Two quick notes of reality and then I’ll leave his response to dry in the sun.
First, I did not leave the Review-Journal in "grave jeopardy".
When I left the R-J after open heart surgery and prostate cancer surgery, the newspaper had financially survived the greatest recession (or was it a depression?) in our lifetimes. I don’t take full credit for that. I had a stellar team with me. We were in as solid as a financial position as any newspaper in the country. Probably better.
At the same time, the Review-Journal carried out it’s function of news and commentary in excellent fashion all the while making the leap from newsprint to the Internet. The R-J was clearly the No. 1 leader in Internet news when I left the helm. And, it was poised to make additional strides. My good colleagues who now run the newspaper will no doubt elevate it to new and greater levels, though Steve Friess will never admit that, even if he were qualified to assess it.
But let’s get to the simple proof positive that Friess lives in his own self-centered world of denial.
He says I was I wrong to say he thought the Sun got "screwed" by the Pulitzer jury.
"I don’t think the Sun got robbed, didn’t say so," Friess Tweeted.
Well, he most certainly did. And you can be the judge.
Here’s exactly what Steve Friess blogged: "They (the Sun) had been favored after sweeping several pre-Pulitzer honors for investigative journalism, but in the end they were considered — and then passed over — in the Local News Reporting category. The winners were the team of Frank Main, Mark Konkol and John J. Kim of the Chicago Sun-Times for coverage of street violence and difficulties getting witnesses to talk. Zzzzz.
…"If you want to know to whom to send newspaper-wrapped dead fish, here’s the jury."
I think characterizing the Pulitzer winner as a "Zzzzz" story and then calling out the jury for a "newspaper-wrapped dead fish" proves the point. And, this is but a small and single example of how this guy can’t get himself out of the way of the stories he covers, nor overcome his biases as a disgruntled former employee of mine. Analysis of the newspaper business — not to mention simple self-examination of his foolish comments — are not cards in Steve Friess’ deck.