Parade's cover story questioned

I too noticed right off the cover of the Parade magazine when I opened my December 6th, 2008 Chicago Tribune. However, I just kind of got chuckle out of it because it was so outdated, but not out of any disrespect for Ms. Bhutto's tragic situation. I assumed as you've made clear that it is not a direct Tribune publication and therefore it was not your decision to make in whether it aired or not. And these people that are expressing these so called feelings of indignation are just blowing smoke. They just wanted to let you know that they caught this error in judgement, but so did everyone else that reads your newspaper; I'm sure.

What a lot of fuss over nothing. The features and witless puffery that make up Parade are cobbled together weeks and months in advance. Anyone looking to Parade for insight is going to be looking a long time.

Nationally distributed Sunday "supplements" such as Parade were becoming unpopular with advertisers as far back as the early 1990s. Their lack of immediacy, relatively high advertising rates, as well as generally fluffy content, severely diminished their relevance. And that was the opinion BEFORE the onslaught of the Internet. Yes, Parade does accept tobacco ads; publications in this media category struggle for any ad revenue they can get. The Bhutto issue clearly demonstrates that Parade, USA Weekly, etc., are of questionable value in a newspaper. And yes, I believe it was unconscionable of the Tribune to have distributed the Bhutto issue. Again, money talks.

"There remains a concern, or perhaps a suspicion, by readers that this was entirely an economic decision"

Well, you said earlier in your editorial "Parade's publisher and president, Randy Siegel, said it would have cost several millions of dollars to update the article, even to put a Post-It type note on the magazine"

So you're going to try and tell us it WASN'T a financial decision?

The worst sort of lie is when the liar knows you knows he's lying and goes on telling his lie as if you're stupid. We don't have to guess whether or not you're lying about it being a financial decision, first you tell us it's green then you say "some wonder if it's green".

Credibility? The corporate owned media have heard of it. They are intimate with greedability. Those of us who realize who owns the media and who pays "our" legislators look to the internet.

And you people wonder why "old media" is dying.

Until this century, freedom of the press only mattered to those with the money to buy a printing press. Normal, non- wealth people can now be heard. You had better quit dissembling if you don't want your industry to join the buggy whip industry.

Mr. McNulty's rhetorical question, "...how many readers would have complained if, for whatever the reason, the magazine was missing on Sunday?" speaks volumes. Essentially, the Tribune's justification is "to hell with accuracy, just make sure it doesn't affect the bottom line!!" Unbelievable!!! And the print media, wonders why it's dying on the vine.

A month ago, Parade ran a letter asking about Barbaro's health, and the response was "He's recovering well." But, in fact, he had been euthanized at least two weeks before this letter ran. I thought *that* was embarrassing outdatedness in a publication. I nearly flipped when I saw this latest gaffe. I understand that Parade creates its publication nearly a month in advance -- for that reason, it should stick to stories that don't need to be current, stories that are not 'news.' After seeing the cover of Parade, I did not even crack it open. As one reader pointed out, how is Bhutto's ability to confront Al-Qaeda relevant? Time to ditch Parade -- I can get my news on cute puppies and celebrity bios elsewhere.

Parade and it's adverstisers: 1
Sam Zell: 0

Reader Marilyn Marwedel is wrong to "now always wonder how fresh and accurate are (Trib) news articles and stories" based on anything in Parade. Careful readers of Parade have always known it to a) be an independent publication, and b) have a long printing cycle.

I don't think it should surprise anyone that this outdated information was sent out to millions of Tribune subscribers.
When the Tribune can't get their act together to insure their distributors can even get papers to our doors on time consistently, how can they insure that the Parade magazines are timely either?

Had this been an American candidate, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Worthwhile interview despite the circumstaces. Savvy readers understand that Parade is distributed not published by Chicago Tribune. Timothy McNutty has explained the business side very well -- it was to late to pull it. I'm glad it wasn't pulled. Those outraged are a bit nutty [pun intended].

Parade Magazine is something I put in a pile with the classifieds and the real estate section for immediate tossing into the recycle pile so I can get comfortable reading the parts of my Sunday paper that offer something of interest. I'm frankly surprised that a writer of Gail Sheehey's stature would want to have her work published in such a rag. I'm disappointed, also, to hear that The Trib has abandoned its once terrific Sunday Magazine in favor of trash. When I moved to Texas, one of the things I missed most was the Sunday Trib and the magazine.

When I saw Bhutto's picture on the cover of Parade as I was separating it out of my Dallas Morning News to the "ignore" pile, I was simply appalled - seems the Trib was not the only paper to decide in favor of revenue.

To Donna Sack and the rest of those people complaining, are you really outraged? What is wrong with you? You are complaining about a filler item in your Sunday paper - an item that contains celebrity gossip, Howard Huge cartoons, and offers for The Simpson's chess sets. Why should Ms. Bhutto's death impact be edited? The interview was conducted with her and her tragic death had no consequence on her comments. If there were later-discovered inaccuracies in the interview that were later discovered prior to publication, I could see late minute action, but that wasn't the case. Maybe the Trib could have included an insert advising readers that Ms. Bhutto was killed, but I think that the wide majority of people reading the article know that already and are more than capable of reconciling those facts. Either way, there is nothing that could have been added that would have changed what was written.

No offense, but you critics are being rather silly. Especially with such ridiculous comments from Ms. Sack and Emjay T. that your faith in Parade has been tarnished. Quit being so overly dramatic and save your disgust for something important.

The straw that broke the camel's back. I have cancelled my subscription. Good luck Sam Zell

The reading public's ignorance of publishing is astounding.

I agree with the critics: It was poor judgement to distribute this issue of Parade. Now they know.

Another poor decision by top Trib mgmt.? GEE, imagine that!! Seems like things are running as usual regardless of who owns the paper.

To Steve and all the other people acting so indignant about the decision not to add a note about Ms. Bhutto's death: calm down. What is the big deal?

Are you really offended by this? Things like this happen all the time with regular magazine publications, especially ones with broad national circulation. Are you really telling me that the Trib and Parade should have spent millions of dollars just to provide a note that Bhutto was killed? Anyone who isn't bright enough to know that fact or to look at the front page of the very newspapers carrying the Parade, wouldn't be bright enough to read the article or care enough to know who Bhutto was in the first place.

Steve and Donna, are you honestly saying that, because the Parade added no disclaimers you didn't know Bhutto was no longer alive? If so, stick to reading the comics and the ads.

This goof should be easy for Zell to fix.