Friday, June 25, 2010
Media / News Bites Alison True Fired as Reader Editor
Posted by Michael Miner on Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:49 PM
- Karen Kring
I consider this act unfathomable — a tragic misjudgment by two people, Draper and Petty, whom I respect. I suppose they have a vision of tomorrow's Reader they think True is wrong for. Change is in the air — design consultant Ron Reason has just finished helping Creative Loafing's Atlanta paper overhaul itself, and he's due in Chicago in a few weeks to add his two cents here. True, in the last couple of years, had to fire some extraordinary journalists — among them writers John Conroy, Steve Bogira, Tori Marlan, and Harold Henderson. The original leaders of Creative Loafing had saddled her with a budget under which she couldn't afford them — I got that, though a lot of readers understandably didn't. But operating within a drastically smaller budget, True produced a Reader that did what it could still afford to do at a level that maintained its traditional standards.
I mourn True — who's as good a friend as I have — and hope for the best for those standards.
UPDATE: Alison Draper says that Ron Reason is not booked to participate in any sort of retooling of the Reader. She writes: "The Reader has not engaged Ron Reason on any projects. I have not determined the timeline for a redesign, nor engaged any designers in initial conversation. The leadership team at the Chicago Reader will determine when and if a redesign is to take place. We will collaborate around which designer(s) best understands the needs of the Chicago Reader and its audience and can best assist in the process of evaluating brand-centric creative options."
Comments (93)
Showing 1-50 of 93
Well this is probably the beginning of the end of the Reader. Anytime management makes this kind of disastorous move, it's all downhill. I'll cut and run now no sense belaboring through the slash and burn, bye.
like
dislike
For the Reader, the most disturbing aspect of Ron Reason's very literal designs -- START, TASTE, LISTEN -- is his addition of an editorial page (titled, appropriately, "THINK," as if it's the only place in the paper where actual thinking is done). This would be disastrous for the Chicago Reader, which has always prided itself on letting the work do the talking. It's why Chicagoans actually believe what's in the Reader -- it has no axe to grind -- and it's why the paper has been able to allow more and varied opinions into its pages. Creative Loafing doesn't realize it would be ruining years of hard-earned trust. Besides, opinion pages are rarely surprising and generally lousy reads.
Sounds like Reason was at least discussing redesigning the Reader with management or ownership; he writes that he looks forward to working with the DC City Paper and Chicago Reader next:
http://ronreason.com/designwithreason/2010/06/09/new-start-for-atlantas-alt-weekly/
Alison always moved the paper forward, continuing through the worst of possible times. That she managed to remain a real, approachable person in a field largely dominated today by disingenuous trend-chasers was something of a miracle. Chicago has lost much with her firing--unless of course someone is smart enough to snap her up and let her do what she does so well.
P.S. Mueller
Very sad news...especially for the Reader. I was lucky enough to work with Alison once, early in my freelancing career, and she gave me no less than a crash course in Journalism 101, seeing the heart of my pitch and coaxing it out of me, turning my measly pitch into my first cover story ever. True was committed not only to the paper but to building a stable of rock-solid diverse writers to contribute to it, tirelessly and with guts, as she did. She'll be fine, no doubt; it's the Reader's readers who will suffer. Poor us.
I imagine this was always part of the imminent plan of Creative Loafing. If you've got designs to turn a local keystone of culture into mindless, milquetoast filler between ad space, it's just too much of a PR nightmare -- and maybe even too expensive -- to fire all the editorial staff at once. First you dump all the rank and file, except for the bargain staff, then you dump a few less popular editors and writers, and you let the die-hard, iconic figureheads stay on a few years until nobody is left to debate their eventual, inevitable removal.
It's a deterministic process, not unlike colonialism: initially, you consolidate where you can without too much turmoil, you promise to leave the leadership and its institutions intact, but eventually, you quietly remove all the remaining traces of the original culture.
Good work, CL. You've actually managed to help me abandon the Reader, one of the voices that helped define Chicago for me when I moved here almost two decades ago, and I'm actually reading Time Out. Wow.
No offense, aa, but I think you answered your own question. Where were you over the last decade, as the once-mighty Reader went down? The problem is, publisher Alison Draper believes she's going to resurrect the Reader by pushing the line between advertising and editorial. That will only turn off the remaining audience.
they should just outsource all the writing to India.
I have no awareness of who's who at the Reader, but the writing is damn good, and the stories honest and investigative. I wasn't devastated when the Reader got smaller, because what remained was quality. Hopefully there won't be any major changes. Why was she fired exactly?
In other news, researchers have discovered a new cure for depression: open up the patient and cut out his vital organs, one by one. The cure rate is one hundred percent ...
Where do they find these geniuses? It's getting dumb and dumberer. Alison True lasted as long as she did because she knew what she was doing. As a Reader intern, I found her to be one of the most laid-back and approachable bosses I have had. As a reader and "user," I find that she managed to produce an excellent product even in the face of all the organizational turmoil and bungling. I’m sure Alison will land on her feet. The question is, will the Reader?
I'm heartbroken and disgusted. I live terribly far from Chicago at this point and I still check the paper out every week, because it's just really interesting, well-written and surprising. When I worked at the Reader, Alison never once struck me as resistant to innovation on the business side; my sense was she just needed the resources to try new things. She was brilliant at hiring, and brilliant at letting smart talented people do what they were good at. There will always be an audience for that.
"The discussion about high turnover at Wal-Mart, for example, would have likely caused someone who dropped in from another planet to assume that everyone who works at a retail job wants to make a career out of it. The seeming presumption that anyone who leaves the job after a few years or less must have been unhappy and therefore exploited wasn't challenged at all despite the fact that it completely contradicts reality."
@IAC: I see your point, but that wasn't exactly what I got from that portion of the article. The interviewee, I thought, was trying to make the point that Walmart specifically and more so than other (or at least many) companies encourages turnover through its labor policies.
Which may make sense from a certain logical angle, but also might seem counterintuitive. Correct or not, I think most people tend to assume that companies don't actively want their employees to turn over frequently (turnover of experienced employees is one of the theories for what killed Circuit City).
Let's see . . . Circulation down consistently for, what, ten years. . . . And if you want to get really depressed, look at the gutless "explanation" offered by Alison Draper.
By the way, just one factual query -- what (if any) reasons were given for Alison's firing?
IAC, I won't argue about whether or not facts were fudged in the Walmart piece, because I'm not privy to that information. If they were, that's a legitimate criticism. But I still can't agree with your labels. Why is it evocative of "radical 1960s leftists" to be in favor of labor unions, and to oppose a corporation that does its best to squash them? Only in the U.S., where --as I suggested above-- anything remotely challenging to corporate hegemony is labeled as "radical" would such a label be applied.
As for Joravsky, I've never heard him rail against capitalism, which is what someone who was truly "very far to the left" would do. The tone of most of his writings is liberal-reformist -- "leftist" according to skewed U.S. political discourse, I guess, but centrist according to the way most of the world views such things.
In terms of allowing the other side to be heard -- "mainstream" U.S. media rarely, if ever, allow true opposing views that opportunity. When was the last time you saw the Vietnam War described by a mainstream commentator as an illegal act of aggression(which it was), rather than a "well-intentioned" endeavor that went bad? The same thing, for that matter, could be said about the Iraqi debacle, another U.S. war crime, and one which alleged "leftist" Obama has done nothing to end, and which in fact he seems determined to expand into Iran.
The Reader, like most so-called "alternative" publications, provides a moderately dissenting voice (at times) to the mindlessly conformist ideological/cultural pablum spewed out by the big-time dailies (and most broadcast media as well). For this, it should be honored and supported. But don't worry -- it's not about to foment revolution. It depends on the largess of capitalist advertisers to survive, remember? In fact, I'd suggest that a lot of those capitalist advertisters, knowing the devastating effect that Walmart has historically had on local small businesses and local economies, were very glad to see the article on the big-box takeover.
David,
The globalization reference was a complete afterthought in that article. If you don't think that interview was leftist then I really don't know what to say. Like I said on the other thread, I have no problems with the Reader coming at issues from a liberal perspective (even though I am a center-right person on most issues). What is important is for the articles to accurately depict the views on the other side. For one thing, it is going to be a more thorough and convincing article if the author attempts to convince the reader what is wrong with the most convincing arguments of the people whom he/she disagrees with. An interview is going to provide much greater depth if the interviewer at least spends some portion of time playing devil's advocate by bringing up the strongest arguments from the other side.
I think the Reader has generally done an excellent job with this. Ben Joravsky always fairly and accurately mentions the opposing argument and explains how he believes it is flawed. He is, of course, very far to the left (though one can argue that his insistance on fiscal accountability would be something that is normally thought of as coming from the right) and a very aggressive investigative reporter. But he never, at least from my recollection, distorts anything about those who he disagrees with. I certainly don't always agree with him. But he is fair and his articles are always about genuine issues. Mick Dumke is probably the best reporter in the city. He has gone to great lengths to explain what exactly has been wrong about Daley's approach to the gun issue (even though Dumke said he believes in strong gun laws). Neither of them are blind ideologues who assume something is correct just because it conforms to what they consider the proper place on the political spectrum or because something is supported by certain groups. That is the case with most of the people who have written for the Reader. This consistancy nearly always extends to all the articles written by freelancers. So it seems clear that True has been a strong editor.
However, the coverage of the Wal-Mart controversy has been a stark exception. The interview in this week's cover story felt like a chit-chat between two radical 1960's leftists who are never exposed to opinions different from their own. I'm certainly not saying that an article in the Reader has to be completely impartial and shouldn't reflect the author's views. Like I said, I am a huge fan of Ben Joravsky even though I disagree with his views quite a bit. But I don't think very much is accomplished if an interview with the author of an ideological book doesn't even bring up the major points made by the other side. The discussion about high turnover at Wal-Mart, for example, would have likely caused someone who dropped in from another planet to assume that everyone who works at a retail job wants to make a career out of it. The seeming presumption that anyone who leaves the job after a few years or less must have been unhappy and therefore exploited wasn't challenged at all despite the fact that it completely contradicts reality. That is not what I would call good journalism. I'm sure I will have more to say about that article later on its comments section. I made some suggestions last weekend on a Wal-Mart blog post about where the Reader should take its coverage about this issue that wouldn't be blindly ideological.
I agree, David Whiteis. That Iraq story was particularly shameful. It used Saddam's torture of Iraqis as a justification for mass murder.
Please refrain from this nonsense about the Reader being "leftist." The spectrum of acceptable political discussion in this country is so rightward-skewed that anything that doesn't kiss corporate and/or militaryass is considered "leftist." This is absurd. Virtually all of the so-called "leftist" political candidates in the U.S. would be center-right social democrats in most European countries (Barak Obama being Exhibit A).
The Reader supported Obama, not left-leaning Ralph Nader or Dennis Kusinich. I seem to remember a cover story in support of the Iraqi invasion; I also read the latest piece on Wallmart, in which the critic of Wallmart who was interviewed specifically said that he's pro-corporate and pro-"globalization," he's just very critical of some of Walmart's more rapacious business practices.
This is "leftist"?
I was out of the country for the past week-plus and just read Mike's report and these many comments. I share the shock and disbelief and sadness even four days late. I echo the comments of all who wrote for and really knew and know Alison (and what a spectrum of individuals offer them above). I thank Monica Kendrick for her reminder of what The Reader was and why it was that way. And I add my voice to those who observe what an amazing turnaround Alison has been able to perform after the gutting of the paper's editorial masthead. Time to read Mike's follow-up.
It just shows what short-sighted bureaucrats do when they can't think of anything else. Alison True has seen the Reader through many changes and restructures over the past twenty five years and has always managed to make this mainstay of Chicago journalism feel fresh and relevant while also keeping readership and advertising levels up. My guess is that Ms Draper felt threatened by Alison True's abilities and convinced Ms Petty that firing her was the only way. Like I said at the top, this is what people without any sense of creative vision do...
Speaking of that crack RedEye journalism, they have the late Fred Anderson listed as performing at MCA at 5:30 today!
Alison True not only kept The Reader alive during its closest to death hours, but brought it back with relevence; the articles of recent in The Reader have served as good journalism while successfully competing with the trash so many consider "news. " Draper, who True trusted, turns out to be not so smart. This is all very sad.
Life just gets weirder and weirder. Hang in there Allison. When a door is shut.... etc, etc
If CL is so damned civic minded, why did they fire Alison True? I have no doubt that there is SOME journalism of substance in these other CL publications. But where's the emphasis? On "The Lay Cook's Guide To Getting Laid" or matters more enlightening. Even RedEye has smidgens of news, a kind of journalistic homeopathy.
Come on. We've seen this all before in Chicago. An alien organism implants itself into a local publication, which then gradually transmogrifies into a smallish pile of crap.
CL's previous staff cuts at the Reader were almost plausibly necessary, but from all accounts True was making the best of the situation. So those of us who were initially appalled at the cuts--and in particular at some of the outstanding bylines that were lost--could learn again to love. Right now we can be pretty sure we were taken.
If you think a boycott or reader action is unwise, fine. But come up with something else. And leaving CL a wide open field at this stage isn't much of answer.
Creative Loafing is NOT RedEye. While I too feel for Alison True, I think the bulk of these postings are by alarmists, to be kind about it. As someone who follows media on a national level, I find the panic here - especially by some of those tagged as journalist - a bit short-sighted and poorly researched. Obviously people have their own agendas here. Boycott the Reader? Really? That's your solution? I understand the frustration, the emotion and even anger in regards to Ms. True's forced departure. What I don't understand is the total lack regard for objectivity. Have we all turned into Glenn Beck, shooting from the hip with emotional outbursts rather than seeing and at least trying to understand both sides.
Here are some other stories/headlines from titles under the Creative Loafing banner:
Amnesty International "energized" following Troy Davis hearing - Atlanta
Kicked while down: Unemployed and uninsured - Charlotte
Summer Jobs Program Begins With Knives, Thefts - D.C.
Florida Republicans slam Barton, but will they be in trouble with the GOP? - Sarasota
Trey Rustmann on his candidacy for Hillsborough County Commission, and why he filed a complaint against GOP foe Sandy Murman - Tampa
Given that the Reader just eeked out of bankruptcy not too long ago, a boycott or trying to convince businesses to pull ads from the paper, probs not the best choice. Just sayin'.
This reminds me of a joke:
A guy walks into a bar with a duck on his head. The bartender says "Hey! Aren't you Creative Loafing? The media giant that thinks dipping its mega-corporate bill into the water of independent journalism won't change things for the worse and that has successfully fired or laid off long-time believers in the ethos of a community publication as a vessel to transmit important news free of major corporate bias?" The guy says "yeah". The bartender says, "Well you're f'ing crazy, no wonder you have a duck on your head."
For better or worse, the Reader is never going to have the sort of revenue stream they had 30-35 years ago when they were loaded with restaurant ads and classifieds. Welcome to Groupon Nation.
Let me just re-emphasize what marcmonaghan said. Alison True may have been the last barrier between the Reader remaining what it essentially is and becoming what these Creative Loafing clowns , by all indications, want it to be. Again, look at these headlines from Creative Loafing publications that marcmonaghan posted:
CL Atlanta - "Gilbert Godfried Told Me Some Dirty Jokes"
CL Charlotte - "Cover Run: The DC Comics Art of Adam Hughes"
Washington City Paper - "Fort Reno Schedule"; Olde Tyme Misogyny Cartoon Corner"; and "What Does It Mean That Al Gore's Accuser Saved Her Pants?"
CL Sarasota - "Cook to Bang: The Lay Cook's Guide To Getting Laid"
CL Tampa - "Pride Day Survey" Is U.S. Soccer Superstar Landon Donovan Gay?"
Is this what we want? Is this what we are all willing to settle for? We already HAVE a piece of crap like this in Chicago. It's called RedEye, and it's a filthy, contagious disease that's rapidly bleeding over into the shambolic daily rags masquerading under the names of Tribune and Sun-Times.
The Reader is it, people. We're screwed, screwed, screwed unless we crush and cast off these CL pests and get people like Alison True back and make goddammed sure that the Reader is locally owned and in the black. Gdretzka suggests a reader boycott so that advertisers will put the screws to CL. Any other ideas out there? Please!
monica, you nailed it, as always ...
i worked at the READER 29 years, the last couple puzzling over why the hell they'd keep a picky-ass dinosaur like me around * but alison did that, when she really didn't have to, when i hardly seemed a comfortable fit in the new-model media world * maybe that's why she got fired, for dedication above and beyond the call to semiredundant/superannuated gaffers like myself--what we might call a "humanist" avocation, that the prevailing species of corporate thugs and cutthroats have no bottom-line use for * still: she was always the first person i'd ask about whenever i got to wondering how things were going at the paper * guess i won't be asking anymore ...
One last reflection about all this, and then I'm done.
The critic Randall Jarrell once said that you can always tell when you're living in a golden age, because everybody's bitching about how yellow everything looks. I heard a lot of pissing and moaning about the Reader in the 80s and 90s -- I did a lot of it myself -- but I think we did know how unbelievably lucky we were. Bob Roth (the primordial Reader head honcho) said to me once that the Reader was the only market he knew of for a 20,000 word story about beekeeping. That was a tradition that Alison kept going, and pushed to the maximum -- otherwise how could I write 35,000 words of eccentric reflections about World War 2? I can't think of another place in the country that would have run it. But that piece got me a stronger reaction from readers than everything else I've ever written put together: I still get letters about it almost fifteen years later.
The thing about luck, though, is that you know going in that it's bound to run out eventually. For me it ended sometime in the early 2000s, when the Reader's editorial space shrank down to nothing -- that was when my last long story ran, not in one or two issues as originally planned, but as a fourteen-part serial, because there was no room for it otherwise. Alison told me that there was just no way she could do that again. I'm not looking for sympathy for this, because I've done OK for myself -- I now write these even longer things called "books." And I've done the occasional review since then -- Alison had been after me to write more -- but for me the Reader was basically over with years ago.
What makes me think of Alison as a genuinely great editor, though, is that even when she'd lost so many of her essential staffers and freelancers, even when the Reader's offices had started to look like a ghost town, she was still finding ways of making it work. The Reader today is a shadow of what it was a decade ago, but the quality of the journalism it's been running about, say, TIFs, not to mention the Olympics, is as good or better than anything it ran in the glory days. That's Alison. I wish my remaining friends there nothing but the best, but even if I thought the Reader's new "leadership team" was made up anything other than a pack of useless corporate idiots, I don't see how they'd find an editor who could match her.
This is extremely unfortunate. The Reader has become one of, if not THE best source of Chicago news. It will be sad to see its decline with out of towners at the helm.
I feel sick. Alison's been at the helm the entire time I've written for the Reader--in other words, the entire time I've been a writer. Her encouragement, insight, and support have been epic.
"brand-centric creative options." Yeah, no. I worked for the Reader for 13 years--as a typesetter for much of that time as well as a music writer, and it was never about Orwellian newspeak like that, it was always about (a) good ideas and reporting (b) good solid style and (c) NO TYPOS EVER. We used to beat ourselves up when even the smallest one got through. Every bit of copy went through at least half a dozen people, several times--and most of it on Mondays and Tuesdays. We saw the occasional sunrise from the back end. We didn't mind doing it because we believed in what we were doing, we all cared about the final result, and we respected the people we worked with. Alison was a huge part of that vibe - even when she had to play "bad cop" and there were personality clashes, we all understood the reasoning behind it. (And there WAS always reasoning behind it, reasoning based in a concept of good journalism and good writing rather than "branding," which still strikes me as something mostly done to cattle and to people with more extreme kinks than mine.) That Reader has been gone for a long time. Alison, I am so, so sorry. You deserve so much better.
Two years ago when the round of layoffs with my name on the axe came around, Alison wept with me. I think she was possibly more hurt to have to let longterm colleagues and friends go than many of us were to be let go...after all, the atmosphere in the office had been so tense for so long, and she was the one who had to take responsibility although she had little real freedom left. Every time someone got cut, in the Layoff Years, those of left kept thinking, "Shit, who's gonna do the work?" Almost all the people still left are doing the work that used to be done by multiple others. I still have friends there, and I know it's taking an intense toll, both mental and physical. I can't imagine what will happen now. You cannot create a truly great, or even halfway decent, creative product with a stressed-out, miserable workforce who no longer fully believe in what they do and know that loyalty and dedication is likely to reward them with a kick in the crotch.
Thank you Allison for all the amazing work you have done for Chicago. And thank all of you current reader cats for hanging in an not letting them totally fuck up the paper.
". . .can best assist in the process of evaluating brand-centric creative options." oh dear. Alison's life at the Reader must have been truly fraught under a regime in which people actually talk like this. Wasn't the Reader awesome back in the day, though? Thank you, Alison, and hang on, Kiki.
... I have just thrown my pen across the room... it made a black mark on the wall that looks just like a centipede. I have circled the mark and labeled it, "The day they let Alison True go..."
Great, courageous reporting as always, Mike. So sad to hear. I had the pleasure of working at the Reader in its hay-day which lasted many years. Longer than these guys will be able to hold on as this publication becomes more and more homogenized. Alison was always greatly respected by her staff and by those who believe in journalism. Not many of us are left. I wish you well, Alison. The rest of you - keep fighting for as long and as hard as you can.
I peruse the Reader from afar on a regular basis and only know Alison True from the work seen via the Internet. All of these commiserations are well, good and cathartic, of course. What's required now, however, is a good reason for the owners to reconsider their decision, besides earnest testimonials to that effect. Unless advertisers are given a good reason to hold back their advertising dollars -- a readers' boycott of the print product, for example -- all of the weeping and wailing will go for naught.
This not being the '60s, though, I wonder if such an action would even be possible, unless kindred blogs, radio stations, websites, nightclubs, theaters and massage parlors were willing to spread the news. If nothing else, it would be a neat experiment in 21st Century commercial activism. Good luck on that.
(By the way, out here in LaLa land, if sex and clinical-marijuana ads were eliminated from the editorially decimated and woefully synergized Weekly -- owned by the Voice conglomerate -- it would have to change its name to the Monthly or Never.)
Two further points, prompted by these fascinating posts.
First, about Mr. Timble's idea that the Reader used to be "objective" and but lately under Alison's lead has somehow been transformed into nothing but liberal propaganda -- this kind of charge from conservatives about the Reader's politics has a long history. In fact I was hearing it back in my earliest days of writing for the Reader, more than twenty-five years ago, when Alison was (if I recall correctly) still working in the Reader mailroom. It went along with another charge I often heard back then -- only this one came from the left: that the Reader had once upon a time been a voice for progressive politics but had lately sold out to rightwing corporate America. I once wrote a long essay about World War 2, and I got several angry letters and phone calls from people who called themselves longtime Reader readers, and who were furious with me because I hadn't followed a Marxist interpretation of Hitler. To them it was proof that the old reliably leftwing Reader had been ruined by effete apolitical types like me...
Second, let me just mention my reaction to the corporate-speak emitted by Ms. Draper. I don't wish unemployment on anybody, particularly not Alison, but if she's been having to listen to a lot of that kind of thing lately, maybe being fired isn't an unmixed misfortune.
alison was my editor for years -- crucial years for my development as a writer and as a human being. i learned lots about writing but also about diplomacy and decency. godspeed, indeed, alison. thank you for everything.
Alison hired me as the greenest of green editors in 1998 and, over almost 10 years, was the best boss at the best job I'll probably ever have. She, and everyone at the Reader, taught me the value of skepticism in reporting and precision in language. Constitutionally immune to making a scene, she is a professional role model of the first order and I consider myself very, very lucky to have had the benefit of her support and expertise. I'll spare the internet the rest of my current, less charitable thoughts on the matter.
Mr. Timble -
"It's my contention, that the best news reporting is done with the goal of objectivity."
Absolutely, without a doubt, and particularly in mainstream news media reporting. However, everyone has a point of view, and I personally prefer to know where reporters stand. (As a certain notable Cook County politician said at his first news media dinner event, "Most of you covered (my campaign). All of you voted for me.")
I wrote about survivalism at a time when the mainstream (including Mother Tribune) was portraying it as the exclusive purview of dangerous right-wing nutcakes. I talked to some people who saw it more as a matter of self-sufficiency and precautions. (What to do when the power goes out, or there's an earthquake, or civil unrest?) Thanks to the Reader, an alternative viewpoint (libertarian, not Libertarian per se) got some coverage.
At its worst, of course, the Reader is predictable. At its best, it provides alternative angles for viewing a subject, and a starting point for other outlets. That's worth maintaining.
Mr. Timble -
"A fresh start for the paper to rediscover or even reinvent itself."
Check out Creative Loafing's other journals if you want a taste of the future. These are today's lead-ins on CL's websites for journals in other cities:
CL Atalanta - "Gilbert Godfried Told Me Some Dirty Jokes"
CL Charlotte - "Cover Run: The DC Comics Art of Adam Hughes"
Washington City Paper - "Fort Reno Schedule"; Olde Tyme Misogyny Cartoon Corner"; and "What Does It Mean That Al Gore's Accuser Saved Her Pants?"
CL Sarasota - "Cook to Bang: The Lay Cook's Guide To Getting Laid"
CL Tamap - "Pride Day Survey" Is U.S. Soccer Superstar Landon Donovan Gay?"
Doesn't seem like the Reader's going "to re-double its commitment to the type of journalism and story telling that made it a weekly must read over a decade ago ..."
But check it out for yourself - http://www.creativeloafing.com/
Ms. Miller,
I'm glad to hear the Reader's coverage is not quite as one-sided as I thought. But, as an avid and longtime Reader reader, as well as an insatiable consumer of the news, the VAST majority of that newspaper's point of view leans leftward--and in many cases there's not even the pretense of hiding it. Often, the one-sided coverage of an issue would produce poorly reported stories and again, the reader gets the short end of the stick.
Even if you factor in the stories you have written for the newspaper and consider those stories on the right or Libertarian side of the political spectrum, those edit inches would show up as a rounding error, as it would account for such a tiny percentage of the Reader's stories.
It's my contention, that the best news reporting is done with the goal of objectivity. And often the Reader comes up short on this. While I don't expect any human to be 100% objective trying to report a story, but at least, with the help of an editor, a reporter should be able to come close. To me, there's something wrong with an editorial department when so many stories lack objectivity even after a series of editors look over a story before publication.
Sometimes a drastic shakeup like this is good for the health of a publication or any organization or group for that matter. Sometimes, events like this turn out to be healthy for both parties. Perhaps Ms. True has been at the Reader too long.
However, it's my guess, a person with the vast experience and journalistic pedigree like Ms. True will not be on the job market for very long.
Here's hoping to a stronger, better, aggressive, more objective Chicago Reader, and a new, challenging and better paying position for Ms. True.
Latest in Bleader
-
Margaret: teach your children well
In Margaret, a teenager learns more than her teachers can ever convey
- Feb 22, 2012
-
Gig poster of the week
Francisco Ramirez's design for the Arluck Time benefit
- Feb 22, 2012
-
Kim Dotcom currently a free man
Flamboyant Megaupload founder out on bail
- Feb 22, 2012
- More »
Author Archives
-
Give it up for George Kennan
A diary entry recalls a 1992 encounter between George Kennan and a theater company from Milwaukee
- Jan 19, 2012
-
Will Chicago's best sportswriting soon be online?
Author Jonathan Eig is creating an online sports site for Chicago
- Dec 9, 2011
-
Sun-Times Media in play?
Investors reportedly are being organized to buy Sun-Times Media Holdings
- Nov 30, 2011
- More »
