Chicago Tribune Feeling Heat Over Bush Endorsement

The Chicago Tribune has apparently received over 2400 letters and emails from people who are furious over their recent endorsement for President.  The Tribune insisted that, though they have endorsed every Republican candidate for President since 1872, they are not strictly partisan.  Instead, they said that

The Tribune believes in the traditional principles of limited government; maximum individual responsibility; and minimum restriction of personal liberty, opportunity and enterprise. It believes in free markets, free will and freedom of expression.

This makes one wonder just what criteria the Tribune uses to consider these factors.  Has Bush shown any inclination towards limited government?  Have they shown any restraint when it comes to spending?  Have they read the recent civil rights report on this administration?  Have they seen the 1st Amendment zones set up outside Bush's speeches?  The questions could continue ad infinitum.

I have to say that I wasn't surprised when the Tribune endorsed Bush, but this is one of the weakest explanations I have ever read.  Though additional pressure is unlikely to get the Tribune to change their endorsement, perhaps it might give them pause before they reflexively endorse the Republican candidate in 2008.

You can reach the public editor at [e-mail]

•  WHAT?!

  The Tribune believes in the traditional principles of limited government; maximum individual responsibility; and minimum restriction of personal liberty, opportunity and enterprise. It believes in free markets, free will and freedom of expression.

  --------------------

  Tell me again, why the hell are they endorsing Bush?

  by Tsarrio on Thu Oct 21, 2004 at 09:26:03 AM PDT

  •  Some people

    just don't get sarcasm.

    by Ralph on Thu Oct 21, 2004 at 09:36:21 AM PDT

•  If people live in circulation area

  they should write or email Tribune.  Cancel subscription, or say they're going with the Sun-Times (I think that's the rival).  Circulation matters to the business guys, because it matters to the ad buyers.  Plus, so-called journalists don't like having it pointed out that they're tools.

  by demokath on Thu Oct 21, 2004 at 09:26:31 AM PDT

  •  The Sun-Times is the rival in Chicago

    I don't believe the Sun-Times has yet made their endorsement.  I have no idea which way they will go, but one hopes they will endorse Kerry.  At the very least, they have to be aware of the controversy over the Trib's endorsement.

    by patagonia on Thu Oct 21, 2004 at 09:32:41 AM PDT

    •  The Sun-Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch

      Enough said.

      by tyronen on Thu Oct 21, 2004 at 11:21:14 AM PDT

      •  asdf

        The Sun-Times is owned by Hollinger.  I've never seen anything that says Hollinger is owned by News Corp.

        by patagonia on Thu Oct 21, 2004 at 12:22:53 PM PDT

  •  Pulling ads

    Pulling ads does it more than subscriptions...they know that fluctuates...boycotting local companies that advertise in the Trib would do the trick

    by TexasDemocrat on Thu Oct 21, 2004 at 09:40:03 AM PDT

  •  I'm a Correspondent

    of the Editorial Page Editor at the Trib, Bruce Dold, who wrote back to me after I informed him that I was cancelling my Trib subscription after the endorsement (he was "disappointed" to hear the news).  Here's a portion of my letter to him:

    "It is interesting to note that, in your endorsement, the words "Abu Ghraib" did not appear.  Neither did the word "environment."  Or "social security."  Or "deficit."  Or "Osama bin Laden."  You mentioned "jobs" exactly once.  Same with "health care."  These are important, necessary issues to be discussed and I believe the reason they were not addressed in your editorial is that Bush's record on all of these issues is indefensible.  Yet...he gets your nod.

    I will continue to read the Trib, Mr. Dold, but I'm going to do it on-line from now on.  I cannot, in good conscience, continue to fund a newspaper who has thrown it's weight behind this dangerous, narrow-minded religious zealot."

    Glad they're feeling the heat.  If you want to write to Bruce (the one REALLY responsible for the endorsement), his e-mail is [e-mail].

    by Cyberactor on Thu Oct 21, 2004 at 09:41:13 AM PDT

•  limited government???

  This is another example of the lunacy of the right.  They claim to support their man because he does this or that when the facts show he does just the opposite.  The govenment hasn't gotten smaller under Bush.  It's gotten bigger.  Go to the GAO website ...

  http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table8

  and see for yourself.  Discretionary spending as a percentage of GNP has gone up every year Bush has been in office.  Contrast this with someone they didn't endorse, Clinton, who oversaw a decrease in discetionary spending every year he was in office.

  by BlogginBob on Thu Oct 21, 2004 at 09:42:41 AM PDT

•  Explaining The Codespeak

  When they say they believe in "free markets" they mean they believe in selling you a line of goods. Bush does this in spades, and so do they.

  by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Oct 21, 2004 at 09:45:40 AM PDT

•  Concord Monitor endorses Kerry!

  yes, they endorsed Gore in 2000, but this is still good news:

  For John Kerry

  "Bush has proven to be neither compassionate nor conservative. He has divided America from its allies and divided Americans one from another. Because he cannot bring himself to admit his mistakes, he cannot learn from them.

  If re-elected, he has promised to steer the same course. That means greater fiscal irresponsibility, further alienation from the world community, a growing burden on the middle class and further despoliation of the environment."

  by GoKeever on Thu Oct 21, 2004 at 09:46:35 AM PDT

•  the trib's editorial yesterday

  They actually devoted their lead editorial yesterday to a defense of Sinclair airing the anti-Kerry propaganda -- part of their reasoning: well, F911 is being shown at libraries, it's only fair for anti-Kerry propaganda to be shown on television.

  They are getting more right-wing and out of touch with their subscription base every moment.

  by lapis on Thu Oct 21, 2004 at 09:54:14 AM PDT