LEE ENTERPRISES, Inc

We intend for the Company to be an employer of choice, both in our industry and in the communities it serves. In order to achieve this status, our strategies are to have compensation programs in place that will:

•Reward our executives for their contributions to the Company’s success;

•Create an ownership mentality in our executives;

•Focus our executives on building long-term value;

•Permit us to recruit the talent we need;

•Pay our executives are comparable levels with organizations with which the Company competes for talent; and

•Encourage our top performers to remain with the Company.

Our core compensation philosophy is to pay executive officers competitive levels of compensation that best reflect their individual responsibilities and contributions to the Company, while providing incentives to achieve its business and financial objectives. While comparisons to compensation levels at companies in the peer group (discussed below) are helpful in assessing the overall competitiveness of our compensation program, we believe that our executive compensation program also must be internally consistent and equitable in order for the Company to achieve the compensation objectives outlined above.

In implementing this philosophy, we have analyzed the relationship between the CEO's total compensation and the total compensation of the other executive officers of the Company. For this purpose, total compensation includes not only base salary and bonus, but also the grant date fair value of equity awards (as well as accumulated realized and unrealized equity gains), all perquisites and payment amounts upon a change of control. The Company's Human Resources Department accumulates the internal pay equity information under our direction.

When making compensation decisions, we also benchmark the compensation of the CEO and other NEOs relative to the compensation paid to similarly-situated executives at companies that we consider to be industry peers. We believe, however, that a benchmark should be one point of reference for measurement, but not the sole determinative factor for executive compensation. The purpose of the comparison is not to supplant the analysis of internal pay equity, wealth accumulation and the individual performance of the executive officers that we consider when making compensation decisions. Further, given the limitations associated with comparative pay information for setting individual executive compensation, including the difficulty of assessing and comparing wealth accumulation through equity gains and post-employment amounts, we may elect to not use the comparative compensation information at all in the course of making compensation decisions.