Chicago Tribune endorses Emanuel for mayor

Cites his toughness and willingness to realistically take on the city's challenges. Read it here. 

Comments

Leave a comment
  • A perfect time to provide the phone number to cancel your Tribune subscription - if you still have one for some reason. Call 1-800-TRIBUNE

  • Again, I go off the track.

    I commented here on what standing a newspaper editorial board has to endorse candidates, and Ciric also comments on why "a newspaper" should do so, when its main office is to give us the facts, and especially when it slams the candidate elsewhere in the paper (admittedly the Tribune is equal opportunity in that regard).

    Since you report the endorsement without any analysis, pro or con, what is the purpose? Is Tribune Co. paying you to direct my and waterbill's clicks there? Didn't work in my case.

  • In reply to jack:

    Dear Mr. Bus,

    No, the Tribune doesn't pay me to direct clicks to its site. Nor do I pay them for directing clicks to me. I put up the post on the endorsement because I just happened to come across the news within minutes of it being posted. My newsman's instincts, I guess, but it's just something that some readers like to know. I thought of taking it down after its was old news, but I'm too lazy. Of course, now that you've posted I can't take it down without hearings calls of censorship.

    As for newspaper endorsements: What are you saying, that there has to be a law for someone to endorse a candidate? You can, if you want to, and no one would question your "standing" to endorse. Having served for years on an editorial board (Chicago Sun-Times) I'd offer these various reasons:

    1. Newspapers think they're doing a service. Part of the job description is to gather information and to comment. They think, whether you agree or not, that they are in a position to give informed judgment.

    2. Some think that it's what readers expect, and to discontinue the practice would bring negative economic consequences. Not as great, of course, as dropping the astrology column, but some readers do expect this service. Especially when to comes to endorsement towards the end of the ballot (i.e. judges).

    It might interest you that while I was on the Sun-Times editorial board that I successfully argued that we should drop the judicial recommendations. The reason was simple: The newspaper had gone through another budget and staff cut and we simply no longer had the time or resources to provide an informed opinion. Because we would have had to depend mostly on bar association recommendation, instead of our own research and interviews with candidates, I said that I good conscience could not assure readers that this was our own, best judgment.

    The endorsement process when conducted properly is quite thorough. They include interviews by board members of individual candidates, research from independent sources and materials, and discussions with the paper's own experts (although reporters do not get to make the endorsements.) The endorsements are discussed with the entire editorial board, which either reaches a consensus or takes a vote. The history of journalism is replete with newspaper endorsements and opinions. Today's practice is quite mild compared with the early days when newspapers declared their partisanship in their news columns.

    I hope this helps you understand the process. If you have any questions, give me a post.

  • In reply to DennisByrne1:

    No, it isn't a legal thing, but basically certain persons in the editorial department hijacking the newspaper's trademark without disclosing what their agenda is or how they speak for ownership. In the Sun-Times case, I harken back to when some editor said she was running a Democrat newspaper and that paper endorsed Blago. I don't know if Tyree, Wirtz & Co. took control of that mess.

    In the Tribune's case, the editorial board may be talking to the candidates, but other than their purported "good government" stance, just seem to be allowing the candidates to use its masthead in their commercials. As Ciric implies, Rahm can use it in his commercials while others can use it to cite to articles (at least purportedly factual) about how Rahm has the machine behind him.

    "They think, whether you agree or not, that they are in a position to give informed judgment." Which comes to my main beef--while there supposedly is no such thing as a wrong opinion, there are those not based on the facts, such as the Tribune Editorial Board's bashing of the Ill. Sup. Ct. on the medical malpractice reform decision, without reading it and realizing that both the doctors and trial lawyers had put poison pills into that law to make sure that it would be ruled unconstitutional. However, I have written on that topic before. I guess it is sufficient to say that the editorial endorsements are about as effective in affecting my vote as the astrology column is.

    Also, if the Tribune were so concerned about losing readership over features, it would not have given the back of the hand to people complaining when a comic was cut. However, I don't care, as I read mine on the Internet. Mike Peters and occasionally Darby Conley still get my click, even if they don't get a check from the Tribune.

    Both the endorsements and the features indicate that the "newspapers" in this town are quickly fading into irrelevance.

Leave a comment

  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Advertisement:
  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • google-site-verification: googlefdc32e3d5108044f.html
  • Meet The Blogger

    Dennis Byrne

    Chicago Tribune contributing op-ed columnist and author of forthcoming historical novel, "Madness: The War of 1812." Reporter, editor and columnist for Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Daily News. Freelance writer and editor.

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Categories

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

    • In reply to Rick Bohning:
      I get the analogy, but where it fails is with the assumption that all contraception is equally efficacious in all ...
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • In reply to Aquinas wired:
      Logical fallacy: Ad Hominem Tu Quoque. Look it up. In short, hypocrisy does not make or break ...
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • In reply to hatch3:
      Another logical fallacy: appeal to authority. Just because the experts claim it to be true, does not make ...
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • In reply to Dennis Byrne:
      I think I'll go with the experts on this one. https://www.acog.org/About_ACOG/ACOG_Departments/Health_Care_for_Underserved_Women/Frequently_Asked_Questions_about_Hormonal_Approaches_to_Emergency_Contraception "4. Does this mean that emergency contraception can cause an ...
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • I don't see how covering these contraceptives for their employees is violating the religious freedom of the owners of ...
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
  • Monthly Archives

  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Latest on ChicagoNow

  • Advertisement:
  • Fresh Chicago News