http://www.chicagoreader.com Comments On: Chicago Reader en-us Copyright 2009 Chicago Reader. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Chicago Reader readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Chicago Reader. wil@desert.net (Chicago Reader Webmaster) Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0600 Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:00:00 -0600 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
Seeking Your Approval
Rating: 5 Stars
Posted by chicagoimprov1]]> Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:36:21 -0600 Chicago Reader
Lan's Old Town
Rating: 3 Stars
Posted by foodieob]]> Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:49:34 -0600 Chicago Reader Posted by bagsfly]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:50:49 -0600 Chicago Reader The title and subtitle of your article are contrived, but provocative. It seems to me that you owed your topic a measure of homework that you did not complete.

You say you are trying to find out exactly the number of workers whose livelihoods would be impacted by the State's investment in stages. Who did you talk to? Did you talk to Betsy Steinberg at the Illinois Film Office? How about Rich Moskal at the Chicago Film Office? They're nice people, and their offices function, in large part, to assemble the very information that you claim to seek.

You could also talk to the Business Agent at IATSE Local 476, Mark Hogan. IATSE Local 476 does not represent everybody who works in this market - just 800 painters, carpenters, medics, property masters, set dressers, electricians, grips, riggers, script supervisors, craft service/catering workers, laborers, special effects techs, and hair and make-up stylists. Camera operators have their own Local, costumers have their own Local, and then there are members of the DGA, as well a whole host of production employees who work in the offices and on sets, and all of the drivers from Teamsters Local 714, as well as our many vendor friends all over Chicago and the suburbs.

Again - your knowledge of the market and industry you write about is negligible. Yet - you have the "soapbox" for a week, while the Reader moves from coffee shop, to CTA train, to office, to home - potentially influencing public opinion along the way.

Robert Yale
Member, IATSE Local 476



Posted by Robert Yale]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:08:41 -0600 Chicago Reader That was me, paraphrasing Susan Christopherson about the relative brevity of most film gigs. But, of course you're right, some are longer. That's great, and it's great that you've been able to make a living at it here for 20 years. Also, not only do I believe what you say about there being "hundreds of skilled workers in this market," I've been trying to find out exactly what that number is. Prof. Christopherson says the important thing with tax credits is transparency and accountability: we need the data that'll help us understand what we're paying out and what we're getting in return. She also says high quality scripted television series are giving way to cheaper talk-show and reality programming, but I didn't have space for everything last week. Regarding Chicago's infrastructure, more to come.
Deanna Isaacs


Posted by Deanna Isaacs]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:20:20 -0600 Chicago Reader http://www.variety.com/article/VR111801087…
Posted by stefanrand]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:02:38 -0600 Chicago Reader Posted by Captainberlin]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:29:58 -0600 Chicago Reader that Internet forums are your only safe haven. What's next . . . a full postal shoot-em out?
Posted by MS,OAK PARK]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:38:51 -0600 Chicago Reader Posted by logan's queer]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:40:41 -0600 Chicago Reader
Let's forget for a New York minute that writing a weekly column (or, indeed, two) for a publication not one's own -- and presumably being paid to do so -- constitutes a conflict of a) interest and b) loyalty. How much time should a publisher devote to his/her primary employer ... 35 hours, 40 hours, 50 hours? How much of that publisher's free time, then, should be devoted to making sure he/her is writing the best possible column for one of the most demanding newspapers on the planet? Then, too, how much of his/her time should be devoted to eating, sleeping and meeting family needs?

Remember, Wired, at last count, there are only 168 hours in the average week. How much time is left for living a life worthy of executing learned commentary?

The same applies for the wee Irish fellow, who, in addition to "inspiring" the CNC, is a member of the editorial board of the Reader and its sister publications ... and, we're told, is writing a book about his valiant efforts to save the Los Angeles Times from further layoffs and budget cuts, after he agreed to do what Dean Baquet and John Carroll refused to do.

Isn't Mr. Miner really asking in his column: where do these news executives' first loyalties lie, the Reader or the CNC and, by extension, the Times? What happens, for example, if Mr. O'Shea and/or Mr. Warren become aware of parallel investigations of parking meters, say, or police brutality, by the staffs of the Reader and CNC? If I were the Reader reporter working either story, I'd want to know that the information I was gathering in my company-owned computer was privileged ... or that a CNC deadline might not be moved ahead to trump a Reader cover piece.

I do believe that Mr. O'Shea and Mr. Warren are honorable people, but, as news execs (a.k.a., "pretend journalists"), could they resist the temptation to boost one company's business over the other? To me, such a predicament practically defines the concept "appearance of a conflict of interest." But, then, I don't work for the Reader. I am merely a reader ... what, me worry? (And, not being a subscriber of the Times or Tribune, I'll do what I always do ... peruse them on the Internet. And, when the Great Wall of News goes up, borrow my brother's subscriber code to access them.)

I would think that the poobahs of the New York Times would have similar concerns, unless, of course, they consider the CNC to be a minor-league franchise or still buy into the "Second City" theory. If not, why not simply add a couple more folks to the bureau and cover Chicago as if it were a real city?

And to Mr. Tuxedo, if you believe that the Tribune editors mentioned in your missive fought the good fight until the bitter end, I refer you to the history of the above-mentioned Baquet and Carroll at the Los Angeles Times. Those gentlemen quit before the Times could be put on the downward spiral. (By contrast, the Tribune editors hung on until they were fired and offered a soft pillow upon which to fall.)

As far I know, neither of the Times execs accepted a sweet buyout package, with a non-disclosure clause. The publishers, Puerner and Johnson, likewise, quit when the writing was put on the wall by their former bosses in Chicago. Mr. O'Shea, who left the Tribune voluntarily for a prestige job in L.A., quit only AFTER the Zell regime was installed and became an intolerable burden to any editor. He quit AFTER he helped ruin the careers and lives of nearly 100 highly trained professionals. And, guess what?, after hundreds more layoffs, the Times remains a better paper than the Tribune was when Ms. Lipinski, Mr. Warren et al were jettisoned. Meanwhile, Times subscribers consider the current product to be an abomination and dark shadow of its former self. Its circulation is hundreds of thousands short of its base only a decade ago.

The New York Times is attempting to take advantage of the diminuation of the Tribune and Times ... but on the cheap, at least in Chicago.
Posted by skeptical]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:23:00 -0600 Chicago Reader
Posted by omeros]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:08:15 -0600 Chicago Reader Posted by glenn]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:06:50 -0600 Chicago Reader I have read Susan Christopherson’s five-page summary of her upcoming report. In this summary, she discusses reaction to (and criticisms of) State subsidies in Louisiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The criticisms include the inability of subsidies to, by themselves, create the environment producers need to work in those markets. She contends that without such favorable environments, subsidies do not pay off for producers, or the states that offer them. She says that producers are looking for markets with an already existing, and sizable, infrastructure - or “a complex concentration of specialized businesses that serve them. These include specialized lawyers and accountants, payroll companies, equipment rental companies, casting companies, agents, and technical specialists in all the fields that go into film and television production.” Her quote is an adequate description of what the State of Illinois, and particularly Chicago – currently offer. This only fortifies my earlier criticism of your article, and your writing.

Your lack of knowledge regarding the Chicago motion picture industry seems profound, and I would encourage all of your readers to read Ms. Christopherson’s summary for themselves, as I think you have misrepresented her conclusions.

Robert Yale
Member, IATSE Local 476

Posted by Robert Yale]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:56:53 -0600 Chicago Reader Posted by Captainberlin]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:51:48 -0600 Chicago Reader There was no quiet abandonment of anything. What he or she may not know is that people like Lipinski, O'Shea, Warren and other talented journalists at the Tribune did stand their ground and rally their troops for a very long and stressful time. In the end, O'Shea and Warren both got fired. Lipinski, who devoted her entire career to the Tribune, well might have been fired eventually as well had she not resigned when the message in the tea leaves became clear.
Those managers swiftly were replaced by a new team who signed on to the new direction mandated by a new and very different ownership.
There are no legal grounds that I know of that can stop an owner from changing the kind of content in a newspaper. What some people might consider dross, others might consider gold.
But to suggest that people like Lipinski, O'Shea and Warren simply took some "hush money" and walked away is just glib, ignorant and utterly untrue.

Posted by Tuxedo]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:24:11 -0600 Chicago Reader
Click on the Now Showing page under the movies tab, and you'll see the full array of titles we're recommending (indicated by CC, for Critic's Choice, and R, for Recommended).
Posted by Alison True]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:07:20 -0600 Chicago Reader Posted by Julia Thiel]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:05:59 -0600 Chicago Reader
Posted by Julia Thiel]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:04:45 -0600 Chicago Reader
Planet 51
Rating: 4 Stars
Posted by Chad M.]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:53:00 -0600 Chicago Reader Posted by Kate Schmidt]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:35:56 -0600 Chicago Reader Posted by shaky]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:54:25 -0600 Chicago Reader Posted by groucho]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:45:53 -0600 Chicago Reader (5) He could become majority whip.
(4) He would restore discipline to the legislative process.
(3) When it comes to property taxes, he would show restraints.
(2) He would dress better than any of his colleagues.
(1) Anyone who crossed him would end up with their ass in a sling.
Posted by E. Weiss]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:43:38 -0600 Chicago Reader Posted by Pelham]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:27:57 -0600 Chicago Reader
The nagging little problem is that they've been managers for a long time, high-profile guys who could take credit for the work of a lot of other "real journalists." But then--unlike many of the others who were quietly tossed off the lifeboat without a flotation device--they could afford to take the hush money, walk away and, using their connections, rustle up some grant money to emerge again.

Sure, resistance to Zell would have been difficult and maybe futile. But you are what you do. Or don't do.

Sure, it would have been difficult and might have failed. But you are what you do. Or don't do.

Sure, it would have been difficult and might have failed. But you are what you do. Or don't do.

Can't blame them for doing what they can to live long and prosper. It's just their quiet abandonment of our once respected Tribune that sticks in the craw a mite. They (and Lipinski and a few others) could have tried to stand their ground, rally their troops and resist the Zell disgrace. They may even have had good legal grounds to do so. But they chose not to, and others--readers and the real journalists--paid the price.
Posted by Pelham]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:23:21 -0600 Chicago Reader