<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>




































































  <rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
      <title>Comments On: Meeting the new owner
    
      by Michael Miner</title>
      <link>http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner</link>
      <atom:link href="http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/Rss.xml?oid=944253&amp;id=comments" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />      <description>Comments On: Meeting the new owner
    
      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>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0600</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:30:00 -0600</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>Foundation</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
      
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Meeting the new owner]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#963705]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#963705]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Worried Sibyl]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA["In the panic to regain its footing, the Reader abandoned its personality -- now the paper reads like it's trying to get people to buy it."
    
    Once again, someone has got it right. These "best of" things and "back to school guide" issues are like what other publications does, what the Reader didn't used to do, what they are doing now, and what makes them look like they are calculating to get readers rather than letting writers follow their passions.
    
    And once again I agree with Lee Sandlin that they have many good things. The point is, that they have also changed, and it's the change that readers have reacted against. In my opinion if they had not spent huge sums on the redesign, and were not spending a lot of money on color, and were still giving writers the leeway they used to have (which even Sandlin says has been lessened), they would be doing significantly better economically than they now are. The editors don't understand that the Reader is, or was, read by smart people looking for unusual things, not by people wondering whether or not to see "Spider Man VI." Reader readers may well go to that sort of thing, but they don't look to the Reader for "guidance"
    about it.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Worried Sibyl]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:02:15 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Meeting the new owner]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#969263]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#969263]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Lee Sandlin]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Oh, for God's sake. My point, one last time, is this: the Reader has changed drastically in the last few years, because the economics have changed. But a lot about them hasn't changed. They don't have anywhere near as much room as they used to, and they don't run much in the way of odd and unconventional stuff -- but they still run a fair amount of stuff that's as good as the old days. As for length: their feature stories now average way under 5000 words, but I wrote a story for them that was 40,000 words long, and they did find a way to run it. We can piss and moan all we want about the new Reader versus the old, but, given the market conditions, I think the editors have done passably well by freelancers -- or, at least, by this freelancer. It's obviously a big mistake for me to speak for any others. The real question is, what's the Reader going to look like a year from now, and if nobody else minds, I'm going to keep my trap shut until we all find out.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Lee Sandlin]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:46:45 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Meeting the new owner]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#969536]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#969536]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[so let me get this right . . .]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[the Reader publishes less interesting writing because of Craigslist? Interesting doesn't necessarily mean long, Lee.
    
    The truth is, everybody here is right to a degree. The Reader is not as good as it used to be, and economics played a role in its decline . . . but so did content. The paper is just not that interesting, and that is why fewer people pick it up.
    
    In the panic to regain its footing, the Reader abandoned its personality -- now the paper reads like it's trying to get people to buy it.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by so let me get this right . . .]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:15:09 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Meeting the new owner]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#970225]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#970225]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Lee Sandlin]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[It's backwards to blame the Reader's money problems on the changes in editorial policy. The revenue from classifieds has dried up because of Craigslist, the price of newsprint has gone way up, and the target demographic of the remaining advertisers has shifted away from Baby Boomers -- put that all together and you've got the Reader as it is now. It's a direct result of changing economics, not of some malevolent new attitude among the Reader editors. For freelancers who do more experimental and adventurous stuff, that means that our market has largely closed. That's a horrible shame, and there's no reason to expect things to get any better with the change in ownership, but, well, what else is new?
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Lee Sandlin]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:29:32 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Meeting the new owner]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#960062]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#960062]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Baby Boomer]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I've been writing for the Reader, off and on, for about 20 years. I published pieces in the Reader several years ago that wouldn't be published now. But I think the reason is that the "news hole" (horrible journalistic term) is so much smaller than it used to be. There's less room for experimental, wacky, idiosyncratic writing. Which is too bad. Especially for me.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Baby Boomer]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:32:12 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Meeting the new owner]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#968010]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#968010]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Worried Sibyl]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA["Several years ago the Reader would never have an Uptown issue or a Logan Square issue or a Best of Chicago issue -- every issue was Best of Chicago."
    
    Of course this is absolutely right, and it's consistent with Lee Sandlin's experience of editors limiting him to recently released books. The Reader is becoming more like most other (horrible) newspapers and magazines, pandering to what they think readers want, "news you can use," whatever's "hot," that sort of crap. The Reader of old asked writers to write about subjects they really cared about and felt they had something to say about, and judged submissions accordingly.
    
    The editors of today's Reader think they know what readers want to read. But they don't. They are insulting many longtime Reader readers by making the paper into a generic "guide." As I wrote much earlier, there are still excellent things in the Reader -- but fewer of them, and more meaningless fluff. I believe this change is a big reason, though of course not the only one, for the Reader's economic difficulties.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Worried Sibyl]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:34:34 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Meeting the new owner]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#963512]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#963512]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[more inside baseball]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I have been a freelancer for the Reader. This might sound like sour grapes, but I say it with affection.
    
    Ten years ago I used to actually receive assignments. (To be truthful, they were more like suggestions, but there was never any doubt they would run if i did them.) These story suggestions were not only good but plentiful, and I also found a more open environment to my own ideas. It was closer to a two-way discussion. That has been missing for a while.
    
    Now I get ideas shot down. Before these ideas may have still been shot down, but they might come back to me in a different, improved form.
    
    I still get e-mail solicitations from desperate-sounding editors. Several years ago the Reader would never have an Uptown issue or a Logan Square issue or a Best of Chicago issue -- every issue was Best of Chicago.
    
    I bet there are fewer contributors overall. Someone should count the bylines from ten years ago and compare the number to today (excluding journalism students sent over by NU).
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by more inside baseball]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 12 Aug 2007 11:41:16 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Meeting the new owner]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#964984]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#964984]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Lee Sandlin]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[At the risk of prolonging a thread that's already got to be setting new records in inside-baseball tedium, I'll reiterate my main points.
    
    1) The Reader has in the last few years made up a bunch of very stupid rules about such things as what books they'll review -- basically, if a book isn't just hitting the shelves this very instant, they're not interested. I detest this. But I don't think it's any different from the stupid rules they've had for decades about such things as Critic's Choices. And every newspaper and magazine I've ever been involved with has had their own set of stupid rules. The Reader still gives more freedom to its writers than almost any other  professional publication I know of. That may change immediately, of course...
    
    2) The editing of the last long story I wrote for the Reader was a pretty brutal experience, and not just for me. (The first editor on the story never spoke to me again.) I thought the editing was at times disastrously intrusive. BUT it was absolutely no different in kind from the intrusions I have been screaming about for better than twenty years -- and in the end the version that ran was pretty close to what I wanted. I can't think of another venue right now where I could have published it at all.
    
    3) I still think the idea that the Reader editors are going to visit retribution on any writer who dares to post negative things about them in this thread is silly. I can see it now: my name comes up at the next budget meeting, and Alison silently draws her finger across her throat.
    
    If that happens -- well, thanks, guys, I've had a good run.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Lee Sandlin]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 11 Aug 2007 14:37:21 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Meeting the new owner]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#960952]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#960952]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[softdog]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I have to back up Martha on this. 
    
    I know several current writers for the Reader. Editorial hasn't changed (nor has freelancer's mixed feelings about the intrusions). 
    
    The length and number of articles varies more from issue to issue, but I don't think this is a bad thing. I've been reading for almost 20 years, and for every great long article, there was one which could be shorter. It does seem they still have some freedom on the length issue.
    
    The problem is the overall space has been shrinking along with the Reader's budget for each issue, which does impact quality no matter how dedicated the staff. Since the Reader does rely on submissions rather than assignments for features, less money means a smaller pool of quality offerings.
    
    To me, the biggest change is the ever shrinking space for listings, resulting in tiny capsule reviews and less detailed entries - which does create a more impersonal, limited feeling.
    
    In most buyouts the money spent on editorial does not improve. I hope the Reader is an exception, but my fear is they will be forced to do more with less, both in terms of space and money.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by softdog]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:15:04 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Meeting the new owner]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#959911]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#959911]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Worriede Sibyl]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Well, my main thesis is that the absence of passion that a reader noticed is due to greater intrusiveness on the part of editors, in terms of the subjects of stories, the way stories are written, the editing, and the way the whole paper looks like a neat, cute, pre-digested package -- slicker than before the redesign, but also more homogenized. Lee Sandlin in fact confirms one aspect of that, the selection of stories, even if he hasn't seen the others. Martha Bayne hasn't really contradicted my main points. In fact editors have been a bit more aggressive about excluding some kinds of storiees in recent years. "Owner involvement" was never my point -- it was the increasinglyh intrusive involvement of the two top editors that writers and editors have noticed. I know that for some other writers, the editing has become much more intrusive in the last five or so years.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Worriede Sibyl]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:59:25 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Meeting the new owner]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#950183]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#950183]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[martha]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[There was no 2002 change in the degree of owner involvement in the day to day affairs of the paper.
    
    We almost never give assignments--a longstanding policy that has not changed.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by martha]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:00:46 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Meeting the new owner]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#948217]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#948217]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Lee Sandlin]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I didn't mean to imply that nothing had changed. The Reader is obviously a drastically different paper from what it was several years ago, and the kind of very long-form journalism I like to do has become an impractical luxury for them. I'm not in the least bit happy about that. And you're right, they do have new rules about what they're willing to run, some of which I find completely idiotic. But they've always had their fair share of idiotic rules, and their editing has traditionally been intrusive -- I've had many, many screaming matches with them over the years about changes to my copy. But my recent experiences with their editing have been no different in kind from my earlier experiences -- that was the only point I was trying to make.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Lee Sandlin]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:00:47 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Meeting the new owner]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#967663]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#967663]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Worried Sibyl]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Lee Sandlin, you do good work, and I'm glad ot hear that nothing changed for you. What I posted, though, was based on the experience of more than one writer and more than one editor. If Martha thinks I have posted things that are factually wrong, she should say what those errors are.
    
    It's hard to register nuances in our world, it seems. The Reader is still a really good paper. I just think that over the last five years, with things like the horrible redesign with its sometimes poorly printed color and new "rules" about length of capsules and long reviews (as opposed to, say, just indicating that things need to be shorter), and with what some writers and editors consider demoralizing intrusions from the top editors, the Reader has gotten a lot less good. It still has a lot of really good thigns.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Worried Sibyl]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2007 08:17:50 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Meeting the new owner]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#967374]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#967374]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Pepsi & Shirley]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Let the cost cutting begin! Readers Guide to Arts & Entertainment ( suburban edition....) They gone!
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Pepsi & Shirley]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2007 00:25:28 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Meeting the new owner]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#952198]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#952198]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Lee Sandlin]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Worried: now you're just falling victim to the usual freelancer's paranoia about editors. You can say whatever you like, use your real name or not, and it'll make absolutely no difference to whether you get your calls returned. I can think of one well-known, longtime Reader contributor who badmouthed, slandered, and trashed the Reader's editors at every opportunity, public and private, and they went on buying his stuff without a qualm. Editors forgive anything from people who turn in usable copy.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Lee Sandlin]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2007 20:45:33 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Meeting the new owner]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#951822]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#951822]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Dear Worried]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Lighten up. That hasn't been my experience either.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Dear Worried]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2007 17:40:33 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Meeting the new owner]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#960696]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#960696]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Worried Freelancer]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Well, you have been lucky, Lee. I can't even use my real name here, because I am afraid I will never get  my calls returned. Not that it matters anymore
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Worried Freelancer]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2007 17:38:06 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Meeting the new owner]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#950799]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#950799]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Lee Sandlin]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[About Worried Sybil's comments: I haven't written much for the Reader in the last few years, for a lot of reasons. But when I have,  I've noticed absolutely no change in the way the Reader's editors deal with my copy. I don't know what the experience of other freelancers has been, but I can testify that there's been not a single attempt to standardize my style or force me into a cookie-cutter shape. So whatever Worried Sybil is talking about, it's nothing I've seen myself. This says nothing about what the new owners are going to do, of course...
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Lee Sandlin]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2007 01:37:53 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Meeting the new owner]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#954604]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#954604]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[bow-wow is right]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[worried might be onto something.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by bow-wow is right]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Aug 2007 22:57:52 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Meeting the new owner]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#958181]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#958181]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[David Roth]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I'm not offended - just wondering if I was getting clued to another term.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by David Roth]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:34:14 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Meeting the new owner]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#973755]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#973755]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[martha]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Statements about who was running the paper when, our editorial procedures, or assignment  policy aren't something one agrees or disagrees with. They're simply true or false. In the case of Worried Sibyl's Aug. 2 comment above, many of them are false. Just for the record.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by martha]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:57:56 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Meeting the new owner]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#968813]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#968813]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Worried Sibyl]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Thanks to "wow is right." The Reader still has lots of good stories, and lots that aren't "cookie cutter." My comments only make sense if you compare the Reader today to the Reader pre-2002. Even then, doubtless not everyone will agree.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Worried Sibyl]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:05:53 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Meeting the new owner]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#949622]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#949622]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[sorry]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[tout my own horn seemed cliche. i am a jew, and was just playing on words. sorry if i offended. :(
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by sorry]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2007 09:38:33 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Meeting the new owner]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#958390]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#958390]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[David Roth]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Jew horns? Never heard anyone use that mythology in that way.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by David Roth]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2007 07:34:45 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Meeting the new owner]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#972039]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/25/meeting-new-owner/#972039]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[wow is right]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[unoriginal cookie-cutter story ideas?  
    
    i was a freelancer to the Reader after the so-called decline post-2000 you speak of, and not to tout my Jew horns, but the cover story I wrote and inside feature were anything but cookie cutter, and i wasn't anything special. plenty of other stories went beyond cookie cutter. and still do. 
    
    by chance have you checked out this week's cover story on a jazz flutist, or the prior week's story about a man that drives around in a van helping former gang members remove their tattoes?
    
    and isaac's column about frustrated condo owners upset with their association, but silenced all the same?
    
    cutting, maybe. cookie cutter, never.  but that's just my two cents. keep airing yours though. healthy debate is better than silence.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by wow is right]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:18:47 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
      
    </channel>
  </rss>




