lacey / September 17, 2003 2:19 PM

I don't: too tabloidey.

carolina / September 17, 2003 2:35 PM

As a temporary Tribune employee (summer reporting intern), RedEye's greeted me every morning for the past three months. I hate how they just truncate "blue paper" articles, but I do enjoy the back page (who doesn't like celebrity gossip?) and the sports one-liners, which are occasionally funny. After that, I toss it into the recycling bin and it gets sent to newspaper heaven.

My first day on the job, the recruitment editor gave me a quick tour of the office, and when we came upon an area with red walls and decor everywhere, I said "Oh this must be where RedEye, I mean Red..." and she looked at me and said, "Oh no, it's RedEye." Oops. I used to always forget which tabloid belonged to which company. I probably should've gotten that straight before starting at the Trib.

Jim / September 17, 2003 2:47 PM

Not since they started charging for it. If I see one on the El or bus or at the club, I'll give it a read, though.

Andrew / September 17, 2003 2:47 PM

They both suck, but I can see why newspapers like them -- in my experience, they seem to be read most by the younger end of their 18-30 target audience, the ones who wouldn't otherwise pick up the paper.

Personally, I'm happy to get my one-paragraph news briefs from the Wall Street Journal.

Kevin / September 17, 2003 3:12 PM

They are both pure shitter material; much like The Reader. C'mon, they're free (at least back in April I can remember). You get what you pay for.

Naz / September 17, 2003 3:19 PM

Red what?

jima / September 17, 2003 3:37 PM

Today I saw a woman put a quarter into a Red Eye machine, and it didn't open. Another satisfied customer!

dce / September 17, 2003 3:58 PM

The Red papers are an abomination. MTV lollipop & silicone culture rendered in newsprint.

When they first came out, I figured that they couldn't be all that bad - anything that gets people reading has got to be good. But they're so awful that I now believe that one would be better off to abstain from reading entirely rather than contemplate a single sentence of their dreck.

And the Red papers are NOTHING like the Reader. I challenge you to find a finer source for community news or music/theater/movie reviews in Chicago.

Phew . . . my rant is over now. As you were.

dce / September 17, 2003 3:59 PM

The Red papers are an abomination. MTV lollipop & silicone culture rendered in newsprint.

When they first came out, I figured that they couldn't be all that bad - anything that gets people reading has got to be good. But they're so awful that I now believe that one would be better off to abstain from reading entirely rather than contemplate a single sentence of their dreck.

And the Red papers are NOTHING like the Reader. I challenge you to find a finer source for community news or music/theater/movie reviews in Chicago.

Phew . . . my rant is over now. As you were.

Audrey / September 17, 2003 4:16 PM

They're still free on college campuses, thankfully, since public restrooms at colleges are often out of toilet paper.

YL / September 17, 2003 4:25 PM

So, if not from the Reds and if not, according to circulation figures, from the Blues, where *do* y'all get your news? Or do you?

Naz / September 17, 2003 4:28 PM

The web baby, the web.

brian / September 17, 2003 4:40 PM

I don't read the Reds. Except over someone else's shoulder, which is fun.

For some odd reason, I've even had a few delivered to my house ?!?

I get my news from a combination of the NY Times on the web, NPR, and whispers in the ear from men in trenchcoats.

Wiz of Odds / September 17, 2003 10:18 PM

The Reds aren't especially good. The stories are dumbed-down and uninformative. The Tribune is no good. The Sun-Times has the better columnists...NPR is one-sided, and AM Radio is full of right wing gasbags. I guess I'm not supposed to get my news from anyone at all. I just hope the occasional news tidbit slips through WMVP-1000, ESPN Radio.

Wiz of Odds / September 17, 2003 10:20 PM

Oh! The Reader! Top-quality theater and music reviews. But to what extent is that necessary? If you're talking about news, the Reader is just as wretched as the Reds.

Kevin / September 17, 2003 11:22 PM

Heheh Wiz.

Yeah Top Quality Music Reviews of the exact same venues by the exact same writers every single week. I like some of the features as they've made me aware of certain peculiar occupations and occurances in the city. All that aside, the Reader is complete dreck.

Benjy / September 18, 2003 7:43 AM

The Red papers are like "Weekly Readers" for 20-somethings...

+mojan. / September 18, 2003 8:38 AM

Like Brian: only over someone's shoulder.
Otherwise, my news source is CNN.com, baby!

A lex, x, x / September 18, 2003 10:51 AM

Those so-called papers have about as much insight and news as the toilet paper I use to wipe my ass with. Well, at least the toilet paper is more informative. It lets you accurately know when I've eaten corn or sesame seeds.

lacey / September 18, 2003 11:37 AM

A healthy combination of the Times & NPR is nice. But the ads in the Times can get really nauseating (sample fake headline: "Children Die in Streets, People Watch" next to a picture of a glamorous woman holding a Chanel no 5 bottle) I will admit, though, that I read the "Q" section of the Trib before the rest of the paper on Sunday mornings. That's enough quippy "news" for me.

Also, I think The Reader is not really in the same ball game as the rest of these publications.

Hollie / September 18, 2003 12:41 PM

Red Eye/Red Streak

Good: daily listings for drink specials!

Bad: 5% of the news for 50% of the price of a daily newspaper...we are all being conned by the Sun-Times and Tribune!

I LOVE reading newspapers over peoples shoulders on the el!

stephen / September 18, 2003 1:02 PM

It's sort of sad, actually, that they'd aim the redness at the 18-34 demographic, making all of us in it seem like we're US reading, drooling fools. Now maybe some of us are, and maybe they're just playing to the demographic that likes reality tv and all that other dumbed down crap. Someone who knows the difference would hopefully pick up something of substance, even the Reader, which, albeit a different sort of rag, is way better. You take what you can get in these days of 'fair and balanced journalism'..NPR and the NYT probably have the least filtered crap but it can be skewed, true. You just have to use your head these days and make your own calls. Then at least you won't get redeye from John Stamos. ;)

ryan p / September 18, 2003 2:29 PM

Alex, that was fucking foul... AND hilarious.

Red Eye / Red Streak are to literacy as Jillian Barberie is to the women's movement.

A lex, x, x / September 18, 2003 2:42 PM

Bwuahahahahaha! Jillian Barberie!

christian / September 19, 2003 2:50 AM

News? You mean I can get my news from expensive-for-what-it’s-worth rags filled with recycled, dumbed down articles from there respective parent newspapers in a slightly hipper wrapping? Oh Joy! And all this with tons of adds for crap, be still my heart.

Ray / September 19, 2003 2:54 PM

Pay for the Red Eye or Red Streak? I don't think so. The celebrity gossip is titillating, and all, but the rest of the paper is unreadable. There isn't even enough content to occupy me on the express bus ride from Northwestern Station to Wabash and Wacker, about 5-10 minutes.

Niki / September 22, 2003 3:05 PM

"The Red papers are like "Weekly Readers" for 20-somethings..."

Holy cow - thanks for making me laugh during a crap work day.