"The Tribune is already dominating the delivery of old-fashioned newsprint journalism in Chicago — including its competitors. Apparently it's taking over the delivery of websites too. You can go straight to AustinTalks. Or you can reach it through ChicagoNow. "

That's not how I would characterize that at all. The only way that it could be argued that there is some truth in your statement is if one uses the words "distribution" and "marketing" interchangeably. I don't think very many people do. There are no full AustinTalks posts on ChicagoNow. All of them contain only the first sentence or sentence and a half. You will notice that if people click on the "read more" link it takes them to the AustinTalks website. AustinTalks is just using ChicagoNow as a means to generate readers. It is just like a business using Facebook to advertise something. If Sears uses Facebook to communicate a promotion (as nearly every major company does now) I don't think anybody would argue that this suggests that Facebook is in any way coming close to taking over Sears. It is exactly the same thing. It is also very similar to a business placing an ad in a newspaper on television, the only difference being that AustinTalks isn't paying ChicagoNow for it (and apparently is even getting paid by ChicagoNow). Nobody suggests that media organizations achieve some sense of control over the companies who advertise with them.

"Depressing as it is that even the biggest papers can't figure out a business model that works online, the media landscape might get more depressing when the breakthrough comes. Anyone with boiling blood and a way with words used to be able to launch an alternative rag and leave a stack of copies in his favorite coffee houses and bars. Will the day come when the only way to reach an audience online is to go through the Tribune and ChicagoNow?"

That paragraph is very uncharacteristic of you. I've been reading your columns consistently for years and I don't think I have every seen you state anything unintentionally hilarious until now (I know it may not sound like it, but that really is meant as a sincere compliment.) No, I can guarantee that there is no danger of there being fewer possibilities for people to reach a significant audience online than when they had to go through a printing press. Right now, everyone (as in 100% of the people) can find a way to get their opinions to thousands of people. Anybody can start a blog and there are numerous free ways (as well as very inexpensive ways) to promote it. It also will automatically generate readers from search engines. In addition, people can reach an enormous audience by commenting on other people's blogs, on news websites, through Facebook, or in numerous other ways. None of this was anywhere close to the case fifteen years ago at the dawn of the internet. If anybody has an opinion that they really want to express to thousands of people they can find ways of doing it.

There is nothing in the world that is going to cause any sort of diminishement of the ability to find avenues to express something online. There certainly isn't any danger that there is going to be a consolidation of websites that causes there to be fewer gatekeepers to someone expressing themselves. There really are not even any gatekeepers right now. Certainly ChicagoNow isn't a gatekeeper. I don't think any of the bloggers at ChicagoNow went their out of fear. They did so because they thought it was a good opportunity. The problem is the lack of ability to generate revenue online to pay news-gathering and other expensive forms of journalism. There is no problem, and there is no potential for there to ever be any problem, with having the means to express ones views to lots of people. If we went backwards in time to prior to the internet then there would be a severe reduction in the ability for people to do this.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

In regards to this:
" Anyone with boiling blood and a way with words used to be able to launch an alternative rag and leave a stack of copies in his favorite coffee houses and bars. Will the day come when the only way to reach an audience online is to go through the Tribune and ChicagoNow?"

It's even easier to reach an even wider audience for far less money that it was in the print media. I have a hard time comprehending a mentality that sees the current situation as more difficult to reach an audience. Maybe it's my younger generational culture?

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Excellent point about the potential for meddling posed by grant granters vs. ad buyers.

Even better point about the predominance of stuff like "pet grooming and food trends ... entertainment chatter and CTA etiquette" at ChicagoNow. Meanwhile, at the opposite end of the scale, the posh old-school/only-semi-new-media Chicago News Cooperative is still surviving on grants and may be hard-pressed financially by early 2012.

So where does this leave us? I was reading a 60th anniversary appreciation of David Riesman's "The Lonely Crowd" a couple of days ago that noted how prescient it was in a number of ways. This included its description of an electorate that was apathetic not due to laziness or contentment with the way things are but rather out of a growing sense that politics itself is passive entertainment, fully staged and presented but not really intended for meaningful involvement.

In that regard, then, maybe the "news you can use" fad that launched about 20 years ago (or its current incarnation in pet grooming advice and food trends, or pet trends and food grooming) is not so far off base. Why inform citizens -- or why would they want to be informed -- about the world when they can't do a damned thing about it? (For that matter, why inform Chicagoans about the upcoming mayor's race when all we're going to get to choose from is a lazy-susan rotation of the usual schmucks? The soap opera of it all may be worth some verbiage, I suppose.)

If someone were really putting their bean into it, they'd be thinking about how to transform political news into news you can use. They'd be thinking from the other end -- not how to attract readers given the low-grade crap that currently draws eyeballs but rather how to render real news genuinely meaningful to ordinary people? How do you make informed, timely coverage of, say, federal financial regulation every bit as scintillating and vibrant as (well, almost as) Ashton Kutcher tweets and CTA etiquette tips? That's the ticket.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

@Pelham: Re "How do you make informed, timely coverage of, say, federal financial regulation every bit as scintillating and vibrant as (well, almost as) Ashton Kutcher tweets and CTA etiquette tips? That's the ticket."

Can't. That's the truth.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

@Alan Solomon

I disagree. Look at France. Nationwide strikes over a sleazeball attempt to raise the retirement age. And this kind of blood-curdling citizen involvement is more or less the norm there. Over the years, on average, it works pretty damned well, producing a higher standard of living and a lot of ordinary people who pay attention to news because it matters. And it matters because they matter. And if you don't like France, you don't have to look far to find other countries that have quieter but equally effective direct citizen participation.

But let's expand on the French thing for a moment. Right now, Obama is pulling a quiet Sarkozy. He has a commission working on Social Security on which every member is in favor of cutting benefits. It's final report, due only after the elections, is likely to recommend bumping up the retirement age -- just as in France.

How many American adults do you suppose are even aware that there is such a commission? I'll bet not 1 in 100, even though this particular issue is an exquisitely direct pocketbook matter. So, am I saying that we're tragically uninformed? No, at least not tragically. Tragedy would enter into it only if we had any say in the matter.

We don't. We're not going to have millions of people in the streets because of yet another in a long 30-plus-year series of jackass stickups carried out against working Americans, and that's because we don't matter. The boffins are going to do what they're going to do and then package it so that it smells all sweet and reasonable and even inevitable and we're going to be screwed and that's all there is to it.

So news is dying out here because it doesn't freaking matter. But no, it's not a question of predestination. It's not even a question of being French -- or Greek or Dutch or Scandinavian or German. They're all human beings and so are we. The difference is that they live and function and participate in more or less real democracies and we live in a peanut gallery.

But it's not irreversible. I truly believe we can seize the public mind back from Ashton and Demi and Lady Gargoyle, or whatever the hell she is. I truly, sort of, do.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

@Pelham

Wish you were right -- and maybe you are. For sure, I admire your passion. I also admire France.

But in this country, the only way we'll ever see something as bold as a nationwide strike anymore is if some broadcast demagogue calls for one -- and the galvanizing issue would never be something as substantial as Social Security or a bread tax.

It more likely would have something to do with the threat to our society represented by a pool table in our community -- or a mosque -- or Lady Gargoyle.

We've become a nation of idiots.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

"and CTA etiquette tips"

Can somebody please provide an example of a Chicago Now post that provides "CTA etiquette tips"? I suppose people can spend a few days discussing what the fact that these posts exist mean to the media landscape and the world at large. But I'm not sure how much use this would be if they haven't actually seen these posts. If you are able to provide any examples, you also might want to look around the specific blog or blogs in which it was posted and see if this type of subject is the norm or if those blogs also delve into more complex issues. If it is the ladder (and I am familiar with those blogs and can guarantee that it is) then you will probably want to consider whether this negates the points that you are making about there not being much that is useful of ChicagoNow.

I'm sure I will eventually get into some of the other things mentioned on this thread. But we will start there.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

One quick postscript to my earlier comment.

Not only have we become a nation of idiots, but what's worse and far more dangerous: We've become a nation of easily frightened idiots.

OK, back to our regularly scheduled commentary.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

@Alan Solomon

Oh, I think it's only about 20 to 30 percent of us who are easily frightened idiots. Most of the rest of us are passive -- which, oddly enough, can be a positive, at least relatively so.

Europe went through its period of demagogues in the awful '30s while Americans were disinclined in their majority to respond to such appeals. So while much of Europe was turning sharply right in those years, the U.S. was steering left under Roosevelt. And we ended up looking like geniuses by comparison.

For about 150 years of our history we were the only nation that could pretty much guarantee that each succeeding generation would be better off than the previous -- even given a long series of recessions, depressions, crashes, bursting bubbles and all the periodic stumblebummery that capitalism is prone to. And up until about 60 or 70 years ago, we also were the only nation that provided widespread, cheap education. We were the only place where a rising tide really did lift all boats.

And Americans paid attention to the news. I remember my dad back in the '50s, a mere high school graduate, spending two full hours poring over three, eight-column, type-dense newspapers page by page, Monday through Saturday. This wasn't exceptional. He wasn't a guy to waste time, either. He read the papers because, somehow, news mattered to him.

Then it all began to change, first of all when other countries caught on that it was a good idea to educate most kids and do it cheaply. But then the really big change came here in the 1970s, when it was decided somewhere (probably by both Democrats and Republicans) to de-hitch most Americans from the economic locomotive. Then we gradually sink into this period with stagnating household incomes as housewives go to work to, people work longer hours at more and crappier jobs and then borrow and then get over their heads into debt, etc. etc.

I don't want to burrow into all that but rather make the point that we're approaching or at some kind of juncture, a real one, not the trumped-up kind that every election I can remember has been advertised as. Americans IN THEIR MAJORITY (so I'm not including the 20 to 30 percent who are fuzz-brained Tea Partiers and the like) have shown through much tougher times (the '30s) that they won't respond to demagogues. But the DO respond to fundamental efforts at real, effective change designed to help ordinary people immediately and get the country back on track.

Franklin Roosevelt, back then, was actually popular. Unfortunately, we don't have anyone like that now and I certainly don't see any grand figures on the horizon. But maybe at this stage, a great leader isn't really the way to go. In any event, I wouldn't be so quick to discount the potential of ordinary people. It's a way of throwing up our hands, of letting ourselves off the hook, of avoiding hard thinking about how to turn things around and, in the process, make the news important again.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

A quick addition: I was vague in that last paragraph, so let me be more specific. If a decent leader isn't on the horizon, what could be? Here's one possibility: Polls for years have shown that more than half of Americans would like to belong to a union, but only 12 percent do -- and most of those are in the public sector.

So if the Dems would ever get around to passing card-check legislation (they won't), unions could quickly become a big, new and effective means by which Americans could make sure their voices are heard. For better and for worse (but mostly for the better), unions are a big part of public life in other countries. It takes that kind of granular, timely participation in a larger project to inject any kind of meaning into democracy. Hustling yourself into a voting booth for 15 minutes once every couple of years (if that) doesn't cut it.

Once you lay this kind of groundwork, other possibilities will probably open up, among them a whole new, engaged and information-hungry unionized public ready for substance-rich newspapers. And maybe we'd even be treated to the kind of spirited (OK, violent) rolling strikes that the French enjoy -- a welcome change from the recent succession of pointless, bloodless marches on Washington (Glenn Beck, Ed Schultz, Jon Stewart, Steve Colbert. Who's next? Yosemite Sam?)

So there you go. Problem solved.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

I'm going to try to be brief and see if I can take no more than 10 to 15 minutes responding to your most naive comments, Pelham. For whatever reason, I am just unable to let those comments just sit unaddressed.

"Once you lay this kind of groundwork, other possibilities will probably open up, among them a whole new, engaged and information-hungry unionized public ready for substance-rich newspapers."

So what you are saying is belonging to a union makes people more likely to want to read newspapers? And if there is not enough good information in those newspapers then these people will get annoyed, you say. And the reason that these people get annoyed is because belonging to a union will automatically provide them with the mindset to do so? I don't understand the logic of that.

The liberals support of card check has always struck me as incredibly ironic considering that they are the people who have historically (mostly correctly) pushed for the importance of integrity and making sure people have a safe environment to express their preferences in the voting process. Card check, of course, would allow the use of intimidation and peer pressure with respect to whether workers should unionize. That is its purpose. So we see how easily many people discard their principles when the result soots their purpose.

"But then the really big change came here in the 1970s, when it was decided somewhere (probably by both Democrats and Republicans) to de-hitch most Americans from the economic locomotive. "

Not sure what you are talking about. Are you thinking of specific legislation, or lack therof?

"Then we gradually sink into this period with stagnating household incomes as housewives go to work to..."

That seems to be an argument against the forces that caused women to go more deeply into the workforce. That is the first time I have seen something like that come from the left.

". And up until about 60 or 70 years ago, we also were the only nation that provided widespread, cheap education"

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Are you suggesting that in the early 20th century there were no major problems in the U.S. education system and everyone was provided with a good, cutting-edge, and comprehensive education? I don't think so. The G.I. bill was implemented at pretty much the timetable you mention. That is a move towards more widespread opportunities for learning, not against. I'm pretty sure there have been more and more grant and loan programs that allow people to cheaply go to college since that time, not less. I do know that the percentage of people in the U.S. who received a college education have surged dramatically with every generation since the time you mention. And I highly doubt that primary and secondary education was more advanced at that time. I'm sure if I do a few minutes of research I will find pretty unarguable facts that show you are incorrect. Since I am trying to be brief, I don't feel like doing that now. Maybe I will later.

I also don't particular want to get into a huge discussion about France's economy, just as we did for Germany's. But your main point, the one that seemed to have started off all your thoughts, is completely contrary to reality. I haven't followed the French situation in-depth but I'm pretty sure that the reason that France is taking some steps to limit their enormously ridiculous public benefits is because they cannot afford them anymore. What you call a "sleezeball attempt" is the effort of France to raise its retirement age from 60 to 62 (I don't know whether this is just public workers or if they get involved in when all workers should retire). I have no idea why anyone would think that is unreasonable. Money does not grow on trees. How do you expect all these governments to provide these huge benefits when the costs keep going up? The fact that people were in the streets protesting this is not an indication of anything positive. It shows they are spoiled.

Social Security was instituted in an enormously different era when people were healthy for a much shorter portion of their life and had considerably shorter life expectancy. When it began, 65 was about the age the average person passed away. Now it is much higher. People are able to work into far more advanced years than they did then. Quite a few people are happy to continue working into their, sometimes even the 80's. So it is natural that the age in which people start to receive benefits is raised. What is your problem with that? It is consistent with the original purpose of the program. You have to adjust when things change.

I see that nobody has provided examples of the mysterious "CTA etiquette tips" on ChicagoNow discussed earlier. I don't think either of the posters who mentioned and criticized them have seen any such posts.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Happy reading:
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/going-publ…

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

'I see that nobody has provided examples of the mysterious "CTA etiquette tips" on ChicagoNow discussed earlier. I don't think either of the posters who mentioned and criticized them have seen any such posts.'

Nice to see that IAC is still batting 1.000.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

That post, Chris, doesn't involve CTA etiquette tips. It asks readers to share etiquette pet peeves about CTA passengers. Furthermore, it is from May. If you had to go back that far to find something even loosely related to what was being discussed that certainly suggests something. And I really don't have any idea what people think they would be proving anyway if they found a post having to do with CTA etiquette tips or something similar. Those upthread were acting as if that is essentially the only type of post on ChicagoNow. It isn't even close. If you look at the two blogs that cover the CTA, for example, you will see that just in the last couple of weeks there were many posts about such things as how the transit systems in the region should plan for their long term strategy, what the CTA should do to plug its budget gap, and whether the senior free ride program should be eliminated. On ChicagoNow, just like in any newspaper from the beginning of time until the present there are always going to be some lighthearted stories of a trivial nature sprinkled in. So what? That's always the way these things work. I don't get what people were trying to prove by mentioning them. I could, of course, find trivial stories in today's issue of the Tribune, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, or any other newspaper in the world. Mentioning them would say nothing about those papers commitment to serious journalism.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

"That post, Chris, doesn't involve CTA etiquette tips. It asks readers to share etiquette pet peeves about CTA passengers. "

IAC declares victory!

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/redeye/201…

The CTA readers' 'Guide to a Civilized Ride'

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Suddenly, I love this thread.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

I assume, Alan, that is because you are enjoying the absurdity of FGFM suggesting that because something approaching a "CTA etiquette tips" post was at one time made would somehow prove my point incorrect. All I was saying was that there are many posts on ChicagoNow that deal with serious and/or important subjects just as there are ones that deal with lighthearted and/or less important subjects. This is no different than a newspaper. So I don't understand the logic of criticizing ChicagoNow because it sometimes deals with subjects that are somewhat trivial. Would you criticize the Chicago Tribune because it has travel articles that profile some small location that many people would say is rather unimportant in the scheme of things? Those articles likely don't do much to help our country solve its problems. Should newspapers eliminate all its sports coverage? If one complains that ChicagoNow covers matters that aren't of utmost importance it seems to me that they would have to also complain about things such as Sports and Travel articles (I, of course, picked those two examples purposely).

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

@ IAC - Nah. I just enjoy the give and take. And I have no thoughts at all re ChicagoNow; I'm not its target audience, and I don't understand the economics or its role re the Tribune brand.

I do, on the other hand, wonder who you (and Pelham) are -- which makes me feel a little bit like Lois Lane.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

have i ever mentioned IAC seems well practiced at exaggerating his/her reasoning abilities?

after reading this thread, i do apologize for the 'well practiced' part.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

An exhaustive list of the etiquette tips from "The CTA readers' 'Guide to a Civilized Ride'":

• Watch where you put your butt.
• Be careful with your backpack.
• Odor is the pits.
• Watch what you put in your mouth.
• Control yourself.

Quick -- someone alert the Pulitzer committee!

-- MrJM

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

@Alan Solomon

One of us is Lex Luthor. The other is Mr. Mxyzptlk. And each of us ignores at least one etiquette tip on the CTA daily.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

@Pelham - You mean like always extinguishing your kltpzyxm?

-- MrJM

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

@MrJM

And we don't watch where we put our butts.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike