<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>




































































  <rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
      <title>Comments On: The Reader has new owners
    
      by Michael Miner</title>
      <link>http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners</link>
      <atom:link href="http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/Rss.xml?oid=941031&amp;id=comments" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />      <description>Comments On: The Reader has new owners
    
      by Michael Miner</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <copyright>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.</copyright>
      <webMaster>wil@desert.net (Chicago Reader Webmaster)</webMaster>
      <pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0600</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:00:00 -0600</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>Foundation</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
      
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The Reader has new owners]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#959861]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#959861]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Torquemada]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Let's not forget to mention that the delivery drivers are getting totally shafted by this "independent contractor" bullshit.  Also according to a letter posted on the mayreport.com we'll be "WOWed" by the new look of the reader.  WOWed = dumbed down.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Torquemada]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:13:09 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The Reader has new owners]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#958861]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#958861]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Derek D.]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[It's pretty obvious that the character of the Reader will change significantly, and probably not for the better.  This might be the time for local people to come up with a local alternative to the Reader (forget about New City).
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Derek D.]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:44:48 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The Reader has new owners]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#953110]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#953110]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[LOLoafing]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[OH HAI! YOUS READ MY BLOG?
    
    http://loloafing.wordpress.com/
    
    LOL
    
    MAIL ME!
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by LOLoafing]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2007 10:05:06 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The Reader has new owners]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#968535]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#968535]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Dunl]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Just noticed the BIA Digital Partners release:
    
    http://www.biadigitalpartners.com/common/pressitem.asp?id=1016
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Dunl]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:45:14 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The Reader has new owners]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#947552]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#947552]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Steve S.]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Creative Loafing, please don't touch the film review section. And keep letting Ben Joravsky and Mr. Miner do their thing. Otherwise, it wouldn't be the Reader, the paper I've never missed an issue of in the 12 years I've lived here.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Steve S.]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:54:01 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The Reader has new owners]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#961245]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#961245]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[ground control to major wait-and-see]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[well, not exactly. just putting out a paper and having money from our owners in which to do it is no longer good enough. it was for a very long time, but these are difficult times, and newspapers- especially newspapers- are not exempt. 
    
    what we love has stopped turning profit. if we want our children and nieces and nephews to one day read the newspaper we have to find a way for it to make money right now. that cliche time is of essence applies here, as does the fact that every one of us still employed by the reader should 
    be drawing on a sense of urgency every minute of every work day, regardless of what floor we work on, or what our function in the beehive is.  
    
    from what i've understood, editorial voice will not be compromised. at least one sales rep has vowed to not sell botox ads. ben in a 1-1 meeting appeared very interested in not reinventing the wheel, and open minded toward ventures that could restore profitability. 
    
    we can easily blog ourselves into a corner...  in fact we're so busy blogging and speculating in our individual silos lit by computer screens that few - myself not excluded- are doing anything but waiting and seeing.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by ground control to major wait-and-see]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 05 Aug 2007 21:01:46 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The Reader has new owners]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#956603]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#956603]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[a wait and see attitude]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[That will be super so long as the exchange goes like this: 
    
    "Here's some money!" 
    
    "Thanks! We'll go put out the paper now."
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by a wait and see attitude]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 05 Aug 2007 12:21:14 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The Reader has new owners]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#958988]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#958988]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[dialogue?]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[My hope is that, once the shock and retooling is done, meaningful exchange happens between the people who want a rich, local, engaging editorial and the people who are making decisions to keep the paper financially viable. Otherwise, these comment strings are just venting opiate of the masses.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by dialogue?]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 2007 23:16:35 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The Reader has new owners]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#967624]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#967624]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Tino]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[As a long-time Reader reader (10+ years in Chicago) and now a Tampa resident, all I can say is - prepare for a whole lot of suck.  I just picked up a copy of this week's Loaf and realized why I no longer bother to read the city's only "alt-weekly."
    
    Savage Love?  Nope.  We get a sad, bitter, unfunny weekly column.
    
    Bar reviews?  A guy goes to the mall and hates the people in the bar he visited (no description of the bar, only the nearby shoppers that annoyed him).
    
    Upcoming band tour dates?  They took those out of the paper years ago to save space.  I actually miss great bands that come to town because no one in the city publishes a complete upcoming band list any more.
    
    80 pages of gorgeous color ads, but no content.  I was always hoping that the Reader would take out the Loaf, not the other way around.  Goodbye great paper....
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Tino]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:26:02 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The Reader has new owners]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#952088]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#952088]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Oy Boy-o]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[The only reason there wasn't any high-five-ing or complaints when the Reader bought into The Stranger was because the Reader was kept as a minority shareholder. Seattle took their money, but ensured nobody at the Reader could interfere in any way--especially in terms of content.  
    
    It is indeed a shame the Production crew is being offed--why oh why couldn't it have been Editorial?  Well, I suppose all we have to do is wait.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Oy Boy-o]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:31:21 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The Reader has new owners]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#962619]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#962619]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Josh H.]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[You have my email. I have a snare drum. Could be good.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Josh H.]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 08:35:07 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The Reader has new owners]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#951362]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#951362]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[David Roth]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Hey Josh,
    
    Since you'll have some time on your hands why don't you bring that rim-shot humor of yours over to Sharkforum?
    
    Condolences to all y'all.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by David Roth]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:33:49 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The Reader has new owners]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#959111]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#959111]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Josh H.]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I think I owe a lot of 14-year old girls apologies and not just about their blogs. Ahem. Moving on . . .
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Josh H.]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:30:31 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The Reader has new owners]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#949716]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#949716]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Kerry]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Josh, I think you owe 14-year-old girls with online journals an apology.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Kerry]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:20:36 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The Reader has new owners]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#962183]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#962183]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Chip]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Oh, and one for Mr. Eason and his employees. When you speak of the Reader joining your "family," it instinctively makes a lot of people want to hurl. Nothing personal, of course, it's just that the idea of you calling your company a "family" is rather nauseating because it is  a deliberate misuse of language to achieve a certain purpose. That is, to mask the fact that you are, in fact, a corporation. Better to embrace your corporate self rather than try to hide behind wretched metaphors. If you insist, however, and I know you will, then I think it would be prudent for you to consider the Reader as the crazy, eccentric uncle whom you never see, but always here great, hard-to-believe stories about.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Chip]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:22:38 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The Reader has new owners]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#963918]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#963918]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[chip]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[The industry has surely contracted in the last couple of years, but the suggestion that newspapers make "little money" is inaccurate. Perhaps in Tampa this is the case, but the Reader made gobs and gobs of money for a long time. And I'm sure that Mr. Eason and his venture capital partners didn't spend tens of millions of dollars to not turn a dime. In fact, newspapers are, historically, far more profitable than other enterprises. The old saying "license to print money" comes to mind.
    
         Anyway, I'm sure that there are a lot of people with negative attitudes right now, but that hardly seems surprising, since, well, lots of people are going to lose their jobs. If the reverse were to have happened, I'm quite sure that our Tampa friends wouldn't be rejoicing over their friends' loss of employment. I would also argue that the quality of being negative isn't necessarily  always bad, especially in journalism. Some of the country's best reporters, or at least the most well-known, were/ are jaded, cynical assholes. 
    
    Lastly, I think what most people are worried about, whether they are still currently employed by CL Chicago or not, is this absurd mission-speak which CL, as an enterprise, seems to be saturated with. I mean, for instance, and here I am referencing the CL employee from the top of this thread, who gets authentically excited when their company purchases another company? Hmmmmm? When the Reader bought part of the Stranger, I don't remember anyone talking about. There was no buzz. No high-fiving in the office. Nothing really. So, why is the culture in Tampa so different? Therein lies the angst that a lot of Reader employees and fans feel. 
    
    Oh, and "fuck you" seems a tad strong don't you think?
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by chip]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:07:42 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The Reader has new owners]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#957745]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#957745]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Josh H.]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I totally second the well thought out and beautifully penned comment by Cry Baby. And what a great name, too! I wish my parent's would have been more creative. Instead they named me Josh and they taught me about things such as empathy, politeness, respect and made sure on their very limited budget that I was able to go to college and learn how to write well, among other finer things. Not that I am saying there is an inherent contradiction in using language reserved for the comments section of a 14-year old high school girl's online journal because I am not. We all have our linguistic limitations and that's all right. 
    
    Maybe I will even give it a try and see what it's like. Let me think.  Got it! Fuck you too, Chip!
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Josh H.]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:48:34 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The Reader has new owners]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#947602]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#947602]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Cry baby]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Wah, wah, wah.  I have never seen such bullshit from grown adults.  All I have seen here is speculation and hysteria.  Why don't all of you negative assholes start your own newspaper where you can call the shots - you may find out that it's not that easy.  There's little money in publishing a newspaper.  How many start up new weeklies have failed in Chicago?   Own up to the reality that Media is changing - like it, or not.  
    
    P.S. Fuck you Chip!
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Cry baby]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:58:31 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The Reader has new owners]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#971219]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#971219]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[wha? how can you...??]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[did you know that production found out they were losing their jobs by reading a story posted on crain's chicago business? after that sort of treatment how can anyone who works for or is a loyal reader of the Reader be expected to worry what kind of people (good or bad) work for CL?
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by wha? how can you...??]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:42:52 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The Reader has new owners]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#956303]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#956303]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Steamy Kitchen]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[aaawwww....the guys/gals at CL aren't THAT bad!
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Steamy Kitchen]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:58:55 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The Reader has new owners]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#959847]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#959847]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[katie y.]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[aww man...
    
    been thinking about you all from CT and checking in from time to time...very sorry to hear about this.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by katie y.]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:22:16 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The Reader has new owners]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#972421]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#972421]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Also reluctantly anonymous]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I haven't weighed in up to now, but with the return of la Liz I have to express my heartbreak at the prospect of losing our talented, dedicated, altogether irreplaceable production staff. It's hard to imagine the Reader without them, and the thought of a fourth-floor ghost town threatens to send me running to the exit door screaming. Creative Interloping's other papers look like crap based on what I've seen. And it was beyond shabby for us all to learn that production had been shitcanned by reading it on Crain's. 
    
    I don't resent the owners for selling, and I'm trying to remain optimistic about the paper's future, but such despicable treatment of employees who've been at the core of the Reader doesn't have me feeling very friendly toward our new overlords.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Also reluctantly anonymous]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:52:43 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The Reader has new owners]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#959484]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#959484]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[littlebetty]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I cannot believe the news. I used to work at CL in Hotlanta when Mom Eason and Scott W. ruled. Does everyone know how the loaf came into being? A poker game. Dad Eason won it in a game. 
    
    The $$$ Ben wants-runs in the veins of the family. One time the once free weekly was charging $1 back in the 80's. It was a huge success. Not.
    
    If Atl office only concentrated on what it has already it would be a great paper.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by littlebetty]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:27:49 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The Reader has new owners]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#969260]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#969260]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[TLJR]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[A Correction: The Reader Does Not Suck Now 
    
    I can't help but roll my eyes at the comments snorting about what they call the decline of the Reader.  Sure, the Reader's had some tough times lately.  Most papers are, and I'd be lying if I didn't miss some things about the Reader--of course, it took me a while to adjust to Neil Tesser moving off of Hot Type.  (Don't worry, Mr. Miner, I've come to love you too.)  
    
    But the Reader on a marginal week is still so much better than 99% of the alt weeklies that there's no comparison.  The fact that there are so many comments here is testament to just how good the Reader is.  (How many people would get their knickers in a twist over editorial changes at CL?  Indeed, how many CL readers would notice or care if that dog's lunch were stirred?)
       
    What made the Reader great wasn't just that it was literate, though it's always been that.  It was a local product, with local sensibilities, produced by local people who know their readers.  
    
    Anyways, to the Reader staff past and present:  I salute and thank you all for putting out a great paper.    
    
    And to the CL people who undoubtedly aren't reading this, here's what yer boss got for his 8 figures:  He got a great brand with huge loyalty--that's bleeding money in a town with plenty of competition.  Go ahead and drag the production down to Atlanta or Fayetteville or Bentonville or wherever--but once you flush your current readership, you'll be left with a pile of wet papers sitting in the doorway of He Who Eats Mud, attracting as much attention as the Onion's entertainment listings.  
    
    Mr. Eason may just be what the owners of New City have been waiting for.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by TLJR]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:30:51 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The Reader has new owners]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#953266]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/24/reader-has-new-owners/#953266]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[oh brother]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I'm a native Chicagoan now living in Atlanta.
    
    I'm sorry for what happened, for three reasons.
    
    1) Chicago has a reputation for good journalism, at the Reader and other places.  Atlanta, not so much.  In fact the commenter who said that CL makes AJC look good is dead on.  
    
    2)Three people review the same 8-10 restaurants every week.  None of them are outside the Perimeter, or advertise in CL.  Half will close within the first year.  That's the best part of the service copy.
    
    3)Deadtree CL is a physical mess. Ink bleeds and color shifts all over the place and on the thinnest newsprint available. Atlanta's not as far from Fayetteville as Chicago is.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by oh brother]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:52:29 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
      
    </channel>
  </rss>




