🚀 go-pugleaf

trent <oozenet@trentland.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>trent  <oozenet@trentland.com> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>>>In the August 10 Chicago Reader, there's a paragraph in the Letters
>>>>section noting that the Reader's Guide was discontinued.

>>>Cool- I wasn't much of a fan of the "suburbanified version" of the
>>>Reader.

>>I used to get it for the suburban movie and theater listings that
>>weren't in the Chicago Reader. The trouble is that the Chicago Reader
>>takes up so much more space than Reader's Guide did, I wonder if certain
>>stores that took Reader's Guide will decide they don't have room for
>>Chicago Reader.

>Oh- you were actually using it for information, sorryforthat.

It was extra effort on my part to get both papers, unless I was in
Evanston, where some stores always had the Chicago Reader but other
stores had Reader's Guide, or went to their office. The Osco next door
to me (in a 24-hour Jewel) was supposed to get Reader's Guide but
distribution skipped that store much of the time.

>I don't like my paper "filtered" by location.  I read (past tense, until
>now?) the Reader to get what the Reader had to offer, not their
>interpretation of what I should like now that I live in the suburbs.  If
>I want local, I read local.

Yes, I agree with you. I feel the same about the Trib. Every suburban
edition should have the same city news in it, given that it is a city
newspaper. The old Suburban Trib, an extra zoned section added to the
city paper when it was distributed in the suburbs, was the right idea.