I’m really glad I don’t work for a newspaper. I would hate to work in a profession that just barely limps along while the front office takes desperate measures to keep the enterprise afloat against seemingly insurmountable economic trends. In the past two years we’ve seen an obvious downgrading of paper stock quality. We’ve seen a steady regression away from in-depth reporting on major national and international stories toward more local tabloid content. Sure, the paper looks flashier, with large color photos splattered across many of its pages. But with those large photos comes noticeably less written content. It’s a tough thing to see a great old institution like the Chicago Tribune slide into mediocrity.
Now the Trib has taken the next step in its sad descent. Reading the movie reviews this morning at the breakfast table, I noticed something was different. Then it hit me: the paper was too skinny. Well, maybe it’s just the “Movies” section, I thought. I picked up Section 1 to see if it was skinny as well. It was.
The Chicago Tribune has just whacked off an inch of its width from each page, two inches when the paper is opened. This means each page contains about 8% less content than it did a week ago. Here is a photo of today’s mini-Trib:

Notice the paper isn’t even as wide as the 12 inch tiles on my kitchen floor. However, they still have room for a large color photograph. The photo accompanies an April Fools Day story about a non-existent baseball player. The picture itself takes up about 25% of the available space on the front page. Mind you, this is a story about someone who doesn’t actually exist. It is a story about a fake news story. The only real news on the front page of today’s Tribune deals with decidedly local stories about area schools.
These are important stories, no doubt, but let’s consider what is not on the front page. There is nothing about our nation’s military involvement in Libya. You have to turn to page 13 for that. There’s nothing about the budget crisis in Washington and the looming government shutdown. That story is on page 14. The nuclear disaster threatening Japan? Page 16.
As if the content issues were not enough, the paper’s actual production seems to be more and more prone to quality control problems. Assuming I am even interested in the silly April Fools Day story on page one, I would have to turn to page 12 to finish reading it. Here is what page 12 looks like:

Good grief.
Last year I wrote a blog post in which I announced my divorce from the Chicago Tribune. I had been a long time subscriber, but with the obvious decline in quality I could not justify continuing my daily subscription. I cancelled all but the Sunday delivery. A month or two later, the circulation department called me and offered four day delivery for basically the same price as what I was paying for Sunday only. It was a good offer, so I accepted it. Now, however, I’m simply waiting for my entire subscription to expire, including Sunday. I’ll pay 75 cents for a single day’s paper to be downloaded on my Nook whenever I have the inclination. I’ll help the Trib contain costs by eliminating entirely home delivery. I don’t need a mini-Tribune.


Salon.com
Comments
And you are right. It's gone. Nothing left.
Funny thing is I remember reading that as a stand alone enterprise it makes money but the parent corporation was so leveraged they have to sacrifice the ST.
bluestocking, I'm also amazed at how expensive the electronic version of the paper is. I thought it was just Nook that was overcharging, but I guess Kindle does, too.
Stim, just to make sure I wasn't crazy, I checked my Rockford Register Star, and it's still the same size it's always been, the standard (at least what used to be standard) 12 inches. For now. Honestly, the Rockford paper is now just as good as the Chicago Tribune.
Travelight, there is no doubt in my mind that Zell hastened the decline.
Ghost, sorry to hear the Star-Telegram has also succumbed. That's the paper I grew up with, and I know some of its staffers.
Indian Subcontinent Disappears
0000000000000000
the chicago trib was never in that league, so let go and shake off the parochial blinders of american 'journalism.'
algis, you bring up a good point, that perhaps the content is there, somewhere, but you have to go to a different medium to find it.
The liberal crap on today's front page deals with problems of red tape in Illinois's Democratic Attorney General's office that are hampering freedom of information requests, and the progress of conjoined twins on their first birthday. Turning to the editorial pages, the liberal crap includes the Trib's own Steve Chapman questioning the rationale behind the Libya raids, Clarence Page opining about the different way we respond to dictators in the Arab world vs. sub-Saharan Africa, and a guest columnist writing about the fact that the media has failed to report that banks have paid back the TARP money they received two years ago.
One could argue, I suppose, that these stories and editorials are crap, but are they really LIBERAL crap?
In fact, I would challenge you to go to chicagotribune.com and find a single article that carries a liberal bias. If you find a liberal editorial, I'll bet there is at least one other on the right that is a counterbalance to it. Feel free to comment here on what you find, or send me a personal e-mail if you prefer.
Our products sell well in Europe and North America.
I definitely would. I'm amazed at how far it's fallen in a relatively short time.
I wonder if that is true for all big city papers.
Many U.S. papers seem to have met a similar fate. Oddly enough, the Chicago Sun-Times, which I've long considered a distant second to the Trib in writing and editing, has improved noticeably in the last couple of years. I certainly wouldn't consider it a first rate paper, but I think they've actually passed the Trib by. They often scoop the Trib on breaking new as well. I wouldn't have predicted these changes 10 years ago.
I haven't seen the print editions in a while, but I still read the San Francisco Chronicle and Boston Globe online. Their web sites are stronger than the Trib's.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer fell to bankruptcy a while back and went to a web-only format. While they're still going, they seem to be dying a slow death.
The New York Times is still first rate. The Concord Monitor, an old familiar from my New Hampshire days, is solid and respectable in the realm of smaller local papers.
I suspect that a lot of papers may adopt a model similar to the New York Times is starting, where they offer online readers access to a limited number of articles unless they are online or print subscribers. I'll be curious to see how that trend plays out over the next several years.