Chicago Trib readers: Your opinion, please!

[Gidney N Cloyd]

I've been reading the Trib for almost 4 decades. First my folks subscribed, then I would pick up a copy at college pretty much most days, then I subscribed myself after college, taking it through four apartments and my house. I majored in journalism so I was well aware of the history of the paper and it's political leanings so I could weigh that into it's op-ed and news coverage. It's been a really good big city paper and I've gotten attached to it. I also got a big kick from writing LTTEs and knowing they'd be read all over the world.

But I think I'm going to drop it.

For some years it seemed like they'd largely laid Colonel McCormack to rest and played things slightly right of center. Lately, though, their editorial policies seem to have taken such a hard turn to the extreme right that they are willing even to sacrifice intellectual honesty.

The first time this hit me in the face was their endorsement of Bush in 2004. Not that I would expect them to endorse Kerry (taking a pass was my best hope), but those of you who read the endorsement might remember how the writer carefully documented all Bush's failings then somehow did an about face in the last couple paragraphs and twisted himself in a pretzel to go for Bush. It was stunning.

Since then I've noticed they load up on the uberconservative columnists like Krauthammer-- the Monday op ed section is unreadable and doesn't get much better later in the week. Most recently they've run this "what we knew then and now" series* about the leadup to the Iraq war that twisted reality in the very first paragraphs and buried uncomfortable facts so horribly that I've crumbled up the paper and tossed it across the room on several occasions. Then this past Tuesday they ran an editorial about the Patriot Act that completely misrepresented 'sneak and peek', implying that there is an obligation at any time to notify the invaded of the invasion.

Am I nuts? Has anyone else noticed the depths to which the Trib has sunk? I really hate to switch to the Sun-Times (I already take the Herald but frankly you can read that on a bathroom break) but I think I'm going to have a stroke if I don't!


*On edit, I'd like to add that I thought it was reprehensible for them to have run the "what we knew then and now" series on the op-ed pages while makikng it look like an investigative piece.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

1. shameless kick for edit

[warrens]

2. I only read it occasionally

I think as a rule it is a pretty fair newspaper. It's never endorsed a Democrat and probably never will, but on the whole, it's not bad. It's Washington bureau does some good stuff, and on the whole, the reporters I know there are not republicans. Their coverage of the Obama campaign was pretty terrific, and I rarely see something I really object to.

That endorsement of Smirky the Wonder Chimp WAS pretty hilarious, though. "The guy's an incompetent boob, but we're endorsing him because, well, just because."

One thing's for sure, it beats the hell out of the local competition. I mainly read Newsday online, along with the WP and LAT (the trib's sister paper).

[never cry wolf]

3. I agree, somewhat

The what we knew then and now piece was a total sham, whitewash, coverup, you name it. I was disgusted by their conclusions basically giving commander bunnypants a pass. They seem to go hot and cold, in their lttes depending on who is editing that day. Their columnists seem fairly balanced out, they do run Molly Ivins along with Krauthammer. They are definitely RW, although not hard core. They do bury stories that shine poorly on the repukes and you are correct about their in house editorials for the most part seem written by rove.

I still subscribe and probably will continue, their sports section is outstanding. Just keep on writing them. I am guessing they get maybe 2/3 of their lttes from libs so maybe if we keep it up, they will go with the flow of their customers more.

You may want to cross post this in the Illinois forum.