Tribune decides Blackhawks in blackface "deep down" doesn't offend many people

Many readers probably had no idea what she was referring to.

The Tribune decided in all its glory that neither Burish nor Kane had to answer for their party choices. Just boys being boys, although I guess it is lucky for everybody President Obama didn't drop in unexpectedly to chat up the boys and ruin president John McDonough's appetite with blackface the rogue elephant in the room.

The Redeye's Ernest Wilkins reacted initially to the Blackhawks blackface, arguing that they had set a poor image for their fans. I responded by deriding blackface as entertainment, but contending Burish and Kane meant no harm and they should be excused a controversial fashion statement with no malice intended.

Chicago Now readers, which may also be Tribune readers, jumped in with their divergent views. Some lamented Burish and Kane as uneducated louts and some decried another rash of reverse racism and another irritating example of political correctness, both deemed to be extremely annoying and not an incident to even merit attention.

It's up to Tribune editors, of course, to decide the blackface incident wasn't newsworthy, choosing to ignore the internet pictures of the team's Halloween party. But then why touch on the subject at all, since it didn't measure up to something their readers would want to see or hear from the players involved?

Do you just expect readers to have seen it on Chicago Now? Naw, I know that's not it. Stepchildren and orphans know their place.

I can't decipher the sense of believing an unnewsworthy main story warranted an opinion piece by a big-foot expert, who dragged in taco-loving Bob Griese for fumbling the ball on the NASCAR broadcast by demeaning driver Juan Pablo Montoya, which only proves mixing aged quarterbacks with gasoline alley leaves the same touch of gas as refried beans.

I will surely bet big money (or least a month's salary) that if Jay Cutler Superfreak or Paul Konerko or any well-known white athlete you prefer to mention had shown up in public with blackface costumes, there would have been no way Tribune decided that their personal playtime was no big deal, just a lark.

Then it would have been front page with big pictures and all the turkey trimmings. Then it would have been headline heaven for all and the cultural critic would have been trampled to death by other big-time reporters in their rush to explain the meaning of it all.

So why the double standard? I have to admit it reinforces some public belief that some mainstream media is in bed with the teams they cover and rolling over for them to have their stomachs scratched, rather than spotlighting every time they step in excrement, which can be a common occurrence.

They got to live, cover and talk with these guys and gals, so not pissing them off over a story they can easily bury is a primary objective and one the clubs take full advantage of by keeping a tightly-controlled small unit of reporters and not credentialing potentially troublesome bloggers.

Teams try to reign in media by limiting access whenever they can and the media control has gotten tighter as coverage has widened to league-sponsored websites and the uncomfortable focus on teams has sharpened to the point some always feel a knife edge at their throat.

Teams that admire competitiveness in their athletes, abhor the same trait in their media, and do whatever they can to pander and make sure they are feeding puppy dogs, not Rottweilers, at the trough.

The mainstream media simply can decide to give teams a pass, saying they don't consider a subject newsworthy, as opposed to many blogs frequently commenting on the mess, putting a foot right into the squish and dragging the shit down the street.

That makes a bigger mess that sickens readers and reporters who prefer retreating to the ivory tower to devour the news with clean hands and conscience.

In summation, your honor, Keller decided the Blackhawks blackface proved we have become "supersensitive" in the age of Google, controversy is "a sign of society's robust health" and she doubts that people were offended "deep down" by Blackhawks in blackface.

Run that one by the NAACP, will you?

But it's good we talk about the difficult subjects of race, ethnicity and sexuality, she decided. How could a Tribune columnist decide we are talking about Blackhawks blackface when there has never been a Tribune story about it beyond blog items buried on their website?

And the Tribune is talking about sexuality? Not anywhere except Chicago Now they aren't. It was once verboten there to acknowledge some columnists were homosexuals.

That's why blogs are replacing some newspapers at least in readership as places some people go to discuss subjects some newspapers still deem objectionable or oddball or unnewsworthy or out of the norm or just plain a pain in the ass to deal with.

I have seen people worry about what we would do without The Fourth Estate safeguarding the public's right to know. Well, blogs are more incisive and more willing to discuss subjects newspaper won't touch. Why do you think there's been a culture shift on the internet? I'm not a cultural critic, but I can play one on Chicago Now.

All that seperates the two sides is that the professionals are getting paid for full-time work (even if it's a part-time gig for many full-time reporters at newspapers with loads of time off) and bloggers are paying attention to their subject out of dedication and interest and not based on a rewarding pay scale.

I can only hope the day comes when Jay Cutler decides to show up anywhere in blackface. The Tribune will decide it's a story then. Obama will even be asked by a Tribune reporter for a comment and the nation deep down may decide, hey, it's a big deal. Sirens will be blaring, alarms clanging.

The Blackhawks? They get ignored most of the time, anyway, by the mainstreamers. Burish and Kane will have to be tricked out next year as Arab terrorists with bombs strapped to their bodies and bring Hilary Clinton as their date to get a rise out of the Tribune.

Then again, Keller should stay on alert. She might be the fallback position even then. So make sure she's got the ivory tower reserved for next Oct. 31.

You never know when you might need a cultural critic on hockey. And I might be busy and all drinking martinis in my ivory tower.