Sara Angel out as editor at Chatelaine
Sara Angel is no longer the editor of Chatelaine magazine.
It took Chatelaine 9 months to find a new editor and Angel lasted barely 13 months at the helm of Rogers Media's largest and most successful consumer magazine. She had been named editor May 25 last year (2006).
A brief announcement today by publisher Kerry Mitchell, said that, effective immediately, Angel was "no longer working with us as editor at Chatelaine." Lise Ravary, the editorial director for women's publications, has stepped in to handle day-to-day management. Deputy Editor Maryam Sanati and Art Director Cameron Williamson remain.
It took Chatelaine 9 months to find a new editor and Angel lasted barely 13 months at the helm of Rogers Media's largest and most successful consumer magazine. She had been named editor May 25 last year (2006).
A brief announcement today by publisher Kerry Mitchell, said that, effective immediately, Angel was "no longer working with us as editor at Chatelaine." Lise Ravary, the editorial director for women's publications, has stepped in to handle day-to-day management. Deputy Editor Maryam Sanati and Art Director Cameron Williamson remain.
posted by D. B. Scott at
11:50 am
9 Comments:
What's particularly surprising is that Kerry Mitchell remains.
Nah... What's surprising is that a magazine as large as Chatelaine with a revolving editorial door can continue to make loads o' dough. Perhaps Mitchell is working out just fine.
Rogers Publishing only responds to ad sales numbers, with absolutely no hindsight or foresight.
Most of those rags will sell adverts regardless of content. Rogers has fired so many expert talents only to replace with young greenies that work for half the salaries. As Ken Whyte (Macleans) said, he just wants to hire "sluts".
let's hope Rogers unloads the entire publishing division soon, for the sake of Canadian magazine culture.
Amen. As a "slut," I'm pretty tired of being hired because I'm willing to live off mac and cheese.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Or maybe it was the string of bizarre recent covers: from an uncomfortable looking Cassie Campbell (why??) to an unappetizing looking burger on a log (double why??). Or maybe the profile that opened on a DPS where the woman's face was entirely swallowed by the gutter? Or maybe the mag's haughty tone and obsession with name-dropping that is completely out of character with its history?
Whatever the reason(s), there is a LOT of egg on certain faces over at Rogers right about now. And I'm sure there are many people in the industry watching the yolk drip with glee, and rightfully so!
The mag sucked under Kim Pittaway and then Beth Hitchcock, too. It's a juggernaut and chugs away regardless of how insipid it was or gets. If anything, features content was marginally better under Angel, even if she's a nutbar who made everyone miserable. (So did the other two. And the bltant rip-off of Esquire's "How Does It Feel" was better than the usual "When I knew I loved her" personal memoirs by sensitive male writers the other two commissioned.) "Sluts" or hacks: what a choice. That rag keeps getting the staff it deserves.
To compare Beth Hitchcock and Kim Pittaway to Sara Angel is inaccurate to the point of absurdity. Those who were at Chatelaine during each editorship know that. No chief is without her or his quirks, but what happened (and continues to happen) at Chatelaine is painful and disappointing for a lot of the 35 or so people who lived through it and got out. This type of libel - and your statements are libellous -- only serves to exacerbate that.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home