http://www.chicagoreader.com/blogs/TheBlog/ Comments On: The Blog 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) Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0600 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:00:00 -0600 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by Captainberlin]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:29:58 -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 Captainberlin]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:51:48 -0600 Chicago Reader 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.

Posted by Tuxedo]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:24:11 -0600 Chicago Reader Posted by Kate Schmidt]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:35:56 -0600 Chicago Reader Posted by groucho]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:45:53 -0600 Chicago Reader Posted by Pelham]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:27:57 -0600 Chicago Reader
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.
Posted by Pelham]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:23:21 -0600 Chicago Reader
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?
Posted by wired]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:48:00 -0600 Chicago Reader http://www.coopimage.org
http://www.etsy.com/view_listing.php?listi…
Posted by mike bancroft]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:09:00 -0600 Chicago Reader How many people who have been proven to have commited violent acts do IL prisons hold?
And many of these guys have gang connections outside and almost all of them could wlak around unnoticed if they could get out of the walls and change their clothes.
So, a bunc of Iraqis and Afghans who have been accused -- and not proven -- to have set IEDs scare Mark Kirk if they are in a state prison?
Posted by Deadtree]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:57:02 -0600 Chicago Reader http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx…
Posted by Concerned Again]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:21:45 -0600 Chicago Reader
To Protect and Serve, means establishing Justice and the Rule of Law.

Weem's failure to follow proper procedure and as a result cost the life of a young innocent bystander then lying about it (and his commanders lying for him after viewing the tape), demonstrates a clear violation of that oath.

Such a sad story that apparently has not been resolved adequately. The people in that community need to speak up and demand justice.

Posted by StopTheInsanity]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:12:54 -0600 Chicago Reader
Beautiful:

"At a time when too few jobs are available for real journalists, some pretend journalists have too many."
Posted by Andrew Patner]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:11:57 -0600 Chicago Reader www.GetaHatOn.com.
Posted by AaronHats]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:06:12 -0600 Chicago Reader
1) Wear full rain gear. Ya never know ... you may also get hurled upon.
2) Don't get on the bus, ya dork.
3) Drive yourself around and leave "these idiots" to their fun.
Posted by CamaroRob]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:23:12 -0600 Chicago Reader
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.
Posted by skeptical]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:30:08 -0600 Chicago Reader Posted by pencilvania]]> Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:56:00 -0600 Chicago Reader
This is the start of Vocalo's financial woes which started to drain WBEZ. Vocalo had no money for PR and marketing of their initial rollout.

Now Tory admits Vocalo “has not yet built visibility or loyalty consistent with norms for successful internet startups, and remains a costly early stage venture for us.”

The problem is, after two years Vocalo is strangely low profile considering how attention can be generated with low budget tactics in new media. Beyond the Public Radio insider discussions and Reader investigations, it's so low it almost seems like they can't or won't seek a larger audience.

Maybe it's because Vocalo can't afford any more bandwidth than it already uses. Maybe because WBEZ listeners still aren't being told their money is being given to the project. Maybe it's because Vocalo's mission and purpose remains ill formed and/or badly executed.

Vocalo - and WBEZ - seems increasingly more like an expression of Malatia's own midlife crisis - expressed by attempts to be hip online and the street - more than a well organized attempt to create the next level in public media.
Posted by My Opinion]]> Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:11:49 -0600 Chicago Reader
Still, it's better than letting these idiots drive.
Posted by jgtuck]]> Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:46:28 -0600 Chicago Reader • A series of wins
• Sustained achievement
• Successful, long-standing business and inter-personal relationships without interruption or animosity
• A person's past performance viewed in its entirety
• A record of actual or accomplishment; the sum of recognized achievements
Posted by lincolnrd]]> Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:02:58 -0600 Chicago Reader
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."
Posted by Pelham]]> Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:06:31 -0600 Chicago Reader
Posted by Mick Dumke]]> Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:50:17 -0600 Chicago Reader