The Chicago Reporter goes digital-only. Mostly.
I had to bloody jinx it, didn't I?
Within an hour of writing about how I wasn't tbat upset about Illinois Issues shutting down, because I wasn't that attached to it - unlike, say, Chicago Reporter magazine - I find out that Chicago Reporter is going digital-only, too.
Well, not completely. According to the letter to subscribers, they plan to produce an annual issue "highlighting our best investigations from the year and a few new features - interiews, essays, book reviews!"
The Chicago Reporter was founded in 1972 to report on race, poverty and income inequality. It was a monthly magazine, but over the past few years, it started publishing once every two months, than quarterly. Unlike most other magazines I talk about, it's non-profit, relying largely on grants, donations and whatever revenue could be generated from the magazine.
According to the letter, Chicago Reporter isn't cutting prints becauseof financial troubles - or (like Illinois Issues possible financial troubles looming on the horizon. Rather, it wants to put more resources into its websites.
Spring 2015 issue
In the past, I've argued that the reason why the print version is valuable is because it can reach some of the poorest people in Chicago, people who may not have reliable internet access. And if there is one thing writing for Austin Weekly News drove home to me, it's that there really are decent chunks of Chicago where residents need to go to their local library to get the Internet.
Yet, at the same time, there's no denying the fact that its hard to find physical copies of Chicago Reporter. There are specialty stores like City Newstand, which specialize in stocking as many magazines as possible, but there are only two of those in Chicagoland area. I haven't been able to find them anywhere else. That is, except branch libraries. If the neighborhood has a sizable African-American population (or, in case Near North branch, had one until relatively recently), chances are you'll find copies of the Reporter in the periodical section.
Those copies generate revenue (the libraries still have to pay for subscriptions), but I don't imagine it's generating much. And printing does cost money.
For me, it's simply easier to read Chicago Reporter stories online (though I do tend to read print issues when I stop at libraries and have some time to spare). And I can see logic to wanting to put more resources into digital, where articles can reach more people. And the annual edition does sound kind of nifty - and heftier than the print issues of the Chicago Reporter have been lately.
Yet... It's hard not to feel a sense of loss. Another venerable Chicago publication scales back its physical presence. And my ever-growing collection of defunct magazines gets another entry.
Within an hour of writing about how I wasn't tbat upset about Illinois Issues shutting down, because I wasn't that attached to it - unlike, say, Chicago Reporter magazine - I find out that Chicago Reporter is going digital-only, too.
Well, not completely. According to the letter to subscribers, they plan to produce an annual issue "highlighting our best investigations from the year and a few new features - interiews, essays, book reviews!"
The Chicago Reporter was founded in 1972 to report on race, poverty and income inequality. It was a monthly magazine, but over the past few years, it started publishing once every two months, than quarterly. Unlike most other magazines I talk about, it's non-profit, relying largely on grants, donations and whatever revenue could be generated from the magazine.
According to the letter, Chicago Reporter isn't cutting prints becauseof financial troubles - or (like Illinois Issues possible financial troubles looming on the horizon. Rather, it wants to put more resources into its websites.
Spring 2015 issue
In the past, I've argued that the reason why the print version is valuable is because it can reach some of the poorest people in Chicago, people who may not have reliable internet access. And if there is one thing writing for Austin Weekly News drove home to me, it's that there really are decent chunks of Chicago where residents need to go to their local library to get the Internet.
Yet, at the same time, there's no denying the fact that its hard to find physical copies of Chicago Reporter. There are specialty stores like City Newstand, which specialize in stocking as many magazines as possible, but there are only two of those in Chicagoland area. I haven't been able to find them anywhere else. That is, except branch libraries. If the neighborhood has a sizable African-American population (or, in case Near North branch, had one until relatively recently), chances are you'll find copies of the Reporter in the periodical section.
Those copies generate revenue (the libraries still have to pay for subscriptions), but I don't imagine it's generating much. And printing does cost money.
For me, it's simply easier to read Chicago Reporter stories online (though I do tend to read print issues when I stop at libraries and have some time to spare). And I can see logic to wanting to put more resources into digital, where articles can reach more people. And the annual edition does sound kind of nifty - and heftier than the print issues of the Chicago Reporter have been lately.
Yet... It's hard not to feel a sense of loss. Another venerable Chicago publication scales back its physical presence. And my ever-growing collection of defunct magazines gets another entry.