Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
Chicago Sun Times https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=87351 |
Page 1 of 2 |
Author: | IMU [ Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:55 pm ] |
Post subject: | Chicago Sun Times |
You're still a newspaper! Enjoy your last several years being published. |
Author: | Brick [ Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:56 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Chicago Sun Times |
immessedup17 wrote: You're still a newspaper! Enjoy your last several years being published. Our generation is awesome! |
Author: | Rod [ Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:56 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Chicago Sun Times |
Why do you hate information? |
Author: | Don Tiny [ Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:00 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Chicago Sun Times |
Author: | Brick [ Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:02 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Chicago Sun Times |
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: Why do you hate information? There is an app for information.
|
Author: | conns7901 [ Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:04 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Chicago Sun Times |
I don't really read the sun-times anymore especially in print. What they do today? |
Author: | Seacrest [ Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:21 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Chicago Sun Times |
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: Why do you hate information? They don't have enough pictures for him. |
Author: | spmack [ Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:29 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Chicago Sun Times |
I know it's on here somewhere, but I remember talking with someone (maybe RPB) about how from the time I was a freshie in HS up until about 2008, I always had a Sun Times. It was a MUST, or else the day wasn't right. |
Author: | good dolphin [ Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:42 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Chicago Sun Times |
conns7901 wrote: I don't really read the sun-times anymore especially in print. What they do today? They highlighted the athletic accomplishments of the high school otherwise known as the best academic institution in the state. |
Author: | Seacrest [ Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:50 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Chicago Sun Times |
good dolphin wrote: conns7901 wrote: I don't really read the sun-times anymore especially in print. What they do today? They highlighted the athletic accomplishments of the high school otherwise known as the best academic institution in the state. I thought there was no athletic accomplishments and they didn't recruit? |
Author: | Hatchetman [ Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:54 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Chicago Sun Times |
I recall back in the 70s the daily sun-times was about an inch thick and weighed about five pounds. I remember as a kid thinking "this must be some serious shit in here." Now its like a pamplet you pick up at the natural foods co-op. |
Author: | Don Tiny [ Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:58 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Chicago Sun Times |
spmack wrote: I know it's on here somewhere, but I remember talking with someone (maybe RPB) about how from the time I was a freshie in HS up until about 2008, I always had a Sun Times. It was a MUST, or else the day wasn't right. |
Author: | good dolphin [ Wed Jun 11, 2014 4:17 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Chicago Sun Times |
Seacrest wrote: good dolphin wrote: conns7901 wrote: I don't really read the sun-times anymore especially in print. What they do today? They highlighted the athletic accomplishments of the high school otherwise known as the best academic institution in the state. I thought there was no athletic accomplishments and they didn't recruit? You think they recruited those girls to play softball? The last highlight before this was winning a state title in water polo...huge accomplishment. |
Author: | Seacrest [ Wed Jun 11, 2014 4:28 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Chicago Sun Times |
good dolphin wrote: Seacrest wrote: good dolphin wrote: conns7901 wrote: I don't really read the sun-times anymore especially in print. What they do today? They highlighted the athletic accomplishments of the high school otherwise known as the best academic institution in the state. I thought there was no athletic accomplishments and they didn't recruit? You think they recruited those girls to play softball? The last highlight before this was winning a state title in water polo...huge accomplishment. Anytime they beat Fenwick at something, even if it's women's water polo, that's HUGE. And yes, some of those girls were recruited to play softball. |
Author: | good dolphin [ Wed Jun 11, 2014 4:41 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Chicago Sun Times |
Everyone is recruited to a certain extent. I think the argument was something more than recruiting. If you are saying that academic standards were in any way compromised for girls softball success, you are incorrect. |
Author: | Seacrest [ Wed Jun 11, 2014 5:15 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Chicago Sun Times |
good dolphin wrote: Everyone is recruited to a certain extent. I think the argument was something more than recruiting. If you are saying that academic standards were in any way compromised for girls softball success, you are incorrect. Athletes with academic credentials that may be borderline are accepted at places like Ignatius, Fenwick, Montini and every private school you can think of. |
Author: | veganfan21 [ Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:42 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Chicago Sun Times |
Dumb question here: in terms of information that is relevant only because it's constituted as "news," what is the incentive to keep on putting that information into hard copy print form? I realize not everyone is connected to the web 24/7 like my question may presume, but still I don't get why some news businesses insist on maintaining a printing press. Even if you happen to get great coverage and analysis of a major story that broke in time for it to get on the newsstand at 5 am, I guarantee that story is outdated by 6 am due to updates and other reports from connected sources. I loved me some old fashioned paper reading as late as the mid 2000s, but I haven't considered buying/reading a paper in nearly 10 years. Again I realize not everyone has web access or skillz, but I'm just trying to wonder what from a business point of view keeps printing presses going in web advanced countries like ours. |
Author: | Hatchetman [ Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:07 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Chicago Sun Times |
people still buy papers. I get three every morning. |
Author: | pittmike [ Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:11 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Chicago Sun Times |
veganfan21 wrote: Dumb question here: in terms of information that is relevant only because it's constituted as "news," what is the incentive to keep on putting that information into hard copy print form? I realize not everyone is connected to the web 24/7 like my question may presume, but still I don't get why some news businesses insist on maintaining a printing press. Even if you happen to get great coverage and analysis of a major story that broke in time for it to get on the newsstand at 5 am, I guarantee that story is outdated by 6 am due to updates and other reports from connected sources. I loved me some old fashioned paper reading as late as the mid 2000s, but I haven't considered buying/reading a paper in nearly 10 years. Again I realize not everyone has web access or skillz, but I'm just trying to wonder what from a business point of view keeps printing presses going in web advanced countries like ours. Checked into hotel yesterday afternoon. Saw a stack of free USA today papers there. Never even considered it. All old news. The only thing I can see (which I do not do anymore) is maybe sitting with a sunday edition for an hour? |
Author: | Baby McNown [ Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:57 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Chicago Sun Times |
I haven't sat down with mine yet today (to read 2 day old "news") but let me see if I can summarize... Quinn is bad but Rauner is a crook Rahm pissed off an alderman again Preckwinkle is the savior. Mary Mitchell is mad about race. Steinberg things Obama sucks Sneed had somebody's birthday and something about the Royal Family The Ricketts family is evil. Did I come pretty close? |
Author: | Darkside [ Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:19 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Chicago Sun Times |
Baby McNown wrote: I haven't sat down with mine yet today (to read 2 day old "news") but let me see if I can summarize... Quinn is bad but Rauner is a crook Rahm pissed off an alderman again Preckwinkle is the savior. Mary Mitchell is mad about race. Steinberg things Obama sucks Sneed had somebody's birthday and something about the Royal Family The Ricketts family is evil. Did I come pretty close? Yes. Yes you did. Fuck. |
Author: | Rod [ Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:02 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Chicago Sun Times |
veganfan21 wrote: Dumb question here: in terms of information that is relevant only because it's constituted as "news," what is the incentive to keep on putting that information into hard copy print form? I realize not everyone is connected to the web 24/7 like my question may presume, but still I don't get why some news businesses insist on maintaining a printing press. Even if you happen to get great coverage and analysis of a major story that broke in time for it to get on the newsstand at 5 am, I guarantee that story is outdated by 6 am due to updates and other reports from connected sources. I loved me some old fashioned paper reading as late as the mid 2000s, but I haven't considered buying/reading a paper in nearly 10 years. Again I realize not everyone has web access or skillz, but I'm just trying to wonder what from a business point of view keeps printing presses going in web advanced countries like ours. Because it's nowhere near the same reading the paper online. You only get the major stories or exactly what you're looking for. You don't read about the guy who hosted the Sitting In The Park radio show killing himself. Now maybe you don't care about that. I like to know a lot of shit. That's why I'm always in demand for cocktail parties. |
Author: | SomeGuy [ Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:04 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Chicago Sun Times |
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: veganfan21 wrote: Dumb question here: in terms of information that is relevant only because it's constituted as "news," what is the incentive to keep on putting that information into hard copy print form? I realize not everyone is connected to the web 24/7 like my question may presume, but still I don't get why some news businesses insist on maintaining a printing press. Even if you happen to get great coverage and analysis of a major story that broke in time for it to get on the newsstand at 5 am, I guarantee that story is outdated by 6 am due to updates and other reports from connected sources. I loved me some old fashioned paper reading as late as the mid 2000s, but I haven't considered buying/reading a paper in nearly 10 years. Again I realize not everyone has web access or skillz, but I'm just trying to wonder what from a business point of view keeps printing presses going in web advanced countries like ours. Because it's nowhere near the same reading the paper online. You only get the major stories or exactly what you're looking for. You don't read about the guy who hosted the Sitting In The Park radio show killing himself. Now maybe you don't care about that. I like to know a lot of shit. That's why I'm always in demand for cocktail parties. What? I've never asked you to attend one of my cocktail parties. And they are all the rage. |
Author: | Brick [ Thu Jun 12, 2014 5:33 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Chicago Sun Times |
veganfan21 wrote: I loved me some old fashioned paper reading as late as the mid 2000s, but I haven't considered buying/reading a paper in nearly 10 years. Again I realize not everyone has web access or skillz, but I'm just trying to wonder what from a business point of view keeps printing presses going in web advanced countries like ours. I think the dumb answer is that they really have no other choice. The only value provided by newspapers are the distribution means. It's a choice of either go under or keep going and do what you can to still make some money on those who have it as a habit to read a paper newspaper.
|
Author: | a retard [ Thu Jun 12, 2014 5:42 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Chicago Sun Times |
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: veganfan21 wrote: Dumb question here: in terms of information that is relevant only because it's constituted as "news," what is the incentive to keep on putting that information into hard copy print form? I realize not everyone is connected to the web 24/7 like my question may presume, but still I don't get why some news businesses insist on maintaining a printing press. Even if you happen to get great coverage and analysis of a major story that broke in time for it to get on the newsstand at 5 am, I guarantee that story is outdated by 6 am due to updates and other reports from connected sources. I loved me some old fashioned paper reading as late as the mid 2000s, but I haven't considered buying/reading a paper in nearly 10 years. Again I realize not everyone has web access or skillz, but I'm just trying to wonder what from a business point of view keeps printing presses going in web advanced countries like ours. Because it's nowhere near the same reading the paper online. You only get the major stories or exactly what you're looking for. You don't read about the guy who hosted the Sitting In The Park radio show killing himself. Now maybe you don't care about that. I like to know a lot of shit. That's why I'm always in demand for cocktail parties. Don't know about the Sun Times but the tribune digital edition that appears at 5am every morning on my tablet is the same as the paper copy. In some ways I miss the feel of actual paper but the tablet means no more late papers, no more looking for them in the snow, and the ability to read the paper outside on Sunday morning without the pages blowing all over the place. And it costs much less. I think in its heyday we were paying close to $200 per year for the trib delivered. Digital edition is something like $6.50 per quarter. |
Author: | Rod [ Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:04 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Chicago Sun Times |
a retard wrote: Don't know about the Sun Times but the tribune digital edition that appears at 5am every morning on my tablet is the same as the paper copy. In some ways I miss the feel of actual paper but the tablet means no more late papers, no more looking for them in the snow, and the ability to read the paper outside on Sunday morning without the pages blowing all over the place. And it costs much less. I think in its heyday we were paying close to $200 per year for the trib delivered. Digital edition is something like $6.50 per quarter. Is that different than what you see when you visit the website? Because I'm not suggesting all the same news that's in the hard copy isn't actually there. In fact, I'm sure it probably is. It's the way it's presented that's different. Clicking around is not the same as turning pages. I read both papers cover to cover. There are often stories I wouldn't seek out, but they happen to be there when I turn the page. I'm not some Luddite. I can see the writing is on the wall for print editions. One thing I've noticed is that many of the stories in the Tribune and Sun-Times are now almost exactly the same word for word. And I'm not talking about stories off the wire either. Regular articles with a local byline. What that means to me is that these organizations are no longer using actual reporters, but rather just sending out inexperienced dopes to gangbang press conferences or accepting some pre-approved crap from publicists. The fall of the newspaper business goes deeper than the format change. |
Author: | a retard [ Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:25 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Chicago Sun Times |
Here is what it looks like. You then click on the day you want. From there you select the section you want to read. You can scroll page to page. If you want to read a specific article you click on it. You can read the article in either "Original View" which is just like the paper view or "Dynamic" which makes it easier to scroll, etc. |
Author: | a retard [ Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:30 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Chicago Sun Times |
As for content, I agree 100%. They are just rags now. We had quit the tribune for a few years because it had gotten so bad and just was not worth the money. The only reason we get it now is because the cost is so low. And reading the digital edition is much preferable to clicking around website links. |
Author: | Rod [ Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:30 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Chicago Sun Times |
Oh, that's pretty good. It looks like the actual paper just in a digital format. I have no problem with that. But as I said, the fall of the industry goes deeper than changes in the delivery methods. As someone who has read both of the big Chicago dailies everyday for over 35 years, I can tell you how much the quality has gone down. There are errors every day now. It's almost like there is no basic editor. Pretty soon we're going to be getting most of our news from citizen journalists. A lot of us do already. For example, if we don't believe in climate change, we can shop for "news" that supports our position. |
Author: | good dolphin [ Thu Jun 12, 2014 7:56 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Chicago Sun Times |
I don't like to get fecal matter on my ipad or tablet |
Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |