The Blog

Thanks, Mike. Some worthwhile points as ever. For the record, my wish for every journalistic enterprise is that it achieves greatness. But you know what they say about wishes, in Latin, or any other language.

Isn't O'Shea working for the Reader's new owner, too? Is the Reader part of CNC? (Just wondering.)

Ah, now I see your previous post, Mr. Miner, and its quotes from O'Shea. (Sorry about that -- I hate "The Blog"?) But it still doesn't answer my question.

If the CNC's work can duplicate the kind of reporting the NYT now does from Chicago and other US cities, it might be worthwhile. Can't tell you how many times I've turned to the NYT (or AP, for that matter) on a local issue to sort it all out. Local reporting sometimes tends to get all wound up in minutiae, incrementalism and tending to various mysterious agendas to the degree that it's confusing for mere mortal readers. When that happens, it takes an outsider to come in to clear away the dross and simplify.

Can't agree with Patner's line that the absence of non-whites in the CNC command structure is very meaningful. As Mr. Miner points out, what counts is the reporting staff. And all I'd like to see there is some damned good journalists. If they get all bolixed up in formulating and meeting quotas, they might as well punt right now.

Re: "Pelham"'s comment [much as I don't like engaging with people who don't sign their actual names]: I am not talking about quotas of any sort -- but about unveiling an operation that is free of people who are involved in and aware of what is going on in Chicago and who might inspire those outside of a narrow set of circles that this was a worthwhile project.

@ Jon Seaver

If you'd like to see only Miner's posts, try clicking the "News Bites" rubric at the top of one. That will take you to a chronological sort of only News Bites posts. (The same is true of the "Media" rubric, but that one isn't Miner specific.)

I must agree with Pelham. What do the racial, age or geographical particulars of the CNC's start-up team possibly matter? What matters is that they had the vision and ability to launch the CNC despite very hard times. This eventually may mean new jobs for more Chicago journalists--of every age and race--and that has to be a good thing.

It will be interesting to see how much money will be paid the people who actually write the news that is submitted to New York Times editors and copy editors for publication in its Chicago edition. The folks on the advisory board, as announced, probably could live very well -- and for a very long time -- on their pensions and retirement packages, without making another penny on the side.

Less fortunate journalists will have a difficult time surviving on freelance wages that range from $nothing (Huffpost) to next-to-$nothing. Maybe the NYTiimes -- what other entity would be interested in Chicago-centric material? -- will pay CNC enough to afford the services of laid-off reporters and content editors, but, really, how many more Chicago subscribers will it gain from such an investment in a paper-and-ink enterprise? Or, if it's meant to eventually become a subscriber-financed Internet feature, can it be monetized at all?

Then, too, if the HuffPost model is followed, those copy editors in NYC will really have their work cut out for them. Virtually no actual copy editing or newspaper-level content editing is done on Internet sites, for example. and affording such gate-keepers at CNC might prove financially problematic, as well. If NYT editorial standards are to be met, as suggested, will reporters working for $nothing or near-$nothing be inclined to donate even more time doing rewrites and fact-checking? Maybe ... maybe not. Then, too, how long will unionized workers at the NYTimes sit for editing content provided by non-union and underpaid peers?

As for the NYT's ethical standards, well, we've seen this week -- the Jamaica junket mini-scandal -- that freelancers working in the service of NYT and Newsweek wrote stories based on junket-financed trips, and, when caught by Internet gadflies, were chastised accordingly. Indeed, it's well known in the trade that no freelancers could possibly afford the luxuries described in the Times' Travel and certain other features sections. A blind eye is turned, necessarily. The Times' well-paid superstars -- Friedman, Dowd et al -- continue to accept speaking engagements that test the Times' standards.

Where will the line be drawn in Chicago? Who will reimburse writers for the lunches and drinks used to grease the skids of political and business reporting ... gasoline and subway tokens, too?

Anyway, good luck. These questions and many others will be answered in due time, and, with luck, out-of-work journos will be able to buy rounds at the Goat, again. My advice to freelancers, though, is to get paid upfront and don't accept any wooden IOUs.

"It will be interesting to see how much money will be paid the people who actually write the news that is submitted to New York Times editors and copy editors for publication in its Chicago edition."

@ gary - for a city/regional edition, guess it might be less than the NYT's current freelance rate(s) for it's national edition ... the question is what CNC's "carrying charge" will be ... they'll need to skim something off the top, i'm guessing @ least 30%, probably more.