DISQUS

Captain America · 1 year ago

It's tolerable. The ediorials have been decent. We'll just have to hope there's still a budget for hard-hitting investigative journalism and cultivate other sources of information for real news that the Tribune and Sun-Timesems won't be able to provide in depth any more. There certainly are lots of pretty color pictures in the Tribune!

Vote Quimby! · 1 year ago

While in Chicago a few weeks ago I got a first look at the Red Eye---ugh! I have not seen a paper version of the Tribune south of Springfield in two and a half years. (Not that I've been looking too hard....)

Bluefish · 1 year ago

Disappointing. I read the Trib for more in depth reporting of the major issues and now they seem like their turning into USA Today. Seems like there is less news (especially local coverage) and more "features" and pictures that fill space but provide very little useful information. It is very likely I'll be dropping my subscription.

wordslinger · 1 year ago

Much ado about nothing. The concept assumes that readers are ADD and neeed bright, shiny pictures and graphics to draw them in. Those folks aren't picking up print editions, anyway.

Battleship Tribune was a terrible underachiever when they were grossly overstaffed and living under the money tree. I don't expect better now.

Gadfly · 1 year ago

I agree it's tolerable. I'll even go a step further and say it's a helluva lot better than what the mothership did to the Sentinel and Sun-Sentinel.

The news hole isn't as small as originally forecast, so that's a good thing.

I don't know if they'll be able to stop the slowdown in ad revenue though, that's their real trick box.

Joe Schmoe · 1 year ago

Lot of open space to make up for the lack of jiournalists to fill that space. Sam Zell got what he wanted, just another rag. How can you count on integrity when it looks more like a New York Post??

walter sobchak · 1 year ago

Other than the obvious 'rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic' observation two comments: the new format beyond the use of color on the front pages is hard to read. The stories blend into the ads. The blacks and grays blend in the typefaces too similar. Maybe the design is purposeful to assist advertisers but it makes me skim even more. Second, I'd suggest an emphasis on investigative journalism and context in print editions of newspapers and breaking news and features on their websites. The only reason to read a newspaper is for content not color. Technology advances will soon make all news accessible instantly through new generation cell phones. Paper printed hours ago can't compete on that level. But, they could create a market and keep it with context and in depth reporting. I buy the NYT for its crossword puzzle...its new I can read online.

the Other Anonymous · 1 year ago

I give them pretty high marks in graphic design. It's eye-catching, appealing, logically laid out.

But it's not a newspaper. And that's the fatal flaw.

I also agree with Gadfly and Captain America that the news content wasn't cut as much as the new format would suggest. Yet.

Loop Lady · 1 year ago

it reminds me of USA Today with more of a local bent...I miss the Metro section a bunch...

fedup dem · 1 year ago

The less said, the better. For this garbage, Zell ought to cut the price of the paper back to a quarter.

And for those of you who think the editorials are fairly good for now, don't worry. The Tribune's endorsement editorials are coming soon, and I'm sure you will will get a chance to choke on them again.

Anon III · 1 year ago

We pay for three papers to be left at the front door each morning, CT, NYT, & WSJ. We relied upon the CT for local news.

When the new Trib. showed up, I suggested to my wife that we could do without it. Her response was that we should keep it for the obituaries, which I don’t scan as some do.

I think it is ironic that with all tabloid and pictorial treatment which supposedly appeals to a more youthful and less literate audience, what saves our subscription is notes about dead people.

Bass Man · 1 year ago

I enjoyed reading the CT in its previous form, but find myself passing many more pages to get to substantive sections than before. I'll give it a few more reads, then probably rely more on internet sites that fulfill the news withdrawl I'm experiencing. Sometimes change is that which is defeating disguised as better for those who likely wouldn't have mattered to begin with.

publius · 1 year ago

i find it hard to read---confusing type and layout---short articles---no section theme apparent---they have jazzed it up poorly---dumbed it down---and turned it into a bad copy of usa today---don't know what to call it---but it is not a newspaper---i cancelled my subscription today---the sun-times will be my local paper as long as it lasts

Sal Says: · 1 year ago

TO: The Trib

RE: New Trib Format

Congrats.

Day 1.
1) You've finally turned the venerable old Trib into a tabloid.
2) Tell Zell the Zealot that he's well on his way to saving LOTS more dough; the Trib should be out of business faster than the Sun Times; I give it about a year.
3) Save even MORE money for Sam - right now - Fire everyone who was involved in the redesign.
4) Your editorial page now is the namesake of your publisher - tony. And, looks like you dumbed down the editorial positions and writing style for the Gen Nulls. Great. When will I see the 'Rah Rah Obama' lead editorial headline?
5) Save MORE money right now. Let Sam get a corner on the magnifier market, then make the comics 80% smaller instead of only 20%. That'll let them take up less than HALF a page.
OR, make each page about 20% of the current size; just THINK about the paper savings.

Day 2.
Business. "Man, what is it about Mondays and financial calamities?".
WOW; what hard hitting journalism (?). How chatty. How folksy. THAT is language.
As they say on 'Whose Line Is It?' in skits called 'the Director': "Crap, crap, crap - let's do it like a REAL Newspaper." NO chance for that here.

Great job; the Trib now officially is bird cage material.

Jake from Elwood · 1 year ago

I am trying to hold judgment until I see the revamped Sunday edition. My initial thought is that the Tribune is apparently trying to pander to a younger demographic that gets their news online or on TV. Any more colors and pictures and we might as well rename it the "Weekly Reader". The photos of the columnists are way too large. Does anyone really need to see that big of a picture of Eric Zorn's face first thing in the morning?

Shore · 1 year ago

We are dumping the tribune after the election. The quality of the paper is weak-nytimes has better national news, pioneer press has better local news, and espn has better sports. Also I still haven't found the op-ed section.

If it had more news I couldn't get anywhere else, I'd want to stay, but otherwise, no.

Cal Skinner · 1 year ago

I'm trying to decide whether to continue subscribing. Zilch on McHenry County so far, but I imagine the Cary-Grove High School threat might end up in a story tommorrow.

zatoichi · 1 year ago

I have lived all over the country at various times and could always find the Trib at local bookstores. Looked forward to it. Back in Central Illinois and find that the local distributor went out of business several months ago which means the Trib is no longer available in our part of state. Subscriptions could be mailed in 4-5 days. Wife happened to pick up a copy yesterday while in the burbs. She almost passed over it thinking it was USA Today. Read like it too, which is fine for a freebie during a hotel stay. While it's Zell's paper to do with as he sees fit, it looks like I have not missed much based on what I read yesterday. Sad to see the change. Hope they find the right balance that works for them. I'll be staying with the local rag and WSJ.

USA Today · 1 year ago

It looks like they've hired Gannett consultants ... the stories have to talk to "you" and "you" have to see yourself in the paper through large photos and vignettes. There are also multiple "entry points" into stories now, via large photos, detailed graphics and sidebar/info boxes

plutocrat03 · 1 year ago

I view it as a flashy decontenting of the paper.

Lots of white space and a disturbing change in balance between graphical elements and text. (too many pictures)

It will be interesting to see what hapens to the writing.

The Kollege Kid · 1 year ago

While I agree the new design isn't great, you have to think about where Sam Zell and Lee Abrams are coming from. Ciculation numbers are down, newsrooms have cut over 2,000 jobs in the last six months, and fewer people are reading papers, all because people are turing to the internet increasingly for their news. Or they watch flashy news shows on Fox or CNN that contain bright graphics and moving banners on the bottom of the screen.
America has become ADD. We want our news feed to us as fast as possible. We have the attention span of a child, and the brain to match it. Americans don't want hard news, they want flashy puff pieces. Hence the increase in hits on the web and the decrease in newspaper readership.
So in order to save themselves, the Tribune company is trying to fight fire with fire, add more color, cover the stories that the most people will read, and most of all, save money in the floundering economy.
I was raised by newspaper reading grandparents and parents, and as an aspiring journalist, I appreciated the design of the Old Tribune, the emphasis of hard news over puff pieces. But I am in the minority of people my age. So if we want to criticize the Trib for trying to save itself, we need to take a deeper look at our own devolution as a society when it comes to getting out news.

cardinals fan · 1 year ago

I am disappointed, it is much harder to read, the advertisements overwhelm what content is left. I don't need my newspaper to look like a website! The sports page is the sole reason I subscribe and it is quickly disappearing. Is there a business section anymore? I don't like it, but am trying to adjust. Unlikely I will renew my subscribtion at year end.

Rich Miller · 1 year ago

===The sports page is the sole reason I subscribe===

That was a mistake from the beginning. CS-T has much better sports.

pat · 1 year ago

bought my last one today.

corvax · 1 year ago

not so good, both reducing news coverage and adding useless graphics (do we really need maps showing us such exotic locales as "Michigan" and "Mexico"?) it looks like the number of oped pieces(which they presumably have to pay for) has been cut in half, some of that space replaced by uninteresting anonymous quotes from readers on its website (free-you get what they won't pay for)

MACK · 1 year ago

I like the Sun Times and I'm amazed that the Trib redid itself to look like the Sun Times. Unfortunately I don't expect the Trib to mimic the Sun Times by finding and publishing dirt on Daley. The Trib now appears to be a paper for Republicans with ADD.

Anon · 1 year ago

To me, it looks like Sarah Palin sounds - disjointed, jarring, hard to follow, things not meshing together. Old Trib had a certain amount of gravitas to it, whether you agreed with the editorial slant or not. This has little to distinguish it from a lot of other stuff that's out there.

Even though it's only three days, I'm sorry to see it. I'm having trouble absorbing the content because the design is so unfriendly.

anon · 1 year ago

I must be a dinosaur. I do check the web site to get a quick fix. But, I have always preferred print editions because they actually carried news. Now I see another USA today; all flash and no substance. Also, most of us can't carry a computer everywhere we go and don't have access at work. There certainly are lots of colorful ads, but it is hard to find the few enquirer like stories among them. A great disappointment.

Arthur Andersen · 1 year ago

Don't like it. To echo past posters, the USA Today look/feel is unsettling and garish. AA could go the rest of his life without seeing another foto of Zorn, Kass, and all those other ugly mugs (perfect radio faces as teevee people say) let alone the blown-up versions.

The Readers' Digest, er, Midwest, Edition was already a bit light on non-sports content compared to the "City Tribune," but this is even worse.

AA doesn't need a map of Michigan to get the story, either, but that may just be me.

I still like the dead tree product with breakfast (Rice Krispies in the keyboard stink) but the Trib may fall off the morning pile over time at AA's place.

Big Mama T · 1 year ago

Its terrible. Geez, I stumbled out of bed, grabbed my first cup of coffee and the newspaper. It took me two cups to find the Op-Ed's. What newspaper, other than a tabloid form, doesn't have the Op-Ed's in the first section? One story I was reading instructed me to go to the internet site to get more information. What, let my breakfast get cold while I wander over to the computer to finish an article?

It is a mess. Less substance and more pretty colors. It looks like something the Blagojevich administration created. I'm thinking Zell is one of those persons who succeeds in spite of themselves.

Rob_N · 1 year ago

Sucks.

What more needs be said?

Bobs yer · 1 year ago

unfortunately, the Trib is not a great newspaper ...has not been one for years. It has relied on it's reputation from the past as a serious new source. It has eliminated its international coverage, and morphs year by year toward People Magazine status. As such it has really lost its role. Current ownership seems to think that by continuing this trend it can milk a few more bucks out of it.

In the past few years the Sun Times has broken all of the major stories regarding corruption. But the Sun Times still carries a reputation as a 'blue collar' paper, and, thanks to people like former governor Thompson, is in serious financial difficulty.

Hopefully, one paper will survive which serves an independent editorial purpose. But a major city like Chicago deserves better than what the Tribune has become.

Man Who Grew Up Reading Chicag · 1 year ago

I will never buy said "newspaper" again.

I actually have not done so in years.

I will go online to see what Kass has to say. Also, their online version dwarfs the Sun-Times for continual updates. That's all folks...

This is a travesty, but has been coming for some time.

Between McKenna's unilateral disarming of the Republican Party in this state, and Zell's dismantling of a great media empire, I fully expect a Dollar General store to open up on the first floor of the Tribune Tower.

And Section 8 housing for the remainder.

Not that there is anything wrong with this.

The Sun-Times does have better sports, but when they switched to an anti-police, pro-criminal editorial policy, they lost it for me, and many others.

The MSM is a victim of their own "politically correct" excesses.

R.I.P.

Mr. Cub · 1 year ago

We all knew it was coming, but it’s still jarring when you see a newspaper undertake a complete makeover, as the Tribune did this morning. The result is a pretty, colorful newspaper, one that seemingly disguises where the news begins and the ads end (perhaps that was a goal since the new design sports more ad space at the expense of news). The redesign has a “look-at-me” desperation about it. But I’ll try not to snap-judge the effort too soon, though it’s a bad sign when the change is so drastic the Tribune provides a wrap-around scorecard so readers can find their way through the newspaper. My problem is I’d developed the art of working my way through the entire Tribune in about 15 minutes … mainly because I knew my way around its spreadsheet pages. The “new” Tribune today is like having to shop at a grocery store that’s new to you; you spend a lot of time looking. Despite its new, pretty presentation, unfortunately the redesign did not a find a way to make John Kass (R-Shrek) easier to look at; that’s apparently impossible. I was amused over the weekend, reading the Sunday paper, when I noticed the Tribune had eliminated its “Perspective” section. I had to hunt to find its groupthink on page 34 of the third filler section. Seems appropriate. My main hope for the Tribune would be that it could shake up its writers/editors’ thinking so there’s greater diversity of viewpoints. Again, all its sports writers picked the favored Eagles to beat the Bears. Not a single one of them went out on a limb to predict the Bears to win (as I did, 20-13). What are they afraid of? Or are they just rewarded for thinking alike?