23 Comments
founding

Regarding the endorsements by editorial boards: I used to place great emphasis on them. Without the internet to do my own vetting, I leaned hard on my papers (the ones I actually liked and trusted) to give a balanced and reasoned opinion of the candidates. Then (years ago) the Trib endorsed a LaRouchie candidate which made me realize they are just a bunch of humans who maybe don't do all their homework. More recently, the Ed Board gave Biden the nod with a below the fold half hearted "well OK he's better than that con-artist anarchist antichrist that is there now." Like I said, just a bunch of humans.

Expand full comment

The 911 calls in itself runs down that entertainment path - but often I hate seeing children interviewed or shown in certain circumstances. I'm always suspect on whether parents were asked for permission, were they coerced, or chosen for the most dramatic presentation. It's in line with seeing children at protests - such as the prochoice/prolife rallies. 4-5 year old children holding signs for adults point of views. Similarly, 'representing' political parties, pro-teacher/pro-city during contract disputes ('You're taking my education from me', "I want to be safe in my classroom) Back to 911 - those who want to get the recordings will say "the public has a right to know' or we're permitted through FOIA have gone to far.

EDITORIAL BOARD: I suppose it could sway people - although I never was one to say "Finally, I'll be told who to vote for" it was always good to read both paper's endorsements. Clinton/Trump always felt like - we don't want to endorse either, Clinton is going to win the state regardless, let's talk Johnson. The Trib offered the Anti-SNL. SNL was bring them both on we have character actors for both -where are we going to find someone to do Johnson?

"Why should the “institution” of a newspaper..." oh great! I can see it now... People Magazine endorses... TMZ endorses... Fox Sports endorses... MLB endorses... Northwestern University endorses... Barnes and Nobles endorses... McDonald's Happy Meal Endorsement Meal Deal... The Golden Globes endorses...

Copless Pride Parade... BIG MISS. Acceptance, coming together, showing unity... except for you people because you make us feel uneasy. Many Pride Parades evolved from being banned from parades and said, fine we'll have our own and everyone can join. One of the many reasons being "I support LGBTQ. I support the Blue. So you want me to choose one over the other?"

Ohio Rep. Waiting for the statement "I know pornography when I see it."

Expand full comment

I counted syllables on the haiku, and was delighted to discover that it wasn't a haiku.

Expand full comment

We should keep traditional editorials. They're pithy, non-personal, and tightly argued. Their anonymity focuses attention on the arguments themselves and away from the person making them. The idea of serving an "institutional voice" raises the stakes for the writer and encourages some degree of collaboration, responsible persuasion, and fidelity to principle. The label affixed to the viewpoint -- that of the institution -- is similar to a partisan label and similarly useful for the reader. It is thus clearly meaningful when a conservative publication like the Wall Street Journal endorses a liberal view or a liberal publication like the New York Times endorses a conservative view. For example, it stands out when

- the Times comes out against cancel culture:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/18/opinion/cancel-culture-free-speech-poll.html

- or the Journal comes out against Trumpist shenanigans in Wisconsin, blaming Trump for losing the state:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-wisconsin-gops-latest-meltdown-dean-knudson-election-commission-donald-trump-11653689063?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

- or where the Tribune endorses Obama:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/chi-chicago-tribune-endorsement-story.html

Similarly, if you want the best expression of a conservative or liberal view on a topic, it's nice to be able to turn toward the editorial positions of such organizations.

Editorials are some of my favorite reads of the week. The Economist magazine's unsigned "leaders" give me, in some 15 minutes or so, a world's-eye view on a range of major issues from the perspective of a market-oriented, socially liberal "radical centre," as they put it. (By American standards, they're left of center, even economically.) I read the Journal's editorials, even if many seem like partisan hackery written with the specific purpose of pissing me off, to get a quick read on the other side's best arguments, something Eleanor Roosevelt wisely encouraged citizens to do. I wish the Times would return to the practice of writing multiple daily editorials, with the goal of not just consolidating Democratic or progressive talking points but "steel-man"-ing and refuting opposing views as well.

Endorsements are particularly useful given our excessive democracy where too many officials are elected rather than appointed. The Tribune isn't my only source on such down-ballot races, but it's an important one. Their choice will probably be a reasonable sort. I have more trust in those endorsements than I do in endorsements by advocacy groups.

I had no idea that columnists were forbidden from making their own endorsements. That strikes me as wrong-headed. Columnists should feel free to contradict -- directly and explicitly -- any view taken by the editorial board. The reader can only benefit from such an exchange of views. I can see it perhaps getting out of hand, if every columnist served up their own alternative slate, but I don't see the need for a rigid rule.

I agree that "institutional voice" is a vestige of the days of the partisan press, a model we have otherwise wisely moved away from ever since the post-WWII years, when, perhaps prodded by television network news that wanted to be in everyone's living room and not just conservatives' or liberals', newspapers adopted more professional standards and embraced objectivity in news reporting. At the same time, on the opinion pages, that institutional voice can anchor presentation of a wide variety of compelling arguments. Editorials remain vital and I miss them when, as at the Times for the most part, they're gone.

Expand full comment

You asked why the national anthem is so often played/sun before sporting events, but not movies, etc. It was begun as a spur-of-the-moment thing before a Cubs game during WWI. It was very relevant then, and caught on ... and was turned into a minor monster insofar as all the attending controversies. I haven't checked lately, but I found an excellent article with the full story on the website of The History Channel. I was first tipped off by a book about Chicago in WWI I read for a local book discussion group. I don't doubt it would be surprising to learn how small a percentage of Americans actually know how, when, and where this custom began.

Expand full comment

"If the parents consent, the media should post those photos and the public should not turn away from the horror."

I'd take this one step further. The photos should be displayed in the Senate with parents testifying to their agony and despair as they waited to hear of their children's fate. Force Republicans to defend the inevitable vote to refuse any weapons reform.

Expand full comment

Regarding the resignation of teacher Stukel from the Lyons School District in objection to lax grading policies, the reality is that these policies are already widespread in urban areas.

Through participation in our church sponsored Safe Families program, my wife and I a few years ago fostered a teenage girl in our home for her junior year attending Senn High School on the north side of Chicago.

We were saddened to discover that she read at about a third grade level, could not even do the 2's of her multiplication tables, and was essentially functionally illiterate. She told us she had never done homework before in her life, and that her teachers allowed her to watch videos on her phone during class.

And here's the most disconcerting part- she received A's and B's from her teachers! I worked with her every night after dinner at the dining room table on her school assignments and also math worksheets, and while she materially improved over the course of the school year, it was very apparent that she was not in any way mastering the content of her classes. We questioned her counselor and teachers at the parent-teacher conferences, but the response was generally that she was not disruptive in class and therefore received the A's and B's.

This young lady happened to be black, but we have no way of knowing if these unearned grades were given specifically to students of color, or whether this was the norm for students of all races at Senn High School. But the net effect is to provide students with diplomas who are functionally illiterate, and not in any way at all prepared to advance themselves in this world either in higher education or in the workforce. This does nothing but great harm to these children!

Kudos to teacher Stukel for publicly and personally taking a stand on this problem, but it truly is something that appears to be the norm in the city public education schools.

Expand full comment

I couldn’t agree with you more on the matter of broadcasting 911 calls. In addition to all of the valid points that you already make, there is the matter of what this all does to for the media and it’s reputation in general; the Washington Post’s clarion call of “Democracy Dies in Darkness” is obliterated, or at least exposed as the sanctimonious blather that it is, when one considers that that maxim is being used to perpetuate the shameless, blatant, and highly exploitative pornography that you describe here.

Expand full comment

Some people have suggested that the damage done to the victims' bodies by the AR-15 type rifle in Uvalde should be shown to the public in photos, with families' consent. I second the motion. Meanwhile: it would be easier if authorities obtained the body of a deer who died from a cause with little physical damage, and shot it through with an AR-15, then took good photographs of the damage and showed these to the public. The consequences would be very comparable. In addition to helping teach people why these assault-type rifles have, arguably, no place in civilian life, it would also show why they're really not good for hunting, because of all the damage done to the meat and hide, compared to our normal projectile weapons (including the bow and arrow). The only exception I might make for hunting is where people are trying to eradicate highly dangerous, destructive, invasive alien species, which in the USA pretty much means feral hogs. I've read these are an ecological scourge in many parts of the South, as well as being extremely dangerous. One well-placed shot from an assault-style rifle should be enough, but it's important to kill the animal right away.

Expand full comment