Always with the reassurances, eh, Tuckerfan? I feel better already.
Well, I’m not sharing my antidepressants. 
No, you’re entitled to rant and under the circumstances it’s totally understandable.
It is a changing culture, isn’t it? My hometown paper (owned by a big “family” corporation) plainly stated that the only people who actually read newspapers are old folks and that’s not the business they’re looking for, not enough of them, they don’t spend enough on other things. (This also explains why the AJC continues to run “Mary Worth” on the comics page. ) They foresee a time when people read the paper totally on the internet and they won’t be throwing papers in your driveway every morning. They think it’s coming soon.
And it’s the same with the Reader. Management is mostly these old-line print guys who just did not get the internet and couldn’t bring themselves to get into the game. Easier to take the money and go do something else. I find this quote from Bob Roth to pretty much explain everything going on here:
Our new corporate overlords are 20 years younger and much more willing to look at our changing world and how information is distributed, bought, and sold.
Yes, it’s another blow against local papers. Not the first, not the last. I’m afraid true hometown papers will soon be in the museum along with fedoras with press passes in the band. It’s that dying romance, that “Front Page” dream that makes people become ink-stained wretches in the first place. And that’s why this hurts so much.
–Hannibal Smith, A-Team.
Don’t blame the internet? I think you’re wrong there. The internet (and Craigslist especially) has taken away a good part of the newspapers’ audience and advertising revenue.
Actually, Colt Seavers, The Fall Guy.
Well put. But in the meantime, I’ve still got my fedora and I’m still here. Since more and more newspapers are adding areas for comment under their articles and looking to become more interactive, I don’t see the sense in shutting down a message board. Even if I’m wrong, I’m not interested in panicking.
Going to bed now, you big tease. See ya guys later, hope I don’t miss the apocalypse!!!111!!! 
I was going to post a quote from the linked interview, but I see TubaDiva beat me to the punch, so I’ll just re-refer you back to that and say that I humbly disagree with you in this particular case. It doesn’t sound to me like anyone was forced to sell or go under by anyone. These guys were simply ready to retire anyway, and weren’t willing to pass up an offer that was too good to let go. I say more power to them!
I guess in the grand scheme of things, 36 years could be considered ‘quickly’, but I certainly wouldn’t classify it as such. Thirty-six years is pretty much the complete life-cycle of a career that starts with nothing and ends with building a business that’s grown enough to attract a buyer who’s interested in taking it over when you’re ready to retire. It’s the “American Dream.” Why selfishly deny that to these guys who put their time in, did what they wanted with their lives and are now ready to move on?
The Sturm und Drang taking place in this thread is almost hilarious.
Lucky me…I’ve got that looming as well.
I think you’re wrong.
Hannibal may have said it, but I heard it on The Fall Guy. 
Who said that the Reader was “quickly” run out? My statement is that corporate-owned papers (as the Reader is now) are in a position to run out any small, indepenedent competitors-- either literally or force them to cut back so much, they become shells of their former selves.
Who says I am? I just think it sucks that it took a corporation to finally make them decide to retire. I can offer examples of how a media corporation has completely ruined the properties they devour. They’ve got no connection to the community, they’ve got no interest in putting out quality journalism, they’re only interest (as with all corporations) is to make more and more money. But newspaper CEOs don’t really know how to do it. They think cutting editorial costs and boosting the sales staff is the only way to make more money. Bullshit. If you invest in editorial, people will read your product, and advertisers will want to advertise. If you cut editorial, you will lose readers, and it will be a chore to sell ads.
I’ve seen first-hand a corporation completely destroy a once respected and informative newspaper. I’m sure my personal example is not the only case on record. This is why I am upset at this transaction.
I agree. During the SF power outage yesterday, I was pissed of that SFGate.com took 30 whole minutes to get information up. You can imagine what I think of dead-trees as a news source.
“Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss…”
Frankly, I don’t care much what happens to “'The Chicago Reader.” Never read it, probably never will. All I care about is what happens to these boards, and as the Admins have said, it’s much too early to speculate. I think it’s auspicious that the new buyers are named “Creative Loafing,” though. “Creative Loafing Since 2007 - It’s Taking Longer Than We Thought” is not the worst header ever.
Here’s my very WAG, for those looking for a tea leaf to read:
Watch what happens to Mike Lenehan (Cecil’s feckled first editor, now a high mucky-muck at CR). As long as he’s around the Dope will probably have a strong advocate (unless Little Ed has been secretly slipping saltpeter in Mike’s coffee). But if the new folks post a memo announcing that he has “left to pursue other interests”, then we can start worrying. (Course, if Mike is one of the folks looking to retire, you can ignore all of this.)
Interesting timing: today the local paper announced that the TV station I used to work for has been sold. Again. You folks at the Reader have my sympathy.
I, for one, welcome our new media overlords!
My thoughts exactly. If the new bosses have a greater appreciation of “What the Internet Can Do For Them™”, things should keep going pretty much as they are. After all, in the (completely admitted) absence of evidence, my hunch is that we’re a positive revenue source. Maybe we’ll see a few new ads, maybe there will be a slight increase in subscription fees, who knows. But I doubt it’s the end of the Dope as we know it.
Newspaper circulations took serious hits a few years before the Internet and Craigslist became popular.
Internet advertising isn’t beating out newspaper ads because it’s more effective (how often do you click on popups?). Print ads are slipping because circulation is slipping because quality is slipping.
Like I said before, the audience is following the talent. The talent is being forced out of the newspaper world by corporate downsizing, consolidation and homogenization.
It started when they dropped Nancy!
…or you’ll be castrated. Either way, no problem!