http://www.chicagoreader.com Comments On: Chicago Reader en-us Copyright 2009 Chicago Reader. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Chicago Reader readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Chicago Reader. wil@desert.net (Chicago Reader Webmaster) Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0600 Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:00:00 -0600 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
By the way, what is the R value of strategy adrift from reality? Is it high enough to protect Mr. Malatia from a Chicago winter and a recession?

Perhaps Mr. Malatia should get back to running a public radio station instead of spending so much time and energy trying to become the Lorne Michaels of public radio. Yes, we could do with a few less "shout outs" to "Down Town Torey Malatia" on This American Life and Sound Opinions.

We know. He's your boss. Kiss his ass in person and not on the air.

Signed,

Sending my money to WDCB


Posted by Brian U]]> Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:26:14 -0600 Chicago Reader Posted by Andrew Patner]]> Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:16:43 -0600 Chicago Reader
Johnny's Grill
Rating: 5 Stars
Posted by jennathan]]> Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:58:46 -0600 Chicago Reader Posted by todo]]> Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:19:12 -0600 Chicago Reader Posted by Kiki Yablon]]> Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:20:13 -0600 Chicago Reader Posted by huntchgo]]> Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:52:27 -0600 Chicago Reader
Planet 51
Rating: 4 Stars
Posted by wide]]> Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:30:56 -0600 Chicago Reader
for the record - i offered criticism of a program as well as praise for malatia in my initial post; you ignored the praise ... if you didn't appreciate my method, or style, so be it...but you responded w/ a personal attack, sandwiched around a valid alternative point of view.

i can play that way too, & showed you, but that doesn't make it fair...so, would like to leave it at that, w/o an apology...but pleased to hear there are no demons residing in oak park; one recently subdued in LA was enough to last a lifetime.

best to you & yours & sincerely hope this helps @ least a little, but if not, so be that too.

(ps - sorry, can't pass up a natural plug since you raised internet forums as safe havens - mozy on over to the LFA message board forums...you'll find 3000+ 'shoot-em out' posts promoting, i feel, a far more potentially life-saving mission-statement than 'bez could ever author.)
Posted by DeBartolo]]> Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:54:38 -0600 Chicago Reader Posted by nuevoirvinggirl]]> Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:39:04 -0600 Chicago Reader Posted by debinchicago]]> Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:37:35 -0600 Chicago Reader
I'm not above scoring movies--I occasionally supply star ratings to Film Comment and letter grades to IndieWIRE--but I decided a while ago that I wasn't going to invest my time in monitoring Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, or any other site that presumes to take one of my written reviews and turn it into a ranking alongside a lot of other reviewers. If they want to do that, that's their business, but I don't consider it valid, so I don't want to get involved in the process.
Posted by J.R. Jones]]> Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:26:45 -0600 Chicago Reader
Great job!
Posted by chloe kay]]> Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:25:42 -0600 Chicago Reader
Seeking Your Approval
Rating: 5 Stars
Posted by chicagoimprov1]]> Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:36:21 -0600 Chicago Reader
Lan's Old Town
Rating: 3 Stars
Posted by foodieob]]> Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:49:34 -0600 Chicago Reader Posted by bagsfly]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:50:49 -0600 Chicago Reader The title and subtitle of your article are contrived, but provocative. It seems to me that you owed your topic a measure of homework that you did not complete.

You say you are trying to find out exactly the number of workers whose livelihoods would be impacted by the State's investment in stages. Who did you talk to? Did you talk to Betsy Steinberg at the Illinois Film Office? How about Rich Moskal at the Chicago Film Office? They're nice people, and their offices function, in large part, to assemble the very information that you claim to seek.

You could also talk to the Business Agent at IATSE Local 476, Mark Hogan. IATSE Local 476 does not represent everybody who works in this market - just 800 painters, carpenters, medics, property masters, set dressers, electricians, grips, riggers, script supervisors, craft service/catering workers, laborers, special effects techs, and hair and make-up stylists. Camera operators have their own Local, costumers have their own Local, and then there are members of the DGA, as well a whole host of production employees who work in the offices and on sets, and all of the drivers from Teamsters Local 714, as well as our many vendor friends all over Chicago and the suburbs.

Again - your knowledge of the market and industry you write about is negligible. Yet - you have the "soapbox" for a week, while the Reader moves from coffee shop, to CTA train, to office, to home - potentially influencing public opinion along the way.

Robert Yale
Member, IATSE Local 476



Posted by Robert Yale]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:08:41 -0600 Chicago Reader That was me, paraphrasing Susan Christopherson about the relative brevity of most film gigs. But, of course you're right, some are longer. That's great, and it's great that you've been able to make a living at it here for 20 years. Also, not only do I believe what you say about there being "hundreds of skilled workers in this market," I've been trying to find out exactly what that number is. Prof. Christopherson says the important thing with tax credits is transparency and accountability: we need the data that'll help us understand what we're paying out and what we're getting in return. She also says high quality scripted television series are giving way to cheaper talk-show and reality programming, but I didn't have space for everything last week. Regarding Chicago's infrastructure, more to come.
Deanna Isaacs


Posted by Deanna Isaacs]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:20:20 -0600 Chicago Reader http://www.variety.com/article/VR111801087…
Posted by stefanrand]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:02:38 -0600 Chicago Reader Posted by Captainberlin]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:29:58 -0600 Chicago Reader that Internet forums are your only safe haven. What's next . . . a full postal shoot-em out?
Posted by MS,OAK PARK]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:38:51 -0600 Chicago Reader Posted by logan's queer]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:40:41 -0600 Chicago Reader
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.
Posted by skeptical]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:23:00 -0600 Chicago Reader
Posted by omeros]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:08:15 -0600 Chicago Reader Posted by glenn]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:06:50 -0600 Chicago Reader I have read Susan Christopherson’s five-page summary of her upcoming report. In this summary, she discusses reaction to (and criticisms of) State subsidies in Louisiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The criticisms include the inability of subsidies to, by themselves, create the environment producers need to work in those markets. She contends that without such favorable environments, subsidies do not pay off for producers, or the states that offer them. She says that producers are looking for markets with an already existing, and sizable, infrastructure - or “a complex concentration of specialized businesses that serve them. These include specialized lawyers and accountants, payroll companies, equipment rental companies, casting companies, agents, and technical specialists in all the fields that go into film and television production.” Her quote is an adequate description of what the State of Illinois, and particularly Chicago – currently offer. This only fortifies my earlier criticism of your article, and your writing.

Your lack of knowledge regarding the Chicago motion picture industry seems profound, and I would encourage all of your readers to read Ms. Christopherson’s summary for themselves, as I think you have misrepresented her conclusions.

Robert Yale
Member, IATSE Local 476

Posted by Robert Yale]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:56:53 -0600 Chicago Reader