Whaaaa?

Francis, perhaps you ought to read this thread and those concerning UrbanBelly on this forum more carefully. You will see that there are many people here who love UB and admire what Bill Kim is doing.

Ursiform wrote:Whaaaa?

Francis, perhaps you ought to read this thread and those concerning UrbanBelly on this forum more carefully. You will see that there are many people here who love UB and admire what Bill Kim is doing.

No doubt. I think part of the reason these comments are getting discussed so much is because LTHers in general seem to have an affection for both Urban Belly and Graham Elliot. It makes the perceived disdain for our opinions all the more stunning and surely offensive for some.

The real question is if francis is a white knight for these chefs and the industry at large, or a mercenary.

gleam wrote:No doubt. I think part of the reason these comments are getting discussed so much is because LTHers in general seem to have an affection for both Urban Belly and Graham Elliot. It makes the perceived disdain for our opinions all the more stunning and surely offensive for some.

The real question is if francis is a white knight for these chefs and the industry at large, or a mercenary.

Youch, if he/she is a White Knight, they did a pretty bad job of it.

Lighten Up, Francis.

I think it was only a matter of time before that happened. Although the level of anger was unexpected.

Let's meet francis halfway and consider perhaps his main point: are we perhaps overly critical of someone's passionate pursuit of art? Is there a difference between our act of dining and those who are less communally conversant in food? Are we more likely to be judgmental because of our self-professed interest in both food and discussion?

We need to eat to live. Eating is not art. Some would argue we need art to really 'live' but, please, do start eating acrylics.

So, restaurants provide us a something that is necessary. But members and readers of this forum are looking for something more. Good food. Great experience. Something unique and different. Might there be art lurking in the difference between mere sustenance and mouth-watering anticipation and enjoyment? Likely so.

Can our discussion and, in some cases, critique of food perhaps tweak or annoy someone trying very hard to put out a good product? I can certainly see how they could see it that way. But I think, as was referred to upthread, we are generally food enthusiasts. We want and celebrate great tastes, textures and bites. We are pleasure-seekers of the gustatory variety. In general, I think that we would rather be pleased than disappointed. So we seek wonderful flavor. Sometimes we find it.

People who come here are also (mostly) interested in discussion. So twinning our passions, we come to revel and, sometimes, to disparage. I think our art is in the seeking and the relating. If, in the course of these pursuits, we find something not to our liking, then we have every right to share it. It's up to each person to draw their own personal line on what to report. And each viewer decides what they will read. And each writer decides what they reply to

I think that this discussion could rankle some because we have gotten pretty far afield from what is on the plate when we debate our own impact on restaurant awareness or our responsibilities as content creators. But the freedom to express everything that affects our restaurant experience is the same freedom everyone else has to ignore it.

My take is that I should not have to feel beholden to a chef for the very existence of his or her restaurant just because I like to eat. If my opinion is not to your taste, francis, feel free to ignore it. Better yet, feel free to expand on this relationship between diner and restauranteur in a mannered way. But if you think that a classy, responsible restaurant citizen should keep quiet if they don't like an establishment, why do you not extend this online community the same courtesy?

Amata's points are good ones. The community stays vibrant so long as we provide new, interesting and valuable content. Mostly, I think we do this well. As long as we continue to look for wonderful food and drink and bring the knowledge here to share, then we are practicing our 'art' as best we know how.

Francis, you are way off point. The quality of food is not being judged in this thread. The high quality of the food at both UrbanBelly and Graham Elliot have been well discussed. And I'm not sure exactly how someone is trying to "destroy" them, in fact there's more praise on this board for them than the opposite.

OK, so they're artists. Art gets judged and critiqued. The artist might find it annoying but that's the way it's going to be.

I'm someone who has openly praised UrbanBelly and critiqued Graham Elliot, I'm going to continue to do so, no matter how annoying it makes me.

And Francis, I have excellent manners. In fact, my manners are so good that I would never consider anonymously jumping into a conversation and making sweeping, insulting statements about the parties involved.

Best,
Michael

eatchicago wrote:And Francis, I have excellent manners. In fact, my manners are so good that I would never consider anonymously jumping into a conversation and making sweeping, insulting statements about the parties involved.

Anonymously even to the point of creating a special email address just for us!

gleam wrote:

eatchicago wrote:And Francis, I have excellent manners. In fact, my manners are so good that I would never consider anonymously jumping into a conversation and making sweeping, insulting statements about the parties involved.

Anonymously even to the point of creating a special email address just for us!

Exactly my point.

Okay, so Francis was way out of line.

But I am not sure the wailing here is any less out of line. I disagree with the assembled posters in that I just do not see this as any big deal at all. Of course we aggravate chefs - we are writing about and criticizing their work. And we are not perfect, or always fair.

And I am sure that restaurant owners and chefs can all come up with many amusing anecdotes about clueless posters panning places for absurd or just downright inaccurate reasons. I really want to read this post complaining about Graham's silverware - I bet it is pretty funny.

Let's keep this all in perspective, too. After all, no one of us makes any difference at all - Francis is completely correct about that one thing even if much of the rest of that post is crazy, angry talk. But all of us together make a world of difference, don't we? And we make a difference to both traditional media and restaurants, so it is not terribly surprising that we came up in that discussion.

Yes, these comments were not the smartest PR, but it should not be a surprise that these people feel this way. I get criticized all the time by parents and fans at soccer games (I referee). I can, and do, tell many stories about idiot parents and coaches. Most are very reasonable folks, and I even get good feedback from some of them, but those are not the ones I remember or talk about. I remember the loud mouths who criticize and complain from the first to last minute of each game, and routinely say things that are so stupid as to be hilarious.

This is human nature, and not a big deal. Really. And it does not mean that Bill or Graham disrespect any one of us individually (okay, Bill may hate me based on a recent review I wrote, but that would not apply to most of you and I may deserve it), just that they remember the stupid and annoying posts by stupid and annoying people.

That's my two cents. I am as fond of navel-gazing as the next person, but if I have to defend every blogger, yelper and chowhound on the internet as a matter of principle, well I can't do that. Some of those folks, though surely none of us , are wildly, even spectacularly wrong, just plan wrong. How would that make you feel if you were a chef?

I was gone as this whole fascinating discussion blossomed and then faded, so there's very little new left to say (but that won't stop me!)

The one thing I feel has changed is that there's so damn much more of it lately. I mean, two years ago Yelp was a startup and we were a cozy little secret of the restaurant community. Now a hot place opens and in a week it's got five pages of reviews, sometimes astonishingly detailed.

That might unnerve me a bit, too. In fact, it does unnerve me a little, as a user. I admit to not reading too much in certain threads because I feel reviewing has, cumulatively, crossed the line into inch-by-inch documentation, and I don't want to go to a restaurant and find it overfamiliar as soon as I walk in the door. Especially at the prices of some of these places-- nothing against those who have taken drop dead gorgeous pictures and written poetic tributes to the likes of L20, to name one, but I want to save some surprises for the restaurant (someday, when I cash in the kids' college funds).

That said, if there's any bet you can make in safety in this crazy 2008 world, it's that whatever the internet starts to do, it will do more and more of and that will become the dominant mode of it, whatever it is. So the sane person finds a way to make his business live with that fact. Bitch if it makes you feel better, but it ain't changing back.

Mike G wrote:That might unnerve me a bit, too. In fact, it does unnerve me a little, as a user. I admit to not reading too much in certain threads because I feel reviewing has, cumulatively, crossed the line into inch-by-inch documentation, and I don't want to go to a restaurant and find it overfamiliar as soon as I walk in the door. Especially at the prices of some of these places-- nothing against those who have taken drop dead gorgeous pictures and written poetic tributes to the likes of L20, to name one, but I want to save some surprises for the restaurant (someday, when I cash in the kids' college funds).

As much as I enjoy taking and posting pictures of some of my meals, I definitely do consider it documenting and not reviewing. No question about it. In my mind, reviews are a completely different thing, which I am not qualified nor trained to provide. In fact, while many who are active in forums may consider what they read and write here as reviews, I always think of them as accounts and/or reports. If this is more a matter of perception than intent (or one of semantics), I suppose the point is moot. But it may explain the ire among chefs, which dicksond touched on above.

In writing, posted here for all to see in perpetuity, a negative account may carry undue authority and feel like a bad review to the entity being discussed. In reality, however, it's just one opinion in a sea of opinions, and can be very easily dismissed, disregarded or viewed more accurately when framed in a more complete context. Even when people intend to be fair, objective and thorough in their accounts, they still may lack the skill and ability to do so. Many of us who are 'regulars' here understand this but a chef who stops in rarely and reads criticism of his work may have a hard time just letting the negative stuff go. Who could blame them?

As for the surprise factor, I agree that it's good to preserve it at times. Often, when reading a thread about a place to which I have not yet been, I will merely scan the posts about it (until after I have eaten there) because I do want to leave some room for my experience at that restaurant to take more of its own path. Other times, I am thrilled to have thorough accounts to read in detail before I go. It just depends -- and I'm not even sure on what. Mood, perhaps.

The bottom line is that the content that appears in these forums has a tremendous amount of value. The more context through which one can view that content, the more value it has. It's very hard to imagine being on the other side of the pass but I do think that if I were in those clogs, the hyper-interest in food, restaurants and cooking generated on the internet would feel like good thing to me -- in spite of the potential for occasionally being criticized. If the old saying is true, that a rising tide lifts all boats, then surely the interest in culinary matters being generated by discussions here -- and at similar venues -- has got to be a boon for restaurants in general. People educate themselves here and cultivate their adventurousness. They try places about which they may not have previously known and eat cuisines with which they may have no tangible connection. To me, that's something to be celebrated, even though someone's going to get stung every once in a while in the process.

=R=

If the old saying is true, that a rising tide lifts all boats, then surely the interest in culinary matters being generated by discussions here -- and at similar venues -- has got to be a boon for restaurants in general. People educate themselves here and cultivate their adventurousness.

Very well said. The irony is that precisely the sort of conceptual food that some of these chefs specialize in would, well, it might still exist without so much discussion, but it certainly wouldn't be the trend-slash-movement it is, or meet with the same degree of acceptance and success, without all this talk in so many venues.

I think we're also seeing an unprecedented interest via the internet in restaurants, which is changing the whole game. I think the chefs are facing a learning curve in dealing with this onslaught of publicity.

As my compatriot in baseball, ronnie_suburban, would probably agree, the sports analogy is quite apt. There was a time when interest in sports through the media reached heightened levels and the players, managers and coaches (cite: Billy Martin) railed against it. While you see that somewhat now (cite: Kenny Rogers), most players have learned to deal with the attention, field questions, take frequent interviews and managers know to face a hostile press at times. I'm not saying the restaurant game will ever get to that level of media frenzy (boy, wouldn't that be a strange world), but the restaurateurs will have to adjust because things are not going back to the old way.

Once upon a time chefs would wail - and rightly so - when "the" critic in town handed down his/her degree. (Frank) Bruni or (Pat) Bruno (or Vettel or Reichl) could make or break a restaurant with a snooty dismissal (remember Anton Ego in Ratatouille!). That is less true today. There are hundreds of nipping and yelping Egos about. Those chefs who received those institutional encomiums were abjectly grateful and those who were gored were somewhat less grateful for the power of these culinary mandarins. The power of these writers has vanished, but it has been limited. And this benefits some, while discouraging others. Our friend Chef Bowles should know this well (as we should know that if this is the worst he can dish out he is a four-star pal). Although GEB's tenure at Avenues was well-received in the news suites, it was enthusiastically embraced on the virtual streets. If the response to GE was not what he might have hoped (although it has not been cruel by any reasonable reading), it is not because bloggers wish him ill, but because we wish him well-er. But we do not set any chef's business model. We just attempt in our cacophonous way to hold him to our standards - which may not be his, but they are ours.

With some few exceptions - there are some exceptions everywhere - we do not wish to admit to ourselves that we have had bad meals. Why would we admit that we have been taken for rubes or nubes? There is a pressure to enjoy our meal and feel that we received good value. That doesn't always happen, but that is our dear hope. However, few things in life are perfect - few meals are, fewer reviews are - and truly every review should be as mixed as a salad. That is how I expect my books to be judged and it is what I expect of those meals that I am fed. It is true that we do not have the subtle pressure of advertising pushing us (this is rarely explicit, but any critic knows that if everything is a pan there will be pressure to find a happier eating - I know this as an erstwhile professional food critic). But we amateurs share with the professional, the hope that perhaps our enthusiasm for food bolsters the industry, creating more sophisticated diners and better restaurants. If so, we win: more restaurants for us to enjoy. We want - we need - restaurants to be filled and chefs to be inspired.

Unlike Ronnie, I do see myself as a critic, but one who hopes that he can swoon at each mouthful. The fact that I don't recognizes the reality that restaurants do not always succeed (with me) in reaching their goals, and I attempt to share this in a fair-minded, if humorous, way. However, I never take myself too seriously - and a certainly do not take any of my fellow bloggers too seriously. I realize that I do not have the sharp and cruel editors that Vettel and Bruno have. I can (and have) gone on for 3000 words about the placement of silverware (shameful!) with no publisher angered by my pool of ink staining the fingers of readers. And I attach my sometimes blurry pictures, sometimes "correcting" light and color. I am always dancing on the edge of ethics. But I am dancing in a circus conga line with other friendly clowns.

I certainly can appreciate that it is not fun to wake up each morning to find a bunch of yobs (however, well-meaning) getting it wrong in their wrong-headed way, often basing their opinion on a shared bite or two from one hectic night in which the dishwasher quit and the sous chef threatened sexual harassment charges. But that is why we rely on a thousand points of lightning. As the political theorist Edmund Burke remarked, the individual is foolish, the species is wise. And we bloggers are a gastronomic species.

And chefs we love you, even while dispensing (sometimes misguided) tough love. We and you are symbiotic - to our mutual benefit.

And, chefs, don't forget if it weren't for us, you would need to move to Palatine or Gary or Joliet if you wanted to serve foie.

i think bloggers are just as important as restaurant critics. also, i think yelp, lthforum and critics all serve different purposes.

restaurant critics certainly have the experience and know-how to determine if an item is good whether or not they actually prefer it. the point is to be critical of something and know if it is up to par and being able to match or exceed expectations. restaurant critics also have the budget and time to return and give a restaurant another whirl in case it was an "off-night," while the rest of us have to hope that when we go, our experience will be the same as our favorite reviewers. and while it may take awhile for a restaurant critic to complete a review, it's still executed in a manner that is timely while the restaurant is in the beginning of their game.

certainly james beard awards help solidify a restaurant, but the reason people return is because of experience. and like others have mentioned, when you spend a great deal of money at a restaurant, people often want to share the excitement or disappointment they felt with their friends. not to mention, people may not be able to afford an experience at GE and simply want to indulge in a little food porn because they do appreciate food as an art. that's why sites like tastespotting were so popular!

i think lthforum is definitely more of the food enthusiast discussion area, while yelp critiques are important because they place emphasis on the every person experience. lthforum doesn't just include patrons, but also business owners. either way, i think regardless of discussion, it serves as a very important tool for business owners and chefs. if you have 40 people saying that your food is tasteless, you should be putting your ego aside and trying to adhere to your patrons.

it's insulting and bad business sense to think that people who post on lthforum or yelp are beneath you and that their opinions don't matter. many of these restaurants would not exist were it not for the patronage of people who post on these sites. and while the opinions expressed on these sites are certainly good critiques, a lot of the reviews on lthforum and yelp are not comprehensive or even well written (i'm not trying to place myself above that, i'm just saying). i think people gauge based on an average, which is why those who are blatantly critical or fawning can easily be dismissed when determining if a restaurant is a worthy visit or not.

and on a side note, it's been mentioned before, but if you have a problem with cameras in your restaurant, don't allow them. but don't dim the lights to the point you can't see your date or food to discourage bloggers.

ok, i'm done.

This is something of the flip side of what's said above.

At the risk of appearing to be taking the brimstone-scented gelt of Zell himself, I have to say, the Tribune food section has really kicked some butt lately.  Although the section is often identified with its star reviewer, Phil Vettel, I have to admit that's not the part I pay attention to, so I have no position on whether he's getting unusually soft on high-end restaurants, or just usually soft.  Hot new restaurant reviews are for people who need to show off where they've been to, not people who care about food.

What's interesting is that the stuff beyond the starred reviews that is for people who care about food has really been good lately.  In fact I can't help but think that there is a mandate to let the Tribune writers escape the shackles of the institutional voice and write with more of a personal, blog-like spin-- but on the kinds of topics, and with the kinds of resources, that we associate with newspapers and good reporting.  When that approach works, it really is the best of both worlds, and the Trib food section has made it work several times lately:

• Christopher Borrelli wrote a great character sketch of a breakfast obsessive, sympathetic and yet also not afraid to portray the guy as kind of wacky.

• Monica Eng chronicled her visits to various places where animals are killed and her reactions to it-- the kind of personal writing that wouldn't have been in a newspaper pre-blog, but with a length and breadth that few bloggers could have devoted the resources necessary to achieve.

• The newly-redesigned Trib did a lavish how-did-Columbus-affect-food section for Columbus Day.  Not all of it was great, there are some term-paper-cribbed-out-of-the-Brittanica* pieces in it, but several are well worth checking out such as Emily Nunn on pecans and Bill Daley's video tour of a post-Columbian produce section.

• Monica Eng again with a good version of an oldie but goodie, reporter follows health inspectors on their rounds.

So, count me today as someone who doesn't think the American newspaper is dead yet.  Actually, I think the Trib's food section has started making the right move from being for the person who's just barely interested in food (and will look at the Jewel ads) to the person who's quite interested in it and wants quality coverage.  So what's the bad news for the Tribune, since there must be some?

The bad news is, I didn't find any of these stories via the main chicagotribune.com.  I first heard about them somewhere else-- Menu Pages' blog or the Trib's own The Stew or Ronnie Suburban's media roundup on LTHForum or whatever.  In fact, even when I knew about them and wanted to find them via the Trib site, it was usually difficult (note that Menu Pages also gave up on trying to embed the Daley produce section video, which puts Sky Full of Bacon one technological step ahead of the mighty TribCo).  How people who know how to create a visually coherent special section in print can only produce a hopeless jumble online is beyond me, but the first thing standing in the way of the American newspaper online is the messy, visually unappealing, confusing as hell American newspaper website.

There, Sam, keep your damn gelt and use it to make your site work, like the New York Times' but almost no other paper's does.

* Deliberately archaic reference

Mike G wrote:• [url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/food/chi-dirty-diningoct09,0,2423980.story]
Monica Eng again[/url] with a good version of an oldie but goodie, reporter follows health inspectors on their rounds.

So, count me today as someone who doesn't think the American newspaper is dead yet.  Actually, I think the Trib's food section has started making the right move from being for the person who's just barely interested in food (and will look at the Jewel ads) to the person who's quite interested in it and wants quality coverage.  So what's the bad news for the Tribune, since there must be some?[/i]

My biggest issue with the Tribune lately is the huge number of articles written by the Los Angeles Times news staff.

I likes the health inspector article a lot. What bothered me was the picture makes the front page and continues on to pg 30, which, of course, I could not find in the barber shop.

I have never been very concerned about a health department inspection when I was in the business. We had a lot of the proper systems
set up. What always concerned me was their power to close me down without any opportunity to appeal.

Mike G wrote:The bad news is, I didn't find any of these stories via the main chicagotribune.com. I first heard about them somewhere else.... The first thing standing in the way of the American newspaper online is the messy, visually unappealing, confusing as hell American newspaper website.

jlawrence01 wrote:What bothered me was the picture makes the front page and continues on to pg 30, which, of course, I could not find in the barber shop.

Some analysts might say that the first thing standing in the way of the American newspaper is the number of people who prefer to read its content without paying for it.

I am firmly convinced that we will see the end of the newspaper in our lifetime, and whatever online configuration that replaces it will be very different. It is already becoming possible to arrange your input of information so you never have to see anything that disagrees with your personal world view, at the same time that it becomes harder and harder to see the hidden hand of marketing behind seemingly factual or "real" material.

HI,

The major regional, national and world news, I am am already familiar with by the time the paper arrives. I miss the dedicated to really local news Metro section, because that is largely hidden news and keeps me reading the paper.

The Highland Park News, a Pioneer Press/Sun-Times paper, is read for the local movie schedule, obituaries, letters to the editor and other incidental very local to Highland Park news.

Regards,

The main problem with printed newspapers -- even dailies -- is that by the time they arrive, much of the news they contain is already stale. I think they still have quite a bit of value but I don't see them as the nearly essential source they once were. Even their best and most valuable content can be conveyed via other, more efficient conduits.

=R=

ronnie_suburban wrote:The main problem with printed newspapers -- even dailies -- is that by the time they arrive, much of the news they contain is already stale. I think they still have quite a bit of value but I don't see them as the nearly essential source they once were. Even their best and most valuable content can be conveyed via other, more efficient conduits.

=R=

Agreed.

I have already read the sports page on ESPN.com tonight. And most of the AP articles, which generally make up 70-80% of most newspaper is readily available off of Yahoo. BTW, you will NOT see the box score of tonight's LA Dodgers - Philadelphia Phillies game will not make the paper until Wednesday.

I don't watch TV much but i am sure that most news is available on CNN, Fox, etc, hours before the 1st edition of the Tribune.

If you deleted the ads, the AP content, you are down to <10-15% local content. Oh by the way, that 10-15% is on the internet, and usually for free.

My biggest complaint with the Tribune is that they have a complete inability to distinguish between McHenry and Kane Counties.

jlawrence01 wrote:If you deleted the ads, the AP content, you are down to <10-15% local content. Oh by the way, that 10-15% is on the internet, and usually for free.

Yes, it's very unfortunate. Newspaper management doesn't understand that readers aren't looking for the same wire copy replicated over and over again. They keep laying off reporters when they should be beefing up unique, local coverage.

Even the community weeklies don't get it. I recently picked up a copy of the Des Plaines Journal and Topics. They devoted two full pages to movie reviews. Who the heck is going to buy a little paper like that for movie reviews, when they can get them anywhere?

LAZ wrote:

jlawrence01 wrote:I recently picked up a copy of the Des Plaines Journal and Topics. They devoted two full pages to movie reviews. Who the heck is going to buy a little paper like that for movie reviews, when they can get them anywhere?

Aren't those just a ploy to attract ad revenues from movie distributors and local movies houses?

LAZ wrote:Yes, it's very unfortunate. Newspaper management doesn't understand that readers aren't looking for the same wire copy replicated over and over again.

YES! I want what I can find only at the Trib - columns, local reporting, features (is that what non-news articles are called?)

nr706 wrote:

LAZ wrote:

jlawrence01 wrote:I recently picked up a copy of the Des Plaines Journal and Topics. They devoted two full pages to movie reviews. Who the heck is going to buy a little paper like that for movie reviews, when they can get them anywhere?

Aren't those just a ploy to attract ad revenues from movie distributors and local movies houses?

If it is, it didn't seem to be working for them. I looked. And there are local features that could be aimed at movie goers if they absolutely need film-related content. But the idea that content on X will drive ads from X is wrong. What drives advertising is high readership and results from the ads, period. If I were buying ads, I'd try to get placement next to the police blotter.

I have to say I'm a little dismayed by the number of people here who seem to equate "newspaper" only with the Zell product. I am prejudiced but I think the Sun-Times stays much more local in its coverage. Chicago is one of the rare cities that still has two big dailies, plus both daily and weekly suburban papers. Cherish them while you may.

LAZ wrote:I have to say I'm a little dismayed by the number of people here who seem to equate "newspaper" only with the Zell product.

Well, you won't be dismayed with me. I can't equate the Zell product with "newspaper" at all, since it isn't one anymore.

The other week I was saying to someone, "Who ever thought we'd see the day when the Sun-Times would be the credible paper in town?" I know that's a disservice to much that's been good in the Sun-Times, not least of which are the articles by Leah Zeldes, but the popular perception for some time has been that the Tribune was the closer of the two papers to playing in the same sandbox as the Washington Post and New York Times. Sam Zell singlehandedly changed all that! Well played, Sam. Your dream to create the Red Eye, only in a larger, more inconvenient size, has been realized.

I would love to see the Sun-Times do something with the advantage Sam Zell handed it. It could.

ronnie_suburban wrote:The main problem with printed newspapers -- even dailies -- is that by the time they arrive, much of the news they contain is already stale. I think they still have quite a bit of value but I don't see them as the nearly essential source they once were. Even their best and most valuable content can be conveyed via other, more efficient conduits.

=R=

No argument; the news is stale...unless it's filtered through the eyes of a particularly perceptive journalist who provides some valuable perspective.

David Hammond wrote:

ronnie_suburban wrote:The main problem with printed newspapers -- even dailies -- is that by the time they arrive, much of the news they contain is already stale. I think they still have quite a bit of value but I don't see them as the nearly essential source they once were. Even their best and most valuable content can be conveyed via other, more efficient conduits.

=R=

No argument; the news is stale...unless it's filtered through the eyes of a particularly perceptive journalist who provides some valuable perspective.

On one hand, I understand this, and I understand how the Internet has affected news, but on the other hand, I do not fully buy it. I know who has won the Bears game or the Presidential debate, but I still like to sit down to read the write-up. A journalist not only recaptures what happened, they provide insight and back-up and additional facts that were not apparent. For instance, post game, what did a player have to say, why did the manager make that move. A lot of TV news did not make the need for newspapers totally go away and neither does the Internet.

Please, count me as one who just hates the new Trib. I tried for a period to live newpaper-less. I thought I'd just read it on the 'net. I found out that I really enjoy the pleasure of sitting down in the AM with a unfolded paper. That experience cannot be duplicated online. I am finding myself, these days, however, barely glancing at the Trib that arrives each AM. I will probably not re-up when our subscription is up. I could go on about my problems, but since I am one of those guys that still wants a real newspaper story, that would be my main issue. I mean every Monday, I struggle to find where exactly is the report from the Bears game.

Maybe I am a dinosaur. Maybe there are not many people out there like me that enjoy newspapers. In high school, my friends likened me, way back then, for being an old man, for my habit of newspaper reading. Maybe my breed died before I was even born. I am, however, with options. I like the NYTimes we get each day. Maybe I will try the Sun Times again. I have a long time sweet spot for that paper for the real Royko, for Michael Sneed exposes, for Rick Kogan making me wish I was a hard drinkin' Kool smokin' adult. Maybe if I try real hard, I can make it all happen.

Vital Information wrote:I mean every Monday, I struggle to find where exactly is the report from the Bears game.

That (the sense of complete disorganization that not even a "learning process" on the part of readers can conquer, because there is no learning process possible when there is no rhyme or reason) is one of the two main problems with the new paper. The other is the dumbing down of the writing to Red Eye levels. It's not just that the story selection has become more Red Eyeish. It's that even the Trib's pre-redesign writers who were good, and who continue to write for the paper, have clearly been told to write dumber.

Vital Information wrote:I found out that I really enjoy the pleasure of sitting down in the AM with a unfolded paper. That experience cannot be duplicated online. I am finding myself, these days, however, barely glancing at the Trib that arrives each AM. I will probably not re-up when our subscription is up.

I've always enjoyed the old-fashioned sense of opening my door and retrieving the folded up newspaper which I thumbed through while having coffee in the morning. But lately, I barely glance at it, most of the news being old, and read only the sports section. But with the roll-out of the new Trib, which is a glorified Red-Eye, and finding the sports box-scores and schedules harder and harder to spot, I just gave up, and cancelled my subscription. Yesterday, in fact. There were other reasons, but it just got to the point where it didn't make any sense anymore. The part I feel most bad about? The carrier. I suppose there's a part of me that feels bad for these folks who use a dwindling paper circulation to supplement their income. I actually enjoyed tipping my carrier at holiday time, even though it seems like he channels his inner Carlos Zambrano every morning when pummeling my front (metal) door with the paper, which results in a loud bang at 6 am.