PDA

View Full Version : Cubune Public Editor addresses bias


Milw
08-18-2005, 10:27 AM
Don Wycliff, the Trib's ombudsman, wrote about Tribune Co.'s obvious confict of interest in owning the Cubs (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnist/wycliff/chi-0508180104aug18,1,451824.column?coll=chi-homepagenews2-utl). He was mostly non-committal about it, acknowledging that he's uneasy about it but saying also that the problem isn't as bad as Sox fans would make it out to be.

I have no doubt that all my colleagues who write or edit stories for the Chicago Tribune newspaper, its Web site or any of its other "platforms," do their utmost to be fair, impartial, evenhanded and honest. Indeed, I suspect some go out of their ways at times to be critical of the Cubs precisely to establish that they are acting in good faith.

But the realities of modern corporate life put them into an inherently conflicted situation. The most they can do is disclose the conflict. After that, it's up to the reader/viewer to follow the age-old caution: Let the buyer beware.

Well, at least they're talking about it ...

RedHeadPaleHoser
08-18-2005, 10:51 AM
Yippee. It's like an alcoholic who stops drinking, but complains about going to the meetings.

SOXPHILE
08-18-2005, 10:55 AM
I was just about post something on this. It sounds simply like a non-denial. Basically, in my opinion, he's just saying "White Sox fans seem to think we have a bias and conflict of interest when it comes to covering the Cubs." Then, just leaves it at that.

Chisox003
08-18-2005, 10:56 AM
:roflmao:

Ok Don, you win

Frater Perdurabo
08-18-2005, 11:04 AM
This is just an attempt to placate us Sox fans. No admission.

cheeses_h_rice
08-18-2005, 11:04 AM
This reads like one of those non-apology apologies, like "I'm sorry that you were offended by something I might have said." It's not really an apology or an acknowledgement that you did anything wrong.

Typical Cubune.

Jerko
08-18-2005, 11:08 AM
This reads like one of those non-apology apologies, like "I'm sorry that you were offended by something I might have said." It's not really an apology or an acknowledgement that you did anything wrong.

Typical Cubune.

Who's his ghost writer, Giambi?

mdep524
08-18-2005, 11:12 AM
Indeed, I suspect some go out of their ways at times to be critical of the Cubs precisely to establish that they are acting in good faith. :rolleyes: OK buddy, whatever you say.

The only time the Cubune is truly critical of the Cubs is when they are trying to turn public opinion against an individual for the Tribster's benefit, a la Sammy Sosa's 2004 walk out.

How can they possibly defend the mean-spirited insult to Frank Thomas they printed right after he revealed he was done for the season? I must have missed the articles bashing Garciaparra, Wood and Prior after their serious injuries.

*****.

tebman
08-18-2005, 11:26 AM
But the realities of modern corporate life put them into an inherently conflicted situation. The most they can do is disclose the conflict. After that, it's up to the reader/viewer to follow the age-old caution: Let the buyer beware.

This is the same "deal with it" response we got from George Knue when he engaged us in a debate on this topic in this thread (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=53026&highlight=hegemony). What "makes the hairs on the back of one's neck stand on end," to use Wycliff's words, is the extreme self-regard the Tribune has for itself.

The logic goes like this: 'We're deeply concerned about the conflict of interest, but we are The Tribune, and so there's nothing else to discuss.' In fact they ought to be deeply concerned -- Tribune Company is in the advertising business, which is why they exist, and if you read this link (http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=17478) you'll see that circulation is down, the "entertainment" division is not making as much money, and moves are going to have to be made. The World's Greatest Newspaper has to support the rest of the company, including its chief "entertainment" property, the Cubs.

Like I said before, let's get real. We're supposed to feel better because Don Wycliff is wringing his hands? Give me a break. It's all about marketing, and the Cubs are marketed as part of the Tribune's higher-income, mostly suburban, corporate image. The journalistic-integrity costume they wear falls off when its corporate reports are read and when its radio, TV, and cable stations all flog the Cubs.

It's not going to change. Which is why it's all the more important that we point it out.

BainesHOF
08-18-2005, 11:50 AM
The Chicago Tribune is a journalistic shadow of its former self.

Lip Man 1
08-18-2005, 12:03 PM
I appreciated the fact that it was written as well as his comments about being uneasy with what he acknowledges as a 'conflict of interest,' but I was 'let down,' for want of a better term by it.

If he was trying to defend the situation I would have appreciated some concrete examples of where a reporter, say Phil Rogers or Paul Sullivan (not trying to single them out by the way...) spoke with an editor or wrote something differently in a story to try to get around the conflict.

I was also confused by the ending 'let the buyer beware...' Was he saying that readers should look elsewhere for their news? Was he saying in so many words, 'tough s@#$' that's the way it is?

Basically he seemed to be saying that today journalism and journalistic integrity are at the mercy of corporations. Fine, I realize this is the situation. However since he states that he's been in the media for a long time and is in a position of high responsibility, I was shocked that he didn't 'speak out' against that system.

Overall I was disappointed with his comments.

By the way here is the link:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0508180104aug18,1,4974688.column?coll=cs-home-headlines

Lip

Ol' No. 2
08-18-2005, 12:27 PM
I appreciated the fact that it was written as well as his comments about being uneasy with what he acknowledges as a 'conflict of interest,' but I was 'let down,' for want of a better term by it.

If he was trying to defend the situation I would have appreciated some concrete examples of where a reporter, say Phil Rogers or Paul Sullivan (not trying to single them out by the way...) spoke with an editor or wrote something differently in a story to try to get around the conflict.

I was also confused by the ending 'let the buyer beware...' Was he saying that readers should look elsewhere for their news? Was he saying in so many words, 'tough s@#$' that's the way it is?

Basically he seemed to be saying that today journalism and journalistic integrity are at the mercy of corporations. Fine, I realize this is the situation. However since he states that he's been in the media for a long time and is in a position of high responsibility, I was shocked that he didn't 'speak out' against that system.

Overall I was disappointed with his comments.

By the way here is the link:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0508180104aug18,1,4974688.column?coll=cs-home-headlines

LipTough **** is exactly what he's saying. What do people expect them to do, sell the Cubs? Fat chance The reality is that no matter how hard they try (or think they try) to be impartial, it's an impossibility. So tough **** is about all that's left.

maurice
08-18-2005, 12:35 PM
FWIW, Steve Stone called out the Trib this morning for pretending that the cubs are still playoff contenders. He noted that unbiased media outlets do not list the cubs in the "Wild Card Standings" section of the paper, but that the Trib stretches the standings to absurd lengths to include the cubs.

This criticism is coming from a guy who persistently claimed (until very recently) that the cubs were a lock to win the wildcard.

Trav
08-18-2005, 12:46 PM
Why would they print an apology? That would be like printing a retraction for a hundred stories at one time. I just want them to be less biased. Now that they are talking about it this can happen. I am not saying it will just that it can now.

cheeses_h_rice
08-18-2005, 12:50 PM
FWIW, Steve Stone called out the Trib this morning for pretending that the cubs are still playoff contenders. He noted that unbiased media outlets do not list the cubs in the "Wild Card Standings" section of the paper, but that the Trib stretches the standings to absurd lengths to include the cubs.

This criticism is coming from a guy who persistently claimed (until very recently) that the cubs were a lock to win the wildcard.

Oh, come on.

Everyone knows that including half the National League in their Wild Card standings with 41 games remaining is standard operating procedure across the country.

jackbrohamer
08-18-2005, 01:02 PM
What do people expect them to do, sell the Cubs?

I agree with you; if they want to be a legitimate news source about sports, yes. They should either (1) sell the Cubs, or (2) quit claiming that its sports coverage isn't biased.

The Tribune's baseball coverage does not deserve to be taken seriously as long as it owns the Cubs.

Ol' No. 2
08-18-2005, 01:04 PM
If they want to be a legitimate news source about sports, yes. They should either (1) sell the Cubs, or (2) quit claiming that its sports coverage isn't bias.

The Tribune's baseball coverage does not deserve to be taken seriously as long as it owns the Cubs.Except Wycliff has no control over that. So about all he can do is wring his hands and shrug his shoulders.

SOXPHILE
08-18-2005, 02:43 PM
Oh, come on.

Everyone knows that including half the National League in their Wild Card standings with 41 games remaining is standard operating procedure across the country.

Half ? If only it were that few. There's 16 teams in the N.L. With 3 teams in first place in their respective divisions, that leaves 13 teams. They've been showing 10 teams in the Wild Card race for a while now. I just wonder how long they're going to be showing this long of a list. Once the Cubs are mathematically eliminated, think they'll still show them in the standings/race ? Actually, that probably shouldn't be in teal. If the Cubs were to sink to 13th place in the Wild Card, but were mathematically still alive, the daily standings would show all 13 teams.

bunnybrief
08-18-2005, 06:35 PM
I was just about post something on this. It sounds simply like a non-denial. Basically, in my opinion, he's just saying "White Sox fans seem to think we have a bias and conflict of interest when it comes to covering the Cubs." Then, just leaves it at that.

Uh, no, Don -

It's "White Sox fans seem to think we have a bias and conflict of interest when it comes to covering the White Sox."

maurice
08-18-2005, 06:54 PM
My impression of the article is that he agrees with the criticisms (including the charge that the Trib. is sometimes "unethical") but isn't in a position to come right out and say it himself. It's a common journalistic convention for writers to state their own opinion but cover their ass by attributing it to somebody else.

Vernam
08-18-2005, 08:40 PM
My impression of the article is that he agrees with the criticisms (including the charge that the Trib. is sometimes "unethical") but isn't in a position to come right out and say it himself. It's a common journalistic convention for writers to state their own opinion but cover their ass by attributing it to somebody else.:gulp:

My favorite quote was:

I also have lived with my conscience long enough to know that McMahon's complaints wouldn't trouble me so much if I were absolutely sure they were groundless.

The trouble is that a whole lot of people at the Tribune don't have any such compunctions. In that same paragraph, he wrote:

But the fact is that reporting on an issue in which my company has financial interests is bound to be different than reporting on one in which the company has no interest. And if anybody ever tells you otherwise, check to see that your wallet is still in your pocket.
George Knue, I want my wallet back! The word "different" just kind of lies there, begging for clarification. Just how is it "different?" In the sense of "dishonest" and "unethical," maybe? Heck, even "illegal," if the notion of anti-trust laws isn't hopelessly obsolete.

Also: When you are a major media company owning a major sports franchise, there is no such thing as "routine" coverage. The company's pecuniary interests are implicated in every story and every editorial decision.
Sounds like a mea culpa to me. I'm betting George doesn't come within a mile of this thread. Unless he's ready to say the Trib's own ombudsman is a paranoid wack job like the rest of us who dare point out the bias.

VC

1951Campbell
08-18-2005, 09:52 PM
I was also confused by the ending 'let the buyer beware...' Was he saying that readers should look elsewhere for their news? Was he saying in so many words, 'tough s@#$' that's the way it is?



"Look elsewhere?" "Buyer beware?" I thought that was precisely what he was saying. He was essentially saying you wouldn't read Alternative Press for Chicago Symphony Orchestra coverage, you wouldn't read Ladies Home Journal for a 5,000 word gonzo piece on Burning Man, so why on earth would you read the Trib for Sox coverage?

IowaSox1971
08-19-2005, 03:15 AM
Perhaps the most prominent display of anti-Sox bias in the Trib occurred just last week, when the Sox beat Rivera and the Yankees in a thrilling game, and won the series in New York while raising their record to 74-39. Yet, all Morrissey could write about was an off-the-record conversation between Ozzie and a friend. And all Rogers could write about was that the Sox should trade for Palmeiro.

I'd like to see the Trib's public editor explain why these two columnists saw fit to write such drivel at that particular time. The column that the public editor did write provided no answers to our concerns.

BainesHOF
08-19-2005, 03:32 AM
I hope those complaining about the Tribune do not subscribe to the arrogant, boring and biased rag.

Realist
08-19-2005, 06:55 AM
:gulp:

My favorite quote was:


I also have lived with my conscience long enough to know that McMahon's complaints wouldn't trouble me so much if I were absolutely sure they were groundless.


The trouble is that a whole lot of people at the Tribune don't have any such compunctions. In that same paragraph, he wrote:



But the fact is that reporting on an issue in which my company has financial interests is bound to be different than reporting on one in which the company has no interest. And if anybody ever tells you otherwise, check to see that your wallet is still in your pocket.


George Knue, I want my wallet back! The word "different" just kind of lies there, begging for clarification. Just how is it "different?" In the sense of "dishonest" and "unethical," maybe? Heck, even "illegal," if the notion of anti-trust laws isn't hopelessly obsolete.




Also:When you are a major media company owning a major sports franchise, there is no such thing as "routine" coverage. The company's pecuniary interests are implicated in every story and every editorial decision.


Sounds like a mea culpa to me. I'm betting George doesn't come within a mile of this thread. Unless he's ready to say the Trib's own ombudsman is a paranoid wack job like the rest of us who dare point out the bias.


VC

Your firm grasp of your knowledge of just how the corporate media works is not lost on me. I look forward to each of your comments on this issue.

Realist
08-19-2005, 06:59 AM
Keep those "You Write Tomorrow's Cubune Headlines" coming. I think they may be hitting an open nerve.

:bandance:

tacosalbarojas
08-19-2005, 08:53 AM
Perhaps the most prominent display of anti-Sox bias in the Trib occurred just last week, when the Sox beat Rivera and the Yankees in a thrilling game, and won the series in New York while raising their record to 74-39. Yet, all Morrissey could write about was an off-the-record conversation between Ozzie and a friend. And all Rogers could write about was that the Sox should trade for Palmeiro.

I'd like to see the Trib's public editor explain why these two columnists saw fit to write such drivel at that particular time. The column that the public editor did write provided no answers to our concerns.Glad to see I'm not the only one bothered by this episode last week. Good call!

tebman
08-19-2005, 09:29 AM
:gulp:

My favorite quote was:


I also have lived with my conscience long enough to know that McMahon's complaints wouldn't trouble me so much if I were absolutely sure they were groundless.


The trouble is that a whole lot of people at the Tribune don't have any such compunctions. In that same paragraph, he wrote:



But the fact is that reporting on an issue in which my company has financial interests is bound to be different than reporting on one in which the company has no interest. And if anybody ever tells you otherwise, check to see that your wallet is still in your pocket.


George Knue, I want my wallet back! The word "different" just kind of lies there, begging for clarification. Just how is it "different?" In the sense of "dishonest" and "unethical," maybe? Heck, even "illegal," if the notion of anti-trust laws isn't hopelessly obsolete.




Also:When you are a major media company owning a major sports franchise, there is no such thing as "routine" coverage. The company's pecuniary interests are implicated in every story and every editorial decision.


Sounds like a mea culpa to me. I'm betting George doesn't come within a mile of this thread. Unless he's ready to say the Trib's own ombudsman is a paranoid wack job like the rest of us who dare point out the bias.VC
I've been curious about George's absence too. His profile says that he hasn't visited the site for over a month, though I suppose he could be lurking without logging in. Maybe he's on vacation. But either way, this is red meat for him.

The Tribune is such an old-school, hierarchical organization that it's possible that Wycliff has no idea about this site or our sparring with George Knue. In some ways I'm encouraged that Wycliff wrote about "an issue in which my company has financial interests," but given the self-satisfaction that's in the Tribune's genes, I doubt anything is going to come of it.

I honestly believe we're doing a public service here by raising these questions. If the dominant information company in Chicago can be called into question on this, can we trust it for other news? I don't know the answer to that question, but we're doing the right thing by asking it.

Hangar18
08-19-2005, 09:52 AM
I was also confused by the ending 'let the buyer beware...' Was he saying that readers should look elsewhere for their news? Was he saying in so many words, 'tough s@#$' that's the way it is?





Basically he seemed to be saying that today journalism and journalistic integrity are at the mercy of corporations. Fine, I realize this is the situation. However since he states that he's been in the media for a long time and is in a position of high responsibility, I was shocked that he didn't 'speak out' against that system.

Overall I was disappointed with his comments.

By the way here is the link:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0508180104aug18,1,4974688.column?coll=cs-home-headlines

Lip

He seems like he is secretly fighting the "machine", but really isnt.
His "let the buyer beware" is exactly that ...........The Trib is telling you
they Love the Cubs, and thats the way its going to be. Tough ____
sox fans .........

PaleHoseGeorge
08-19-2005, 11:39 AM
Except Wycliff has no control over that. So about all he can do is wring his hands and shrug his shoulders.

How did you come to that conclusion? Wycliff isn't wringing his hands over jack.
:?:

Wycliff offers NOTHING besides acknowledging the plain fact the Cubune owns the Cubs and doesn't disclose their ownership in their Cubs sports coverage. You call that hand wringing?
:o:

He states the obvious, absolves himself of any blame, and tells the rest of us to deal with it. Let's pin a medal on his chest.

Same ****. Different day. All that is new is that now Wycliff admits the Cubune doesn't care to do anything about it -- including himself.

:cubune

Wycliff could at least offer his opinion about what to do about the "inherently conflicted situation" that he fully admits to. After all, he is the Cubune's public editor and "writes weekly about current issues in journalism." [source: Cubune]
:o:

Oh, well. We get the last word published on the subject on the WSI front page.
:cool:

voodoochile
08-19-2005, 11:54 AM
I've been curious about George's absence too. His profile says that he hasn't visited the site for over a month, though I suppose he could be lurking without logging in. Maybe he's on vacation. But either way, this is red meat for him.

The Tribune is such an old-school, hierarchical organization that it's possible that Wycliff has no idea about this site or our sparring with George Knue. In some ways I'm encouraged that Wycliff wrote about "an issue in which my company has financial interests," but given the self-satisfaction that's in the Tribune's genes, I doubt anything is going to come of it.

I honestly believe we're doing a public service here by raising these questions. If the dominant information company in Chicago can be called into question on this, can we trust it for other news? I don't know the answer to that question, but we're doing the right thing by asking it.

Oh trust me, they know. They knew about Hangar's media watch threads two years ago. They know we are watching them and that we have up to 10K readers a week including lurkers. They know about PHG's front page media slams. They know about the fake headlines. The cool thing is how much of a force large fan sites like this are becoming. We give voice and organization to the fans who are disappointed with some aspect of their team be that the way it is run or the way it is covered. The Sox have a very unique situation in professional sports in that they are the only team in the world with a competing product across town which is owned by a major media conglomerate. Now Sox fans are rising up and calling them on it right here at WSI and it is starting to hit them where they live - in their wallet as less Sox fans buy their product or pay attention to the halfass coverage they claim is equal coverage.

This isn't the first article like this in the trib and it won't be the last, but it still won't fix the problem because in the end, they just don't care and honestly, the trib is not nearly the revenue stream their other outlets are...

Lip Man 1
08-19-2005, 11:57 AM
Mr. Wycliff took the time to respond to an e-mail that I sent him on this matter (I have forwarded a copy of it to PHG) I post it here and then I'll make a few comments:

Dear Mr. Wycliff:

I enjoyed reading your column yesterday on the difficult situation the Tribune finds itself in. I've been in the media myself since 1979 and have seen what corporations have done to journalistic integrity.

I appreciated you taking the time to frame the issue but I was disappointed that you didn't take a stand against it. Obviously you have done well in the business and have been in it a number of years, I'm sure you have seen what has happened to the high standards of the industry (and I'm lumping TV and radio into that comment as well)... it would have sent a powerful message had you condemned it.

Anyway thanks for what you did do. I think you'll find this editorial interesting. It also frames the issue pretty well.

Take care,

Mark Liptak

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=1&id=2947 (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=1&id=2947)

Dear Mr. Liptak:

Thanks for writing. But I sense that you believe there really were "good old days" when journalism was exempt from the temptations and weaknesses of human nature and that there was some "time before time" when corporations weren't involved in journalism and therefore it possessed integrity. I hate to be the one to have to break it to you, but those are myths, things that never were.

I lament that my company forces me and my colleagues into an awkward situation by its ownership of the Cubs. But I am under no illusion that if that particular conflict didn't exist, we'd have no conflicts at all to worry about. Moral ambiguity is part of the human condition. One of the reasons the phrase "caveat emptor" (let the buyer beware) is written in Latin is that the need for such caution is at least as longstanding as the Roman empire. Truth is, it goes back to the Garden of Eden. If angels were writing my newspaper, I'd still need to be discerning and watch for hidden conflicts.

As I said at the end of my column, the best we can hope for is to make the conflicts apparent and then let the buyer beware.

dw

As to my comments it appears that those who posted along the lines of, 'that's the way it is, deal with it,' were correct. Also with respect to Mr. Wycliff a man who has gotten further ahead in the industy in his tenure that I ever did or ever will, there was a time when the majority of newspaper, radio and TV stations were NOT owned by corporations. And it showed in the quality that local stations, and newspapers represented. I'm not just talking about the major cities but the media at all levels...from Chicago to Pocatello, Idaho from Los Angeles to Monroe, Louisiana.

I guess I'm not a realist but I know that unless people in the business take a stand against this 'dumbing down' of America, it will never change.

Anyway feel free to discuss the issues.

Lip

PaleHoseGeorge
08-19-2005, 12:03 PM
They know about PHG's front page media slams. They know about the fake headlines.

Ahem... I prefer to call it "News Watch."
:wink:

I would be very surprised if Wycliff had no prior knowledge of WSI and the things written about the Cubune both on the message boards and the front page's news and feature stories.

However I GUARANTEE this website has been pointed out to him now that he has written about Cubune bias -- either via reader email or directly by another Cubune staffer, perhaps even George Knue. You can take to the bank he will hear about *anything* of relevance from either this thread or what WSI writes about him on the main page, assuming he doesn't visit and lurk his own damned self.

Book it.
:cool:

voodoochile
08-19-2005, 12:06 PM
Dear Mr. Liptak:

Thanks for writing. But I sense that you believe there really were "good old days" when journalism was exempt from the temptations and weaknesses of human nature and that there was some "time before time" when corporations weren't involved in journalism and therefore it possessed integrity. I hate to be the one to have to break it to you, but those are myths, things that never were.

I lament that my company forces me and my colleagues into an awkward situation by its ownership of the Cubs. But I am under no illusion that if that particular conflict didn't exist, we'd have no conflicts at all to worry about. Moral ambiguity is part of the human condition. One of the reasons the phrase "caveat emptor" (let the buyer beware) is written in Latin is that the need for such caution is at least as longstanding as the Roman empire. Truth is, it goes back to the Garden of Eden. If angels were writing my newspaper, I'd still need to be discerning and watch for hidden conflicts.

As I said at the end of my column, the best we can hope for is to make the conflicts apparent and then let the buyer beware.

dw

*****! OH MY GAWD! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Thanks for the laugh, Don...

Angels? Rome? Garden of Eden? Everyone is morally ambiguous?

I bet his eyes are deep deep brown...:rolleyes:

Brian26
08-19-2005, 12:08 PM
As I said at the end of my column, the best we can hope for is to make the conflicts apparent and then let the buyer beware.

dw

How magnanimous of him. :rolleyes:

voodoochile
08-19-2005, 12:10 PM
Ahem... I prefer to call it "News Watch."
:wink:

I would be very surprised if Wycliff had no prior knowledge of WSI and the things written about the Cubune both on the message boards and the front page's news and feature stories.

However I GUARANTEE this website has been pointed out to him now that he has written about Cubune bias -- either via reader email or directly by another Cubune staffer, perhaps even George Knue. You can take to the bank he will hear about *anything* of relevance from either this thread or what WSI writes about him on the main page, assuming he doesn't visit and lurk his own damned self.

Book it.
:cool:

I actually bet that Knueman told someone at the tower he was visiting the site and defending the newspaper's and website's reputation or that someone else discovered he was doing it and it got back to Wycliff.

I can imagine the handwringing at the editor's meeting. It's freaking hilarious that little old WSI has caused the Tribune corporation to go into damage control mode.

They really do suck at it too...

Keep those slams... er... watches coming. As the saying goes... "But who is watching the watchers?"

PaleHoseGeorge
08-19-2005, 12:15 PM
Mr. Wycliff took the time to respond to an e-mail that I sent him on this matter (I have forwarded a copy of it to PHG) I post it here and then I'll make a few comments:

My response to Mark, which I'll reprint here for anyone (including Mr. Wycliff) to consider or refute. Thanks, Mark. I'm glad to know my comprehension of what he wrote was correct and my indignation at his outrageous position is justified. At NO TIME has it ever been okay for any media source alleging to remain faithful to journalistic standards, to simply shrug its shoulders at the "inherently conflicted situation" even Wycliff himself admits to. It applies today as much as it did in the "good old days" he cynically refers to.

The guy is a contemptible piece of ****.

And for the record, there never was a "good old days" at the Chicago Tribune. At least you, me and Harry Truman can all laugh at what a buffoon Wycliff admits to being.

George



:cubune

tebman
08-19-2005, 12:50 PM
And for the record, there never was a "good old days" at the Chicago Tribune. At least you, me and Harry Truman can all laugh at what a buffoon Wycliff admits to being.George



:cubune


That's exactly one of the points I made in our Great Debate with George Knue a couple of months ago. The Tribune was created in bias -- it began as a newsletter/flyer for abolitionists which morphed into the Republican Party. Its "glory years," when xenophobe and gasbag Colonel McCormick ran the paper, were its worst: the picture of Truman shown above with the "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline was McCormick's work. Blatant editorializing ala Fox News was done every day on the front page and in its political coverage. After McCormick died in the mid-fifties, the paper softened up politically but stuck to its country-club base in its marketing and promotion. The purchase of the Cubs in 1981 was a natural extension of that.

For Wycliff to cluck-cluck that "moral ambiguity is part of the human condition" is to cop a disingenuous plea. The Tribune knows exactly what it's doing, and if we make them squirm because we call them on it, then we are the ones on the side of the angels.

maurice
08-19-2005, 01:40 PM
there was a time when the majority of newspaper, radio and TV stations were NOT owned by corporations

That's true, but note tebman's point about broader corporate or political influences on the Trib.

Yes, the Trib currently is biased in favor of its own buisiness interests, which are extremely broad. However, even before it evolved into a mega-corporate empire, the Trib was biased in favor of big business and GOP interests generally.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-19-2005, 01:48 PM
That's true, but note tebman's point about broader corporate or political influences on the Trib.

Yes, the Trib currently is biased in favor of its own buisiness interests, which are extremely broad. However, even before it evolved into a mega-corporate empire, the Trib was biased in favor of big business and GOP interests generally.

You and Tebman are missing the point. It's not relevant that Wycliff defends the Cubune's bias, be it for the Cubs, Thomas Dewey, the GOP, or even abolitionism.

What is relevant is that Wycliff defends the Cubune's INDIFFERENCE to do anything about disclosing the bias that he freely admits is inherently conflicted.

I'm guessing Colonel McCormick was embarrassed that his biased newspaper was laughed at by the entire world in 1948. However Don Wycliff is such a dope, he actually thinks it's the READERS' problem to fix!

:roflmao:

voodoochile
08-19-2005, 01:55 PM
That's true, but note tebman's point about broader corporate or political influences on the Trib.

Yes, the Trib currently is biased in favor of its own buisiness interests, which are extremely broad. However, even before it evolved into a mega-corporate empire, the Trib was biased in favor of big business and GOP interests generally.

you and tebman take one more political shot in this thread about the bias the Trib shows for it's corporate interests and you both will receive LONG rips. Am I being clear enough? Maurice, you need to put the politics down if you want to keep posting at WSI, period. I am not going to say it again.

TornLabrum
08-19-2005, 01:55 PM
You and Tebman are missing the point. It's not relevant that Wycliff defends the Cubune's bias, be it for the Cubs, Thomas Dewey, the GOP, or even abolitionism.

What is relevant is that Wycliff defends the Cubune's INDIFFERENCE to do anything about disclosing the bias that he freely admits is inherently conflicted.

I'm guessing Colonel McCormick was embarrassed that his biased newspaper was laughed at by the entire world in 1948. However Don Wycliff is such a dope, he actually thinks it's the READERS' problem to fix!

:roflmao:

In a way it is the readers' problem to fix. I did that several years ago by canceling my subscription. Enough readers do that, and maybe something gets fixed.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-19-2005, 02:07 PM
In a way it is the readers' problem to fix. I did that several years ago by canceling my subscription. Enough readers do that, and maybe something gets fixed.

That works fine for you. However if I'm Don Wycliff, I'm still humiliated when the entire world is laughing at my newspaper -- starting with the newly-reelected President of the United States.

You're free to "fix" the problem for yourself. However Wycliff is a buffoon for thinking he can rely on YOU to do for him what he flatly refuses to do for himself.

:cool:

maurice
08-19-2005, 02:16 PM
You and Tebman are missing the point. It's not relevant that Wycliff defends the Cubune's bias, be it for the Cubs, Thomas Dewey, the GOP, or even abolitionism. What is relevant is that Wycliff defends the Cubune's INDIFFERENCE to do anything about disclosing the bias that he freely admits is inherently conflicted.

I obviously agree. Lord knows that I've ridden the Trib hard on this site. My point is not that Wycliff's claim is relevant. My point is that it's true.

maurice
08-19-2005, 02:19 PM
you and tebman take one more political shot in this thread about the bias the Trib shows for it's corporate interests and you both will receive LONG rips. Am I being clear enough? Maurice, you need to put the politics down if you want to keep posting at WSI, period. I am not going to say it again.

Actually, no. I don't know what you're talking about. You're claiming that I've made multiple political points in this thread or recently?!? That's news to me. Perhaps you have me confused with somebody else.

Maybe we should handle this through PMs.

voodoochile
08-19-2005, 02:26 PM
Actually, no. I don't know what you're talking about. You're claiming that I've made multiple political points in this thread or recently?!? That's news to me. Perhaps you have me confused with somebody else.

Maybe we should handle this through PMs.

Okay, I sent you one.