Comments on: Gossipmongering from Publishers Weekly Accepted as True Writ

By: Eric Banks

Eric Banks — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:21:49 +0000

Ed, I only linked to the article at Critical Mass and reported that it had been filed and posted. That’s why I used the words “new fears” and “rumored.” I assume Publisher’s Weekly has a fact-checking crew, so why shouldn’t the article be noted? That’s a far cry from “gospel,” as you put it.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:47:14 +0000

Right, Tod, but until we know the specifics, it’s rumor-mongering until further notice. (Though the 50/50 editorial/ad split is a foolhardy one because as soon as ad revenue drops, more pages will be cut? Or will Trib papers be 100% online by 2009? That’s just as speculative a line of reasoning as Deahl’s article.)

By: tod goldberg

tod goldberg — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:27:19 +0000

There was a report about a month ago that the Tribune intended to cut pages dramatically to make a 50-50 split between ad and editorial, eliminating 80 some pages, so it’s not all rumor and innuendo. LA Observed reported on it and has the link to the conference call with Tribune leadership here: http://www.laobserved.com/biz/2008/06/lat_to_cut_pages.php

By: Matt’s Bookosphere 6/27/08 « Enter the Octopus

Matt’s Bookosphere 6/27/08 « Enter the Octopus — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 04:52:24 +0000

[...] In which Ed Champion dusts off his Deerstalker hat and magnifying glass [...]

By: Carolyn

Carolyn — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 04:06:45 +0000

Well said, sir.