does not become - a source of quirky stories that happen to take place in Chicago and interest readers nationally. But there's probably a sense of achievement for the CNC in placing some stories that way -- that feeling that "our writers are proving we're as good as the NYTimes's New York writers". And I do congratulate them on that.
"I don't get paid for this sort of thing and if writing anonymous commentary was good enough for Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, it's good enough for me." FGFM
That's a big assumption on your part that anyone would pay you for writing. Instead of doing your homework in school, you just sassed the teachers so it's no surprise to me you never learned anything. If you could get paid for being rude, I wouldn't need to support you anymore.
"That's a big assumption on your part that anyone would pay you for writing."
Particularly since I'd have to take a cut in pay.
"Instead of doing your homework in school, you just sassed the teachers so it's no surprise to me you never learned anything."
I guess that's why I graduated with high honors from a top school.
"If you could get paid for being rude, I wouldn't need to support you anymore."
Yeah, kinda like how James Cappleman supports "caring neighbor" Richard Thale so that the latter can be the neighborhood nark.
http://www.uptownchicagocommission.org/bio…
As an avid gardener, [Thale] has garden plots at the Sunnyside Mall, the Uptown Fire Station, the Winthrop Avenue Family Historical Garden, and the SE corner of Lawrence & Kenmore.
Whoops. You skipped another day of your medication. You know I'm going to stop supporting you financially if you don't take your medications. Don't make me tell your father. Your paranoia is only making a complete ass out of yourself and I'm tired of making excuses to the rest of the family.
Related Stories
-
Waiting for the Web
The Chicago News Cooperative launched with the promise of a pathbreaking online site. When will it arrive?
- Jan 13, 2011
