The Blog

First, it's bullshit to lay people off right before Christmas. I don't care if it's a Jewish or Muslim operation, it's still crap to lay someone off right before the biggest money-guzzling holiday in America. Harold Henderson will be sorely missed. He has the most interesting articles in the paper.

There is no way -- remaining "top drawer" staff or not -- that these layoffs do not represent an overall worsening of The Reader and its content... And: "They're gone because a few years ago Craigslist moved in on our classifieds section"? I'm semi-sympathetic and a fan...but also a realist. The statement could well have read: "They're gone because after Craigslist moved in on our classifieds section, we dithered and hoped that this emerging new business model would just go away." Somewhere, the ghost of a blacksmith is agrily waving his tools at one of those durned "Tin Lizzies." (As for Eason, he all but says, "Well, these jobs were doomed since we bought the paper -- we just didn't confirm it until now." And Yahoo! and Google are now the first competition you want to mention? Really? There's another swing-and-a-miss at trying to fully grasp the emerging paradigm(s)...)

Conroy, Marlan, Bogira, Henderson. This is a real blow to the gut -- mine and the Reader's. I am shocked and truly dismayed. What will the Reader look like a year from now? John Conroy's dismissal is one of the best Christmas gifts ever given to to Mayor Daley.

Jesus, that's some bad news.

"Those guys" -- Yahoo, Google -- "they’re not even pretending to be journalists," said Eason. But "we're the journalism right behind them." A few days after staffers received the e-mail from publisher Mike Crystal about the sale of the Reader, Mike Miner made a very good point to those of us who were feeling betrayed and dejected by the news: that Crystal might have very well announced the paper was folding for good. Bearing that in mind, it would be foolish to suggest that responsibility for the layoffs that have happened over the last few months belongs at Ben Eason's feet. The problems existed long before Creative Loafing entered the picture. As someone who left the editorial staff a few weeks ago I don't necessarily think I've retained the right to speak on this matter. But as someone who still has the utmost respect and admiration for everyone I worked with--and is absolutely heartbroken over the pain this transition has put them through--I feel compelled to point out something "fundamental" to Mr. Eason. Based on the culture you've created, the standards you've established, the professionalism you've demonstrated, and the priorities you've set, one thing is very clear. The "we" you used above? You haven't earned that. By a long shot.

The final straw! I'm gone.

MM said: "I said that Conroy was, in effect, the canary in the coal mine -- as long as he was OK readers would know the Reader was OK." I must disagree. Conroy was the central timber holding up the roof of the coal mine. The disaster at the Reader is not impending -- it is upon us. The mine has collapsed. Game over. I hope the survivors continue to work in Chicago, but they won't work in that hole again. -- SCAM

But the good news: Red Eye is expanding.

The Red Eye is expanding? Great news! Those little paragraphs of news wire stories are so informative. And I love the world news map, with countries helpfully numbered so I can match the story to where it's happening.

Ah, but the Red Eye has Sudoku! :P

I recall reading in a blog (Beachwood Reporter?) that Creative Loafing aren't the only owners. Who are the other guys? What's their say?

Isn't it time to just rename yourselves New City and be done with it?

There were no other options than laying off four of their best writers - reporters who, said True "have produced some of our most important and exciting stories" ? What about True cutting the entire staff's salary, including her own, to help make Eason's new budget? Or, where such cuts already made when Eason took over?

Numbered world news map? Sudoku? Well, as Rufus T. Firefly once said, "Trentino? That's game!" PS -- current NewCity?, sadly yes; old NewCity (c. mid-to-late '90s) was BETTER than that (when it had actual multiple stories, columns, comix, etc.).

Christ, this is depressing. So, Chicago will get less hard-news and investigative reporting during a critical time in the city's history? I don't know about others, but I certainly don't read the Reader for the entertainment fluff or crappy features about struggling musicians/artists, but rather the meaty city news the dailies don't often cover. Is the future really RedEye? Fucking shoot me now. Good luck to the departing staffers. You will be missed.

sorry...make that, "Or, were such cuts already made when Eason took over?"

And so The Reader begins its transformation into yet another dumbed-down outlet

I don't think the future is the redeye... the future is gapersblock/chicagoist/and the host of good online chicago resources...

This is terrible news. But we live in an increasingly stupid and narcissistic culture, so good writing that turns a critical eye on the city and world around us will continue to find a smaller and smaller audience, regardless of whether the ad revenue can support it. Prove me wrong, morons!

...before the first Hanna Montana coverstory? Or the first hard-hitting expose on the best bars for hook-ups? Didn't Chicago used to be known as a newspaper town?...

Depressing and outrageous. This isn't a "low point," but the death knell for The Reader. True's memo to the staff went beyond Minor's euphemism and wishful thinking into the realm of Dilbert-speak. I can't comment on all of the economics at play, but dumping these writers can't be just a "cost cutting measure" or a "strategic decision" that will allow The Reader to continue its "mission of presenting meaningful reportage." The Trib won a Pulitzer for rehashing the articles Conroy wrote years earlier on Area 2 torture and wrongful convictions--a story that would never have made it into the mainstream media without his groundwork. This is a real blow to the bare knuckles journalism we so sorely need in this town.

Gapers Block, Chicagoist, and all of those other resources primarily link to and comment on content produced by others. They play a valuable role, but they aren't going to be funding the kind of investigative reporting that's being lost with these firings.

Until I can read Gapers Block or Chicagoist while sitting on the beach without plugging into anything or uplinking to anything, the only "future" they represent is the future of sitting at a desk with an electronic umbillical cord. Give me something I can read in the middle of the desert without special equipment. Give me a newspaper...

Moon, intuitively you would think that you're right that it stinks to lay people off before the holidays. But as one who has spent a huge amount of time dealing with hr and recruiters and people in job transition, it's actually a HUGE favor. The holidays are the best time to network -- what really sucks is when people get laid-off in January, when they've already spent some of their savings on Christmas, and they just missed the opportunity to mention to dozens of people, (who are themselves meeting dozens of people they only see once a year, who are meeting dozens of people ...). It sounds callous, but in retrospect several people I know who got the axe in the first few months of the year agree with me.

"the future is gapersblock/chicagoist/and the host of good online chicago resources" Let us introduce you to our good online resource: chicagoreader.com

"It's my fervent hope that they'll continue to work with us on a contractual basis," says True. It's my fervent, albeit feeble, hope that they'll find new outlets still willing to pay a living wage with benefits and still interested in publishing serious, well-written long-form journalism. Time Out--ever considered a dash of content? New City--tired of being only a tax writeoff? If anyone out there has been thinking of starting a new, reader-oriented publication, your staff is waiting! "Over the years, John, Harold, Tori, and Steve have produced some of our most important and exciting stories." Some?? Try most, at least on the important side. Looking at the staff writers remaining on the masthead: Joravsky may match Conroy for persistence for continuing to call Daley's TIF con a con; Isaacs has had one significant cover feature that I can recall, and that far from her usual beat; Williams is consistently literate and genial, qualities also in decline at the Reader; Kendrick can be witty and Sula amusing; and Paghdiwala, while promising, is rumored to be headed for the door next.

"True's title be of course be changing," Eason added, "now there's nothing left to edit. Hatchetperson would only be accurate till we run out of Chicago staff. Maybe your readers--while you still have readers--would have a suggestion."

One thing I'd hasten to point out: I wouldn't go so far as to call the A&E; parts "fluff." A vibrant, creative arts scene, which includes everything from weirdo jazz to the GS Film Center, is one of the things that makes living in a city with the kind of mismanagement, greed, and injustice that Conroy, Bogira, and Joravsky write about tolerable. Otherwise, we'd be Houston with more corruption and bad winters. There are things to save the city from and things about it worth saving. I'm really, really depressed about losing influence on the former, but I do think there is actual value in covering the latter. I hope that remains the case.

I wouldn't call A&E; fluff either, Whet, but there's no shortage of publications and Web sites covering it. Onward, top drawer boosters . . .

SCAM, if there were a prize for best commenter, I would nominate you for it. That said, I expect to shoulder a pick and shovel occasionally.

As a non-Chicagoan who regularly enjoys the Reader for its long essays, this is tragic. I'm saddened, too, that it seems a done deal that whenever a persistent, quality publication is bought by outside interests, they turn it to crap. I would love to see Creative Loafing take a great institution and not destroy it by betraying its identity, but so far so bad. I wait (and want) to eat these words...

I was just complaining about the Reader to a friend, saying it values straight news and commentary rather than the feature writing that once made it truly unique. Then this happened, and I said, of course -- they made this choice a long time ago. And it was the wrong one then. What about now?

I'm gravely concerned about the future of the Reader. Creative Loafing is slashing and dropping pages until it becomes the New City. This is the opposite of smart management. The Reader should do more, print more, and become more valuable to its readers. So much important news and cultural information goes unreported in the major dailies, we need the alternative press more than ever. If the Reader dies through greed and mismanagement, then we shall have to invent a new one.

What’s all the whining about Jack Conroy and his colleagues getting 86’d? It’s over. Kiss it goodbye. Get a life. Reporting in Chicago is history. The Tribune padlocked the City News Bureau and recruited editors and reporters who couldn’t find a bowling ball in a bag of grapes and now are shocked to report there is a difference between of Lawndale and Lake Forest and some cops can be thugs. The Sun-Times staff doggedly scores despite management efforts to trivialize journalism. Television stations, granted licenses to steal by Washington FCC fatcats, boast of covering world news not to mention national, sports and local events crunched into 30 minutes alongside pet stories, movie trailers and interviews, robotic violin players, weather analysis ad nauseum, lottery numbers, and breathless reports that there is traffic congestion at rush hours and in inclement weather. Giants of Chicago Journalism Conrad Black, Charlie Brumbach and John Madigan, and a laundry list of radio-TV station managers ordained by some pontificate in New York. If you think I am kidding see who hires Conroy etal.

Until Tim Novak gets fired, I'll hold onto some hope.

Novak, Warmbir, and Paul Salopek. If anything happens to them, I'm ditching this city.

You can't say we all didn't see this coming from a so-called publishing company called Creative Loafing. (How do you call up someone and say Hi, I'm a reporter from Creative Loafing and I'd like to ask you about police torture - and not be greeted with a burst of laughter?) The dearly departed can at least say they got out before it becomes really embarrassing.

It's already been embarrassing, Bigguy.

"We’re in a fight over who can tell you more about the street corner in Chicago. You've got a mobile phone and you're hungry or you want to rent an apartment and you're consulting your cell phone, and its going to be Google or Yahoo[....]" If this guy Eason thinks that the Reader was primarily a city guide, then he has no understanding of the Reader's history and what was once its vision. No other Chicago print or screen medium would publish long, in-depth articles like the Reader cover stories. Frequently they were turgid and overblown, but sometimes they provided information, raised questions, and provoked thought. The letters section was also must-reading for followup, clarification, and rebuttal. The music, theatre, and arts criticism have also been worthwhile in the past. Most of the media has the attention span of a crack-addicted gnat, while the Reader at its best was able to doggedly pursue an important story for years. Does Eason think that restaurant listings are more important than Conroy's police torture series or Joravsky's TIFF elucidations? If so, the Reader is surely doomed to irrelevance and decrepitude. Expect to see more editorial spin blaming the web, Craigslist, and newsprint prices. The Reader, R.I.P.

I was just looking through Google News and came across a Tribune story re: the City of Chicago settling for John Burge's crimes. I knew there was more exciting coverage than from TribCo out there so I thought I'd look to see if there anything on the Reader website. Yes, something real, something like fireworks and a party. I didn't so i figured I'd try MM's blog. I've been out of Chicago for over 1.5 yrs. The only reason I've had to come back to the Reader site was to check on Conroy's reporting on CPD/Burge Torture. Instead I got this news that the Reader has been sold and now gutted of local journalists with ridiculous integrity and background. And who knew, just in time for my move back to my only home. This really sucks.

"Where there is no vision, the people perish." (Proverbs 29:18)

Lay off Jarovsky-- his TIF reporting bores the hell out of me. We get it Ben. Surprise-- Daley is corrupt. hello.

I second Stillman. If I want to know about a street corner in Chicago I walk there and check it out for myself. Ditto for a restaurant. The Reader is far more than listings, but how could Mr. Eason know that? He did not grow up here reading the kind of serious journalism and outstanding feature stories that made the Reader what it is. What we seem to be dealing with here is a perception issue: Eason perceives that the Reader needs to offer something he thinks readers want, and a city full of readers and loyal fans perceives (and *knows*) the Reader to be something entirely different. Though I work in another department—one that is ironically (but understandably) adding bodies—I cannot describe the sadness I felt when I read Alison’s email. The respect and admiration I have for the writers on floor three knows no bounds. While my enthusiasm and energy can sometimes be annoying, I would not be this passionate if the “product” I’m selling to advertisers weren’t so important. And it’s mainly the articles, **not** the listings, that get me pumped to “sell” the Reader. (In the upcoming issue of the Reader expect to see six new businesses advertising in our gift guide that have never run ads in the paper before, along with a new restaurant) So yeah I used to do some freelance writing (and realized how difficult it was to make a living), and four years ago became a sales rep. We’re a dime a dozen. Investigative journalists—the serious kind capable of writing books and lengthy in-depth articles on a frequent basis—aren’t. It’s that simple. It’s damn near impossible to quantify the net worth of a Tori Marlan or a Harold Henderson on a budgetary spreadsheet, but I’m hoping that the impact of their loss will not lose readers, though I know that’s a selfish hope. We want our cake—the loyal following, revenues, Pulitzers, etc.---but right now that cake isn’t sitting so well after stomaching the recent news.

Please note I don't blame anyone for this... It's our society in general. We're ADD, and companies need to make profit now more than ever. Newspapers not excluded. Just as the headline to this blog implies- leaner and meaner. It pretty much says it all. Not sure where gristle falls into this, or blood, but both of those are involved in stripping muscle to bare bones. I promise this is my last blog comment. Earlier I promised to retire from commenting, so I went back on that, so I apologize. Rest assured I'll focus on selling so that the money can go to supporting a paper myself and tens of thousands of others still look forward to reading each week.

Bezzo, yes, we know Daley is corrupt. However, without Ben Jarovsky and his relentless reporting of TIFs, there is even less a chance that anything will be done about Richie. I get it, Ben. Daley is corrupt. Don't stop reminding us. I have always felt the Reader is doing the leg work for the dailies and television news...see an article about a neighborhood issue and it will be in the mainstream press two weeks later. The reporters at the Reader should be paid retroactive finder's fees by the big media in town. Which of Richie's cronies was feted at a fundraiser after he was indicted? Let's have a fundraiser for those laid off if they end up in need of rent money. My best to all at the Reader who were laid off and those who most likely will be in the future. Maybe I have a problem with change...I still miss the annual end of year review of local b.s., especially Don Rose's Janies. (Can we find Don's annual list of political attrocities anywhere?)

Yes, we get it that Daley and much of city government are corrupt, but the issue needs to stay in the public consciousness until something changes. Somewhere in the distant past, the city council could check and balance the mayor, but now it's just fifty alderho's with rubber stamps (a handful of semi-renegades notwithstanding). What mechanisms exist to balance mayoral power? Very few other than the print/web media or the feds. It's not just Daley who benefits from TIFs, but also developers and real estate interests. Many alderpeople either work in those occupations or have close connections to those who do. A large percentage of the city feels they derive some benefit from corruption (city employees, developers, real estate interests, some lawyers and bankers), and much of the rest thinks that wildflowers in the median make everything okay. Independent investigative journalism is particularly needed in Chicago, where the mayoral office has been regarded by many as a birthright exempt from scrutiny since this particular Daley was elected in '89. The Reader was once in the forefront, but now it seems to be headed towards shallow consumerism and "creative loafing." The gnashing of teeth will continue, as it should.

It's amazing that Creative Loafing gets all the blame. The Reader's been sliding for years. It's not terrible, but there are fewer reasons to pick it up. The shrinking readership, the smaller size, the sale by the old owners, the layoffs -- why isn't anybody blaming the people still in charge? They are still in charge, and the specifics of these layoffs were their choice.

Because it's Creative Loafing that slashed the editorial budget to the point that nine people and counting have been laid off and wouldn't listen or didn't care that there was no way to continue putting out the same quality paper, with the same quality writers, for that little money. That's why.

That still does not answer my central question. The problem had already started before Creative Loafing entered the picture. I'm very, very sorry. Now you are stuck. Hope you learn to work it out, One. Good luck. We are pulling for you.

We all knew Creative Loafing would be bad for the Reader. You have no choice but to overcome.

Enjoy the Reader while you can, because this is what the Eason family does. They do NOT do investigative reporting. They come from a completely different and car-dependent culture. Their readers won't care about what's on the street corner unless it's a parking lot. They have their hobbyhorses: here in Atlanta they regularly beat up on MARTA but none of their readers ride public transportation. The "journalism that's right behind" Yahoo and Google is named Hollis Gillespie.

"The Reader's been sliding for years." Yes. Time was when the Reader was read by people like University of Chicago students -- and professors. The dumbing down process that accelerated with the expensive 2004 redesign caused many of them to bolt. True and Yablon managed the redesign -- why weren't they fired when it failed, and when the decline in readership only accelerated? The Reader is one newspaper that might have been able to resist the stupidification process that afflicts media in general, and been able to resist by making far fewer cuts than it has made now. The editors greatly underestimated the intelligence of their (in many cases former) readers. Even now, told that they had to cut X dollars out of the editorial budget, was cutting these four the wisest possible choice?

Even now, told that they had to cut X dollars out of the editorial budget, was cutting these four the wisest possible choice? What does a coach do when all of her players are starters?

Anyone know how much the salaries of Conroy, Bogira et al were? How much has been saved? Presumably the fired hacks can still freelance for the Reader?

"The editors greatly underestimated the intelligence of their (in many cases former) readers." Hear, hear. It seems that these people actually believe that the Reade is all about movie/music/restaurant listings. Which is transcendently stupid, since listings are the one element that can be so easily replicated by a few enterprising post-collegiate kids with a website. The Reader editors seem to think that it's necessary to burn down the newspaper in order to save it.

In response to "entertainment weekly," I am headed out the door at year's end, but my departure has everything to do with wanderlust, and nothing to do with changes at the Reader. I'll miss sharing pages with features only the Old Reader could get away with: a jail-yard apple orchard, the life-path of a jazz flautist, staph infections at Cook County, the poetics of graveyard maintenance, a Guantanamo Bay detainee who shouldn't be, the continued recycling boondoggle. Remember? Long, literate, important stories, the kind Creative Loafing absolutely forbids us to publish (Eason would *kill* us). Except, all those stories were published after the sale. This week's cover on Pilsen's beautiful, endangered Thalia Hall reminds me of ancient Reader stories I read late at night in the archives when I started this job. Our numbers are painfully diminished, but interest in Hannah Montana remains low.

Bad news for the Reader, and the people. Good news for us if these writers coalesce and start their own paper! Jon Conroy is a journalistic hero in the old school sense of the word. His writing has shed light on the issue of torture in Chicago and around the world, and the end result is a net gain in the quality of life for the people in this town, and a net gain in lives over all. Sad and funny and ridiculous. Indeed as the person above wrote: "John Conroy's dismissal is one of the best Christmas gifts ever given to to Mayor Daley." Most certainly, and Richard "the Vampire" Devine, as well.

"The editors greatly underestimated the intelligence of their (in many cases former) readers." hear hear- the Liz Armstrong column was really a straw that broke many a back I know. It just really lowered the bar. But I'll still pick up the Reader for the core writers, and I do most certainly try to take my business to those who advertise in the Reader and support the writing.

The loss of these journalists is a tragedy for the city. The loss of John Conroy, in particular,is just incaculable. I just can't believe they axed Conroy. I never thought I'd hear myself say this (but I never thought they'd axe Conroy either): The Reader is history. My decades-long relationship with it is over. When I need listings, I'll go to New City, which is less cluttered with ads.

P.S. to that idiot Eason: Sorry, I'm not one of those readers you view as dispensable. I'm exactly the sort of high demographic reader you covet. To hell with you and your worthless rag.

Carter- I appreciate that, as do the advertisers that I work with each week. Any business advertising in the Reader is directly supporting its production. The only reason the paper is free is because of advertising. As for New City, I would never knock another free paper in town, but it is less cluttered maybe in advertising but not content. My head swims sometimes trying to follow the layout. Oh, and to J.- the only thing that is worthless is your anger. It's not going to get anyone anywhere. And to Tasneem- Sorry to hear you're leaving. I like reading your stories and hope that your wanderlust will involve writing more stories, and if so, send links or tell us where to find them.

Thanks to those who commented on my post. Carter, if your point is that there are still a lot of good things in the Reader, then I agree with you. We also agree about Liz Armstrong. I know people who thought she was so bad that reading her column made them doubt the whole paper. But she was one of the features the editors added with the redesign.

Journalism has been dead for at least 7 years. You can cry like a bunch of pussies with sand in your vaginas, but it will do little good. Marketing is the reason journalism is dead, and if you're too fucking stupid to see that, there you go. Ideally I would like to see the revolution be editorialized. But it ain't gonna happen. I say burn the press, not just the paper......

John Conroy was your crown jewel and a true city treasure, if not a national treasure. It's obvious that maximizing profits takes precedent over the quality of your paper. It never seems to occur to these guys that quality journalism can actually generate profit in the form of a loyal readership. Are there any print executives left in America who actually respect journalism or have any sense of civic duty? A pollyanna notion to be sure... The Reader joins a long list of news and print organizations that are destroying our country, one community at a time. How long before Britney Spears replaces torture victims on the cover page? Enjoy your future as a glorified coupon clipper - one that I'll no longer bother to pick up or drop by online. "Creative Loafing", huh? How sadly appropriate your name is.

I couldn't agree more about the value of the writers who were laid off or the value of the kind of writing they do, but they're not the only people who've contributed in-depth stories or investigative reporting to the Reader. So I think it's premature, and maybe a little hysterical, to decide to stop reading it altogether. Oops, I did it again.

"Carter, if your point is that there are still a lot of good things in the Reader, then I agree with you." Lord, yes. And I think Liz Armstrong's writing would be fine from time to time, it just wasn't worthy of a weekly slot (the whole "check out where and with who I got bombed this week!" shtick got old quick). She did a story a month or so ago on music posters that was great. But the point above about content is dead on - really, the Trib is pretty devoid of it. The Sun Times has been a bit better (note that Mark Brown finally took a clue from Ben on the TIFs), but has always been a little more geared to people who really work in/for the city govt. The Reader is still the best snapshot of the City's cultural vibrancy as a whole. And I really like that dirtfarm comic to boot, that dude is bent with a capital B!

"Oh, and to J.- the only thing that is worthless is your anger. It's not going to get anyone anywhere." On the contrary, whoever you are -- anger is indeed worthwhile, so long as it's righteous. And this anger is righteous. Don't get me wrong. I've been defending The Reader publicly for quite some time (even defending Liz Armstrong's column -- but that's for a different thread.) The reduction in sections, the sale, the tabloid format, the firing of the delivery staff, the other local production cutbacks. Sure, I didn't like any of those things, but argued strenuously that, bad as they were, they didn't mean the end of The Reader As We Know It. It was the continued employment of first-class journalists which made me do that. I had fond hopes that The Reader's fine journalistic tradition would continue, albeit in reduced form, given the whithering competition from the web. But Eason just cut the heart and soul out of The Reader. Sure, tattered remnants remain. Miner is first-rate, but he's a meta-journalist (no offense, Miner -- you are great.) And True who, by all accounts is a wonderful person, and a great Editor, is plainly being kept on just long enough to preside over the gutting of the paper, before she too is replaced with some hack selected by Eason. Look at Creative Loafing. How does that business model work here? It works by stealing market share from "Chicago" magazine. Eason is timing the inroduction of his free version of "Chicago" in a manner designed to keep readers like me on board, hoping we won't notice the death by a thousand cuts he is imposing on what used to be the only real source of independent journalism in this town. I got news for Eason. People in my zip code can already get "Chicago" free (and, like me, without even asking for it.) If I wanted a fluff lifestyle rag, I'd read my free copies of "Chicago." Soon, the only thing worthwhile in The Reader will be the listings. And, like I said before, I'd just as soon read New City for that, since it's not as cluttered with ads. Better, New City is independent, and hasn't been taken over by a corporate hatchet man. Eason will not get my high demographic eyeballs. My anger is righteous.

"the high demographic" I imagine this group does look for a lot of late-night eateries...!

Yeah, Carter, unfortunately, that's what Eason's angling for. It's just a business proposition for him. It's not about content. It's about selling ads. Sadly for The Reader, and justifiably for Eason, he will lose exactly the market he is trying to reach with his gutting of the paper. Who need another fluff lifestyle rag when we already have "Chicago" and "Time Out"? Eason intends to be the new "Time Out" or "Chicago". What he will end up with is a gussied up "Conscious Choice." And that business model spells doom.

Going to miss the hard journalism that the Reader gave this city, that this city is known for. But the Chicago Reader also has a Web presence (as has been pointed out, without sites like chicagoreader.com, blogs like Chicagoist would have nothing to link to). Why not USE that to great advantage? The way to do it is to buy as much world-class writing as you can, not just investigative reporting but how about fiction? Remember the old Saturday Evening Post? They ran several good stories in every issue. The key is good writing. There is no central "it" place on the Web right now for great literary fiction. There's the New Yorker, but they're kind of their own thing. The Harper's web site prints nothing from their magazine. All the other greats, Esquire, GQ, Colliers, are either defunct or not paying attention. Why not start running regular fiction? If the Reader still pays the same rates it did a few years ago, I know it will attract the very best. Sam

Concerning Sam's post, does anyone know if the Fiction Issue is even coming out this year?

The fiction issue is coming out next week, issue date 12/20, hits the streets Wednesday.

Good writing in the Reader? Great idea! Not so long ago, that is what the Reader always provided. Its reputation was built on good writing and storytelling, and the best reported pieces were invariably the best written. That is the problem. The Reader has turned into just another arts-and-culture paper. It chose to fire all their best literary journalists because it had abandoned the very things that made it unique before Eason even arrived on the scene. Why don't all the insiders posting on this comments list stop being defensive and actually listen to the many criticisms here?

Jerome, how many stories does the Reader print in the fiction issue? It's only once a year, right? I think a story every issue would be neat.

"Why don't all the insiders posting on this comments list stop being defensive and actually listen to the many criticisms here?" Because they are busy circulating their resumes,and worrying about how much longer they'll have a job. They last thing they need right now is to get caught doing anything which hastens their departure. I really sympathize with them. They are very good people, and should not have to deal with this. They are victims. Not perpetrators. Eason's the perpetrator.

Tasneem "I'll miss sharing pages with features only the Old Reader could get away with: a jail-yard apple orchard, the life-path of a jazz flautist, staph infections at Cook County, the poetics of graveyard maintenance, a Guantanamo Bay detainee who shouldn't be, the continued recycling boondoggle...Long, literate, important stories, the kind Creative Loafing absolutely forbids...Except, all those stories were published after the sale." Um, Tasneem? The Guantanamo Bay detainee was written by Tori Marlan - who has been fired. Also, I know for a fact some of these stories - which require extensive research - had been accepted before the sale. Some of these stories were done by freelancers, and that budget has also been slashed. As these firings make clear, the Reader was in a transition period. What matters is the level of quality as the true changes take effect. And it doesn't look good. For example, I've noticed a decline in delivery - they've started cutting drop off spots and delivering papers laters in some areas, including the part of Wacker where I work, allegedly one of the Reader's most valued demographics. So I'm skeptical about what's to come.

I, for one, will be VERY interested to see what the fiction issue will look like next week.

I'm very sorry to hear about this. My sympathy goes beyond what I can put down here on a blog. But I would like to thank those writers and editors for believing in their stories, and for fighting the daily battles to keep such a high standard in reporting.

nick, i hear that nobody who submitted to the fiction issue were even notified yet. so either it's a pretty last minute decision, or.... twas decided long, long ago (if you know what i mean)

The Reader is a weekly paper, and so each week is usually planned the week before. I'm guessing the editors were working on the fiction issue maybe the week before it comes out...? And if people weren't notified yay or nay maybe it's because the new, leaner staff is so busy editing there is no one to send out letters to everyone that submitted a story?

That's not true.

Brent, I don't know what you mean, but since you're interested here's the timeline: The fiction deadline was November 10. I'd read all the submissions and picked the stories to run by December 10. As usual, I waited till the issue was sewn up this week (you never know when something might change at the last minute) before notifying the rest of the authors. That's pretty much how it goes every year (this is our eighth). I hope you enjoy the issue.

81 posts of wailing and teeth-gnashing and your 2 cents is a confirmation of the date the fiction issue comes out. fail.

I've resisted wading in till now because while I disagree with many of the statements above, most of them are legitimate personal responses to our layoffs and it didn't seem right to get into a pissing match with people about their feelings. (Facts about the fiction issue? That's easy.) The recent round of layoffs is only the latest and most public change here. We've been making reductions all year long, and it would be a mistake to assume that we didn't consider any of the other reasonable options suggested by readers above before making such difficult cuts.

Okay, so the editor thinks that the Reader's readers are wrong. Maybe the Reader's readers should be finding something else to read. Merry Christmas, everyone, but an especially Merry Christmas to John Conroy, Tori Marlan, Harold Henderson, and Steve Bogira.

Yes, because editors should always defer to readers, even when readers don't know what they're talking about. That is how a successful publication is run.

You are right: The Reader is a big success right now.

The paper's perceived lack of success has to do with advertising, not editorial. Quality editorial and financial success don't have anything to do with each other.

That is where you disagree with many of the people who have posted here.

What are you wearing?

Alison True is homophobic and racist. She only pretends to care about progressive issues to make money as editor of the Reader.