Chicago Tribune "explains" their Bush endorsement...

[chiburb]

The Public Editor has a column in which he parts the curtains to explain who makes the decision and why...

Snip:

I have not written much in this column about the Editorial and Commentary pages of the Tribune--the opinion pages. There is such a thing as being too close to your subject and, after having been in charge of those pages for more than nine years, I was too close.

But after the furious response by so many readers this week to Sunday's presidential endorsement editorial--there easily were at least 2,400 communications to editors, reporters, customer service representatives and the letters editor--it clearly is time to end that self-imposed moratorium.

Besides canceling subscriptions and telling us we must have taken leave of our senses for endorsing President Bush, readers asked a host of basic questions about the opinion pages.

Who makes the decisions on endorsements? Who sits on the editorial board? How does the board operate? What standards or principles do members of the board apply in making their decisions? Does the Tribune ever endorse anybody but Republicans for president? Why does the newspaper make endorsements at all? How does a "Republican newspaper" manage to operate in a Democratic city?

Good questions all, and I'll attempt to answer them in this column.

End snip.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0410210321oct21,1,1702703.column?coll=chi-news-hed

[popstalin]

1. If you have to explain

Then it's not worth reading. If you have to repeat yourself or sell your POV, then they know they've done something wrong. They are just like Shrub and his admin.

[chiburb]

2. This was the Public Editor explaining, not the Editorial Board n/t

[No2W2004]

3. This SO TOTALLY sounds like the Tribune Co.

apologize/explain AFTER the fact...

"Arguing against that protestation is a record of having endorsed the Republican candidate in every presidential election since at least 1872, and of supporting Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate in all but two or three cases.(c'mon let's see ya endorse Keyes!) Hmmm....gee, doesn't that look like it makes your editorial board partisan hacks? FDR (at least) didn't warrent an endorsement?

But there's another way to look at that record and the paper's close identification with the GOP. Says Dold: "It was a great advantage when we rousted the last Republican mayor of Chicago , when we supported Dick Devine over the Republican state's attorney, when we called for Nixon's resignation." In each case, the Tribune's reputation as a "Republican newspaper" gave extra potency to its counterintuitive action." In other words The Tribune HAS TO BE REPUBLICAN in order to maintain it's "integrity"

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. They have no objectivity. They're Republican shills.

I don't read the Tribune, mind you. I use to read the Orlando Sentinel, which is owned by the Trib. But I realized the paper was tainted when they called on President Clinton to step down from office -- and this was BEFORE the Starr Report went public.

[amber dog democrat]

4. That's funny,

Who is going to care ?

[chiburb]

5. My email to the Trib:

Sir,

I appreciate your explanation of how the Bush endorsement came to be, though I think Dold's "citizenship" claim can be viewed this way:

Self-interest plays the biggest role in determining a vote (for most "citizens"). The candidate likeliest to further a citizen's cause or well-being is the one that will get an individual's vote. The Tribune Company's endorsement of Bush is, therefore, no surprise at all. The Trib's self-interest lies in expansion of its media empire, and the loosening of regulations that impede that cause. An endorsement of Kerry, while good for democracy, peace, global cooperation, etc., would have meant a "vote" against the Trib's bottom line. In other words, Dold's description of the "Tribune as citizen" is an accurate description of a Republican citizen.

[lil-petunia]

6. they have lost 2700 subscriptions since their endorsement

and more following.
I wrote a response as well, except mine is General Discussion, not here.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2520465

[chiburb]

9. Powerful letter, lil... powerful!

Would you mind copying it over to here? GD2004 deserves to see it too.
Great letter!

[lil-petunia]

16. copy of letter per your request

Not only am I amazed at what the Tribune editorial staff did, I am aghast. For years, I have subscribed to the Tribune. I am one of those who cancelled his subscription, and promised never to purchase your paper again.

A little personal history. I am financially conservative, socially moderate and liberal about protecting our constitution and our hard-fought rights. I financially support mainly republican candidates, and I voted for Bush four years ago. I have deeply regretted my choice ever since.

Not only was this vacationing president already one of the worst in history before 9/11, he pretended to run as a uniter, only to be the most divisive, objectionable, religion -driven president in my short 47 years of life.

What did Sec. O'Neill say about him? Richard Clarke? George Tenet? Much of the CIA, not to mention many in military leadership roles, before they were forced out?

Did you forget who actually caused the attacks on 9/11, for the moment ignoring the total failure of Condi Rice to take this threat seriously? Saudi pilots, trained in Afghan and Pakistani schools, emboldened by Osama bin Laden. Do YOU see any Iraq connection there, even now? 1,100 American lives later?

So, we sneak out the bin Laden family, we ignore and black out all references to the Sauds, and we invade - - Iraq.

WMD, Nukes, 45 minutes until they attack us, and AQ presence. That was the sales pitch for invading a sovereign country. And like many sales pitches, it was all false.

Even worse, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld deliberately antagonized every country outside of the UK to such extremes, that when we were forced, hat in hand, to return and ask for their help, their response was predictable. Bush and Co. have a lot of 'spainin to do, Lucy.

Let's move to the domestic side.
This month's Scientific American has a brilliant story about how our missile defense is worse than useless. Yet, we are spending tens of billions to install it, even though most components needed to make it work don't even exist. Not only do we not know whether those components can be made to work, for those that do exist, they have NEVER BEEN TESTED.

Mr. Wycliff, please sit back and think for a moment. A mid flight, outer-space directed, defense system, nothing more than a modern Maginot line, with no existing opponent against whom this system will work.

Are we supposed to ask future enemies, "Hey, please, could you launch your attack from central Russia or China, and make sure to use old-fashioned, high arc, ballistic missiles that fly over Alaska? Please? Pretty please? Oh, And be sure to warn us so we can turn on our detectors and point them in the right direction." Right.

Do we expect them to NOT develop low flying supersonic cruise missiles, (Russia, India, China - all have variants in flight testing) or to NOT to launch from subs or ships just off our shore in low arc trajectories? Or to ignore the most simple countermeasures? If they don't accept our "rules" for attacking us, this Alaskan based system is useless. What about simply shipping a nuke or dirty bomb by container? We don't check 99% of them anyway. Yet, I get to take my shoes off each time I fly.

Environmental rules are rolled back. Mercury standards are worse now than 5 years ago. Funding for children and needy is cut, while the top taxpayers get a huge cut.

Our economy is in a shambles. Employment figures are palatable only because so many are no longer counted on the rolls of "unemployed, seeking work". I do not recall any week this year without some large corporation announcing job cuts, or transfers of divisions to India or elsewhere. I also do not recall any corporation announcing any massive hiring program.

The Patriot Act, once sold as patriotic, is turning out to be a boondoggle. Not only is Ashcroft ordering its use in non-terror prosecutions, but the invasiveness and unconstitutional impact is only now being felt. Which raises another problem. John Ashcroft. He is even worse than Janet Reno, and that is a low standard indeed.

Lastly, stem cell research. Science in general. For the first time in our history, foreign scientists are not attracted by our open, freewheeling approach. That is because religious bigots have, time and time again, been placed in charge of our scientific research and decision-making. This is unforgivable. Just how many Nobel winners signed a document condemning this administration? Would you suspect that they may be onto something?

As part of my conservatism, I believe that our constitution offers freedom FROM religion as much as it offers freedom of religion. Unfortunately, that may no longer be the case if Bush wins a second term.

I am so upset by your paper's endorsement that you will never again have me as a subscriber. Let me put it this way. I am livid. Your attempt to "explain" the Tribune's decision was sent to me this morning by a GOP friend. She, too, is upset, and absolutely dislikes Bush, but her disdain of your decision is just slightly less irate than mine. When her time comes to renew, she will simply let her subscription lapse.

I have read over your "explanation" three times, and still have yet to see any meat on the bones. As explanations go, even the most brain-dead Bush supporter would have to rationalize that something of substance existed in your article. I can't find it. Please let us onto the secret, if there is one.

Mr. Dold has his politics, has the right to choose, vote, and direct editorial decisions. I, too, have a right. And that is to stop buying your paper, and to notify local advertisers in my area, that if they advertise in your paper, I will not purchase anything from them. I seriously doubt Dold reads what his former customers have to say. I also doubt that this letter will do any good. But it is cathartic. You took the effort to try to explain away the perverse decision made by your paper. I am making the effort to show why it was the wrong decision. But, my hard earned money will not bless your till again.

[indie_voter]

19. Brilliant letter. n/t

[lil-petunia]

22. Sheepish grin. many thanks!

I've had two requests from others to use it. Please feel free. Alter, mangle, mutilate, change, edit, puncture, fold and spindle it to your heart's content. But, please, let us write all tribCo abusepapers that might follow in Bruce Dold's pawprints.

[jerryster]

28. Excellent letter, but...

Were you actually surprised by the Trib? They endorsed Bush last time and they were going to do it again. This is, after all, the same paper that endorsed Jim Ryan for Governor. The paper saw no inconsistency in endorsing a man who they said in an earlier editorial should "never again be put in a position of public trust".

The Trib editorial board, if asked would say with straight faces that they believe Illinois is a conservative, Republican leaning state. The fact that the state went for Clinton twice and Gore in 2000 means nothing to them. I'm still waiting to see if the Trib (AND the Sun-Times) endorse Keyes. Sadly, that wouldn't surprise me either.

[chiburb]

32. Did you know that the guy who said "never again" to Ryan

Is the guy that wrote this column? He's no longer in that position, and wasn't when Ryan was endorsed. While this column leaves more questions than answers, he often goes against the corporate grain...

[bif]

30. Excellent letter!

Very well put. I may have to borrow it and send it to some of my friends.

[calimary]

36. Applause from me!

I'm surprised that they even noticed the roar of objections from their readership. Guess the objections got through to 'em, at least in a small way... Maybe it's starting to dawn on them that it is essential in a democracy to hold our institutions accountable. In this case, that means our government, our so-called "leadership," AND our media. ESPECIALLY our derelict, negligent, lapdog media.

[LibertyorDeath]

43. Wow where did you learn to write like that.

That say's it all and very eloquently.

It's a Keeper.

:toast: They will absolutely hate it for its Truth it will gnaw at them. :)

[lil-petunia]

47. thank you. it comes from the heart. Being a lawyer hurts, not helps.

cause we ain't got no hearts, so Shrub says.

If I get a response from the Don, I'll post that here.

chances are, it will be hidden in the midst of thousands of other, similar sentiments.

[No2W2004]

12. Excellent reply!

and your damn right....The Tribune Co. doesn't give a damn about anything other than it's bottom line. All you need to do is look at how they run the Cubs to see that!

[chiburb]

13. Lol! As a Sox fan, I APPRECIATE how they run the Cubs!

And thanks for the letter compliment...

[flpoljunkie]

14. Excellent letter, chiburb. You really nailed them!

[chiburb]

15. Thank you... n/t

[Tansy_Gold]

20. and another Bravo! from a former

chiburbian.



Tansy Gold, born in Park Ridge, raised in Arlington Heights (original home of The Herald, which endorsed Kerry)

[never cry wolf]

40. Het Tansy, Raised in Mt. Prospect here

Didja go to Prospect High by chance?

[chiburb]

41. Probably "Menopause Manor"

Which is what they used to call Arlington HS. It's where District 214 sent all their old, about-to-retire teachers (male and female).

;-)

[Tansy_Gold]

46. ha ha ha ha ha

AHS, '66, from a time before Dist 214 had any place else to send teachers! :D


(Actually, PHS opened in about 59, FVHS in 61 or 62, WHS in 63, so there were other schools . . . eventually.)

[chiburb]

48. I was Elk Grove, '69... though started at FV

Before EG was built.

Cool! I nailed your AHS!

[trof]

21. Very good. Here's mine:

Re: "How we came to make that endorsement"

Although I was a journalism major in college, my career path ultimately led to aviation. I was hired by TWA and assigned to O'Hare in 1968. I moved to Crystal Lake, where I was married and my daughter was born.

The Trib was my first big city newspaper. It was a bit of a thrill for me to find one of the major newspapers I had studied in college on my doorstep every day. I was especially fascinated with Chicago politics.

Of course the editorial board of any newspaper has the right to endorse the political candidate of their choice. It follows that when many, if not most, readers cannot fathom the rationale behind that choice, they must also begin to look for other sources for their daily news. I have found the internet to be an excellent resource.

I'd like to know the reasons for the endorsement, but I'm unable to locate the editorial on your website. I'd appreciate it if you could point me to it.

Massey Lambard
Foley, AL

[RubyDuby in GA]

7. Riiiiggghhhtttt..........

"The Tribune believes in the traditional principles of limited government; maximum individual responsibility; and minimum restriction of personal liberty, opportunity and enterprise. It believes in free markets, free will and freedom of expression.

"These principles, while traditionally conservative, are guidelines and not reflexive dogmas."


So tell me once again why they are endorsing Bush. Oh that's right...because all right-wing GOP rags are a bunch of pathetic hypocrites.

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. Free markets? Did they say Free markets?

That's a buzz word for financial disaster.

[progressivebydesign]

29. Chicago Tribune believes in... what??

"The Tribune believes in the traditional principles of limited government; maximum individual responsibility; and minimum restriction of personal liberty, opportunity and enterprise. It believes in free markets, free will and freedom of expression."


Considering Bush and his pals have gone against EVERY SINGLE ONE of those principals, IN A HUGE WAY, then I think the Trib is blowing smoke out of it's collective, editorial ass!! They are run by the right wingers? That has to be it, nothing else could account for their totally illogical paragraph above. They are out of their fucking minds...

[i_c_a_White_Ghost]

11. I was one of them who e-mailed them

complaining Are You Out Of Your Mind? Lol

[chiburb]

17. Everyone read post # 16...n/t

[WI_DEM]

18. ultimately the decision rests with Bruce Dold

and he is a well known radical conservative.

[Julien Sorel]

23. LOL

Arguing against that protestation is a record of having endorsed the Republican candidate in every presidential election since at least 1872, and of supporting Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate in all but two or three cases.

But there's another way to look at that record and the paper's close identification with the GOP. Says Dold: "It was a great advantage when we rousted the last Republican mayor of Chicago , when we supported Dick Devine over the Republican state's attorney, when we called for Nixon's resignation." In each case, the Tribune's reputation as a "Republican newspaper" gave extra potency to its counterintuitive action.

Simply amazing. They supported Hoover over FDR? Goldwater over Johnson? Yet, they tell us, this is a good thing, because on those rare occasions (three whole times since 1872!!!! Wow!) when they attack a Republican, the fact that it comes from such an otherwise Republican hack space means it carries extra weight. I'm sure the Chicago Tribune's calling for Nixon's resignation was the straw that broke the camel's back.

If writing this piece of shit isn't the low point of this halfwit's existence, there is certainly a very hot part of journalism Hell reserved for him.

[American liberal]

24. Wycliff is not the bad guy

I organized a field trip to sit in on a Trib ed board meeting while in journalism school and on staff of student newspaper. Wycliff at the time was the editorial page editor (Dold's current position). He was quite gracious. Dold, on the other hand, acted like a petulant little boy. He questioned Wycliff's decision to let us sit in on the process and asked us directly what we were doing there. Although I do not have anything to back it up, I suspect Dold bullied his way into his current position and is pushing his own agenda rather than the paper's. Wycliff had a more global view. I daresay that if Wycliff was still chair of the editorial board, the Trib would have endorsed Kerry. That's just my 2 cents.

In regards to the endorsement, I was incredulous. Despite the Trib's conservative roots, I thought they would make an exception this time based on Kerry's rhetoric and Bush's record. Dold really screwed up, IMHO.

Peace,
AL

[chiburb]

25. Agreed. n/t

[Julien Sorel]

33. Wycliff *is* the bad guy in this instance,

for writing such a terrible piece of shit. If this thing was the best he could offer as a defense for their endorsement, he should have kept his fingers firmly away from the keyboard.

[chiburb]

38. Not if he was only letting people know who to really blame...

Namely, Dold.

[Julien Sorel]

42. Exactly what is the value of blame?

I don't get it. Don't "blame" the Tribune, blame the managing editor of the Tribune, whom they hired and have left in the position? He is the Tribune.

As Dold observed in an interview with me Tuesday, the publisher is the ultimate boss and can "overrule" the editorial board if he wishes. In the normal course of things, however, the publisher wisely leaves the board to its own devices. And in the case of Sunday's Bush endorsement, Dold said, there was no need to overrule.

[chiburb]

45. So Dold and Lipinski made the decision...

How else should Wycliff let the "people" know the decision makers? Let readers know it wasn't him? Tell people that the MANY excellent reporters and columnists receiving the letters of wrath don't deserve the blame?
I agree that the column was lame, but I think it's because it's hard to tell your boss that he fucked up (and still keep your job).

[Walt Starr]

26. I won't read another word of this rag

and I intend to start contacting Trib advertisers to explain why I won't be conducting business with them, too!

[chiburb]

35. Aw c'mon Walt, this is the paper that published your story...

And as you well know, there is a MAJOR difference between reporting and editorial... WSJ comes to mind.
Besides, you can read it online and not pay them a cent!

:-)

[high density]

27. They're a bunch of confused people

"The Tribune believes in the traditional principles of limited government; maximum individual responsibility; and minimum restriction of personal liberty, opportunity and enterprise. It believes in free markets, free will and freedom of expression."

Excuse me? Bush has expanded government at record levels and he has put significant restrictions on personal liberty with the USA PATRIOT Act. Ahhh, but I know that when conservatives talk about "personal liberty," they're probably talking about taxes, and George Bush himself admits that his tax polices have created a massive "tax gap." Tax cuts during the time of war don't seem very patriotic, especially when most of the cuts go to the rich.

[lil-petunia]

31. anyone think that this was a subtle poke at Dold?

Without saying one thing nasty, he managed to place Bruce Dold's name in lights, explaining how fair the process was, without saying anything about the process that was used.

Subtle, indeed.

[chiburb]

37. Absolutely!

I think he disassociated himself from Dold's decision, and explained where readers should focus their anger.

[The Backlash Cometh]

34. The Tribune just identified Libertarianism.

I just don't understand why people haven't caught on to this yet. It's not about Republicans, it's about the fact that the Republican party has been co-opted by Libertarians via Cheney and the Right Christian extremist via Bush.

Also, I read somewhere that newspaper people are increasingly libertarian. Probably comes from enjoying the full extent of freedom through the First Amendment. But with that freedom comes responsibility.

[realFedUp]

39. It'll be interesting to see whoTribune-owned LA Times endorses

They endorsed Barbara Boxer...so can't see
why they won't endorse Kerry or Bush.

[sandnsea]

44. "We're a Republican mouthpiece"

Why didn't they just come out and say it. It's obvious by what they wrote. They've endorsed Republicans since 1862 or something. Then say they aren't partisan?? Whatever. If I lived in Chicago, I'd clip this and any time this paper said anything partisan, quote them and throw it back in their faces.