Chicago Reader staffers launch a campaign to #savethechicagoreader
Between work, technical issues and, to be honest, procrastination, I didn't really pay attention to media news between Monday and and Thursday evening. And, just as I started catching up, I found out that Chicago Reader staff launched a petition to basically urge current Sun-Times Media/Wrapports head Bruce Sagan to put more resources into their paper.
Basically, they said that Wrapports has been repeatedly cutting back the paper's budget, which resulted in shrinking page count, less content, reduced service to advertisers and issues with distribution. They basically argue that while, yes, the economy hasn't been too kind of newspapers of any kind, cutting the budget wasn't the way to improve the Reader's fortunes. One could certainly argue that there is only so much you can cut before you start hurting a paper's quality. If a newspaper has less content, than the people have less reason to read it. If the reductions are interfering with the Reader's ability to serve advertisers, the advertisers are less likely to keep advertising. If there are issues with distribution, then the readers are less likely to pick up physical copies, and advertisers are more likely to question the Reader's ability to get their message out to the readers and... see the preceding sentence.
According to Chicago Tribune, as of Friday afternoon, the petition had 1,500 signatures. It's not that big of a number for a city of Chicago's size, but the fact that they were able to get over a thousand signatures in a single day is encouraging.
The petition was unveiled the day the Reader published its smallest issue yet (39 pages. As recently as two years ago, the average was almost twice that size). And, perhaps most strikingly, it had the smallest Classifieds section I can remember (two and a half pages).
Because I like visual puns as much as alliancesjr loves verbal ones
But that's not the only troubling sign. On Monday, Robert Feder reported that Michael Ferro had Tribune Publishing buy the Splash magazine from Wrapports. As I've mentioned many times before, the magazine was Ferro's pet project, so it made certain sense that he'd bring it over. But what caught my attention was this quote at the bottom of the post (emphasis mine).In a statement released by Wrapports spokesman Glenn Harston, the company also confirmed the agreement to sell Splash: “Susanna Homan was the only editor of Splash in its short history. With her resignation to become Chicago magazine’s editor and publisher, the Wrapports board decided it would rather focus on its core newspaper asset, the Chicago Sun-Times, and digital properties,” the statement said.
Notice the way it's worded. "Core newspaper asset" (singular) and "digital properties."
What about the company's other newspaper asset?
In a follow-up article by Crain's Chicago Business, the statement is quoted slightly differently, with Glenn Harston saying that "the Wrapports board decided it would rather focus on its other assets." And in the Tribune piece I linked to earlier, Sun-Times Media Publisher/EIC Jim Kirk said that "the Reader remains a strong voice in the community and we have every intention of keeping it that way despite the growing challenges all media companies face." Which is a bit more reassuring, but once has to wonder - did the statemented to Feder inadvertently reveal where Wrapports' priorities really lie?
Which, if true, is a problem. Because, make no mistake - the Chicago Reader is worth saving. Not just because it's the oldest, longest-running alt weekly in Chicago, but because of what it represents. It's place that provides to people that can't share voice anywhere else. It takes chances, it experiments. It reveals the hidden depths of Chicago creative communities, and brings attention to artists that deserve it. It's a tireless advocate for social change, a fighter against political corruption, a challenger of political conventional wisdom.
It changed this city. It changed the way we talk about charter schools and Tax Increment Financing. It helped long-shot aldermanic candidates gain seats. It served as a launching pad for multiple artists.
But don't just take my word for it.
The @Chicago_Reader showed me so many great things in Chicago and consistently publishes and promotes amazing people #savethechicagoreader
- Impaylor Swift (@lefttheprairie) April 22, 2016
The @Chicago_Reader-no one else-published Conroy's reports on torture by officer Jon Burge et al. $300M in settlements #savethechicagoreader
- Brandon Smith (@muckrakery) April 22, 2016
Nothing has shaped my opinion of #Chicago and the best way to live a good life here more than The Reader. #savethechicagoreader
- Beth Somers (@bethylou10) April 22, 2016
. @chicagoreader teaches us about everything from TIFs to pot to professional snugglers. It's awesome. #savethechicagoreader
- cshepherd (@cshepherd) April 22, 2016
Of course, one must ask - what do the Reader staffers want Wrapports to do? As I said earlier, the economy hasn't been too kind to newspapers, and the company isn't exactly in a good financial shape even by newspaper company standards. The Sun-Times Network is a financial drain, and, from what I gathered, Chicago Sun-Times is just barely hanging in there. It's not entirely clear how much money Wrapports' other branches and investments bring in.
When I think about the Reader, I can't think of another iconic weekly newspaper that isn't exactly in a good financial shape - the Chicago Defender, the city's oldest black newspaper and one of the most iconic African-American newspapers in the country. When Cheryl Mainor became its publisher in May 2014, she set out to increase its circulation and, with it, its advertising revenue. It worked - the paper is profitable again, and can tell that I've seen the paper sold and distributed in places I've never seen it before ([including a newstanding in my local 'L' station]including a newsstand in my local 'L' station. If you don't count the libraries, this is the first time I've seen the Defender this far north). Its editorial voice has gotten stronger, investigating issues such as homeless, and its editorials has spoken much more forcefully on issues such as police brutality and lack of opportunities for lower-income African-Americans. It has ways to go - there are plenty of areas it could dig into more, and it could definitely use more pages and more advertising - but it feels like they are heading in the right direction. And even if they do fail - at least they took risks and gave it a pretty damn good try.
We know that alternative newspapers can be profitable. We know that putting in more resources into an alternative newspaper can pay off.
The petition alone may not persuade Wrapports to invest more into the Reader, but it would at least show that there is a demand.
And hey - we know that, when it comes to alt weeklies, community support can go a long way.
Basically, they said that Wrapports has been repeatedly cutting back the paper's budget, which resulted in shrinking page count, less content, reduced service to advertisers and issues with distribution. They basically argue that while, yes, the economy hasn't been too kind of newspapers of any kind, cutting the budget wasn't the way to improve the Reader's fortunes. One could certainly argue that there is only so much you can cut before you start hurting a paper's quality. If a newspaper has less content, than the people have less reason to read it. If the reductions are interfering with the Reader's ability to serve advertisers, the advertisers are less likely to keep advertising. If there are issues with distribution, then the readers are less likely to pick up physical copies, and advertisers are more likely to question the Reader's ability to get their message out to the readers and... see the preceding sentence.
According to Chicago Tribune, as of Friday afternoon, the petition had 1,500 signatures. It's not that big of a number for a city of Chicago's size, but the fact that they were able to get over a thousand signatures in a single day is encouraging.
The petition was unveiled the day the Reader published its smallest issue yet (39 pages. As recently as two years ago, the average was almost twice that size). And, perhaps most strikingly, it had the smallest Classifieds section I can remember (two and a half pages).
Because I like visual puns as much as alliancesjr loves verbal ones
But that's not the only troubling sign. On Monday, Robert Feder reported that Michael Ferro had Tribune Publishing buy the Splash magazine from Wrapports. As I've mentioned many times before, the magazine was Ferro's pet project, so it made certain sense that he'd bring it over. But what caught my attention was this quote at the bottom of the post (emphasis mine).In a statement released by Wrapports spokesman Glenn Harston, the company also confirmed the agreement to sell Splash: “Susanna Homan was the only editor of Splash in its short history. With her resignation to become Chicago magazine’s editor and publisher, the Wrapports board decided it would rather focus on its core newspaper asset, the Chicago Sun-Times, and digital properties,” the statement said.
Notice the way it's worded. "Core newspaper asset" (singular) and "digital properties."
What about the company's other newspaper asset?
In a follow-up article by Crain's Chicago Business, the statement is quoted slightly differently, with Glenn Harston saying that "the Wrapports board decided it would rather focus on its other assets." And in the Tribune piece I linked to earlier, Sun-Times Media Publisher/EIC Jim Kirk said that "the Reader remains a strong voice in the community and we have every intention of keeping it that way despite the growing challenges all media companies face." Which is a bit more reassuring, but once has to wonder - did the statemented to Feder inadvertently reveal where Wrapports' priorities really lie?
Which, if true, is a problem. Because, make no mistake - the Chicago Reader is worth saving. Not just because it's the oldest, longest-running alt weekly in Chicago, but because of what it represents. It's place that provides to people that can't share voice anywhere else. It takes chances, it experiments. It reveals the hidden depths of Chicago creative communities, and brings attention to artists that deserve it. It's a tireless advocate for social change, a fighter against political corruption, a challenger of political conventional wisdom.
It changed this city. It changed the way we talk about charter schools and Tax Increment Financing. It helped long-shot aldermanic candidates gain seats. It served as a launching pad for multiple artists.
But don't just take my word for it.
The @Chicago_Reader showed me so many great things in Chicago and consistently publishes and promotes amazing people #savethechicagoreader
- Impaylor Swift (@lefttheprairie) April 22, 2016
The @Chicago_Reader-no one else-published Conroy's reports on torture by officer Jon Burge et al. $300M in settlements #savethechicagoreader
- Brandon Smith (@muckrakery) April 22, 2016
Nothing has shaped my opinion of #Chicago and the best way to live a good life here more than The Reader. #savethechicagoreader
- Beth Somers (@bethylou10) April 22, 2016
. @chicagoreader teaches us about everything from TIFs to pot to professional snugglers. It's awesome. #savethechicagoreader
- cshepherd (@cshepherd) April 22, 2016
Of course, one must ask - what do the Reader staffers want Wrapports to do? As I said earlier, the economy hasn't been too kind to newspapers, and the company isn't exactly in a good financial shape even by newspaper company standards. The Sun-Times Network is a financial drain, and, from what I gathered, Chicago Sun-Times is just barely hanging in there. It's not entirely clear how much money Wrapports' other branches and investments bring in.
When I think about the Reader, I can't think of another iconic weekly newspaper that isn't exactly in a good financial shape - the Chicago Defender, the city's oldest black newspaper and one of the most iconic African-American newspapers in the country. When Cheryl Mainor became its publisher in May 2014, she set out to increase its circulation and, with it, its advertising revenue. It worked - the paper is profitable again, and can tell that I've seen the paper sold and distributed in places I've never seen it before ([including a newstanding in my local 'L' station]including a newsstand in my local 'L' station. If you don't count the libraries, this is the first time I've seen the Defender this far north). Its editorial voice has gotten stronger, investigating issues such as homeless, and its editorials has spoken much more forcefully on issues such as police brutality and lack of opportunities for lower-income African-Americans. It has ways to go - there are plenty of areas it could dig into more, and it could definitely use more pages and more advertising - but it feels like they are heading in the right direction. And even if they do fail - at least they took risks and gave it a pretty damn good try.
We know that alternative newspapers can be profitable. We know that putting in more resources into an alternative newspaper can pay off.
The petition alone may not persuade Wrapports to invest more into the Reader, but it would at least show that there is a demand.
And hey - we know that, when it comes to alt weeklies, community support can go a long way.