Sammy's Doping and the Tribune's Duping

While the Tribune has been pandering to Jay Mariotti by recommending a sensitivity specialist, a sports psychologist, and an advice columnist for Ozzie Guillen ("Dealing With Ozzie's Demons," June 25), we think it remains much more crucial for Chicago that the entire Tribune staff spend some time with a journalism ethicist.

Here's just one reason why: The Tribune has been suspiciously silent about former Tribune employee Sammy Sosa, who may have bilked Cubs fans out of millions of dollars while enjoying his misbegotten fame in our city.

One former teammate of Sammy's -- and therefore also a former Tribune employee -- has not been so silent. In March, former Cubs reliever Turk Wendell had this to say to Daily Herald columnist Barry Rozner:

“Everybody in Chicago knew what was going on, just like everybody in baseball knows about Bonds. The coaches knew. So did the managers and owners. How could they not know?"

Indeed. How could they not know? Tribune employees like to trumpet the difference between the "Chicago Tribune" and its master corporation, "Tribune," as if the sheer curtain between those offices magically excuses their daily lapses into unethical muck. But it seems to me that the corporation that controls most of our city's media shares the same obligations to this vast audience as the journalists they employ. And still, here we have one of their former employees saying the owners knew Sammy was juicing. How could they not know? And if the owners of your newspaper know something like that, how could the reporters down the hall not know?

Two reporters for the San Francisco Chronicle have been all over Barry Bonds, but it looks pretty clear by now that the Chicago Tribune has issued Sammy Sosa a free pass. If Wendell's allegations are correct, Sosa essentially committed fraud against the people of Chicago, taking millions from them as he did so. Maybe that's how the Chicago Tribune thinks business is supposed to be done, because now they're defrauding us out of a thorough investigation of Sosa's career here.

Ozzie's demons? What about Sammy's dope? What about Tribune coverups? Any reporters on that staff?

Not to Be Outstunk, Tribune Soils Itself

With the blowup between Ozzie Guillen and Jay Mariotti occurring between the White Sox and the Sun-Times, the Chicago Tribune could have taken the high road -- but no, if there's any media unfairness being dealt in this town, you can count on the Tribune to set the standard.

By publishing the phrase "Dealing with Ozzie's Demons" in a blaring headline on its Sunday sports page, the Tribune concretizes its interpretation of events, the storyline that it will now impose upon Chicago forever hereafter. This is how storylines get set in this town, regardless of how inaccurate they are (such as the self-serving storyline that the decaying Tribune property known as Wrigley Field is a "sacred garden" or that U.S. Cellular Field is a dangerous place, even though baseball fans in Chicago only seem to get shot to death after attending Cubs games).

Ozzie Guillen may have made a terrible mistake, but his mistake shows a lack of restraint, not the presence of "demons" (Tribune had to reach all the way back to the Dark Ages for that insightful explanation). By portraying Ozzie as having demons, the Tribune locates the whole problem inside Ozzie, effectively endorsing Mariotti's view of the incident, which effectively endorses Mariotti's abusive style of journalism. That's almost as bad as employing Mariotti. Normally you don't see the New York Times trying to outsleaze the New York Post, you don't see the London Times vying to be as petty as the Sun, you don't see Peter Jennings emulating Jerry Springer. Only in Chicago will you find your major dailies competing to be the worst.

Where's our good newspaper?

Mariotti, Magazines, Walmart Journalism, and Cub$ Worth

We don't condone Ozzie Guillen's use of the word "fag," we're glad Ozzie apologized, but we think one more thing needs to happen: the Sun-Times needs to fire Jay Mariotti. Mariotti writes with the singular aim of pissing people off, his frequent contradictions show that he'll write almost anything to accomplish that aim, and occasionally he succeeds -- as he did with Ozzie -- in inciting someone to make a mistake. But Mariotti contributes nothing positive to this community. A columnist who will write anything just to anger people is a vile columnist. You know how we feel about the Tribune and its Walmart-style journalism. There is one good thing we can say about the Tribune: at least they don't have Mariotti. He's the worst. Can him, Sun-Times. Be the bright one.


Tribune's Favorite Tribune-Owned Magazine

We shouldn't be suprised that the self-promoting Tribune listed its own Chicago Magazine as one of the 50-best magazines in the English-speaking world (Tempo, June 15), but we're still disappointed. What a joke. If you consider whether Chicago Magazine earns the name "Chicago," it's hard to conclude it's a good magazine. The city portrayed in its pages has little to do with the city where we all live and work. Chicago Magazine promotes a select culture -- the culture most profitable to the Tribune and the Cubs -- and it neglects the vast majority of people who live in this town. Reading Chicago Magazine, you'd think our population consists only of the people who shop at Whole Foods.

Oh, it's true that Chicago Magazine has bent to criticism enough to include a token South Side story and a token minority story in each issue (Editor Richard Babcock was particularly excited about last year's profile of Kenny Williams, which killed both of those birds with one stone), but token gestures at inclusion cannot produce an excellent city magazine.

It's also true that Chicago Magazine occasionally does an important story -- such as its examination of the Wilmington Police bungling of the Riley Fox murder investigation -- but why does it only seem to do important stories about nice white folks? Why not spend some time investigating the lives and struggles and deaths of African American children in Englewood too? Why not cover Chicago, Chicago Magazine? Not your pretty Wrigleyville-and-the-burbs notion of Chicago, but real Chicago.

We can only conclude the Tribune included Chicago Magazine in its listings to save itself embarrasment because it felt it had to include New York magazine. And by the way, the Tempo feature did not disclose that the Tribune owns Chicago Magazine. So you know where Chicago Magazine learned its bad behavior: like parent, like child.


Get All Your News in One Big Box

One of our devoted readers in the Tribune Tower wrote to say she doesn't understand why we refer to the Tribune's peculiar coverage of Chicago as "Walmart journalism." It's like this: Walmart brings everything you need under one roof. You can get your groceries, your pharmaceuticals, your gardening supplies, your appliances, your clothes, your guns, you name it, all from one source. Diversity obviously declines, and quality tends to decline as well.

The Tribune has attempted to do the same with information: your newspaper, your television, your radio, your city magazine, your local cable channel, your cable sports channel, your Spanish newspaper, your dot-coms, the rag you read on the el, all from the same source. They all share information, they all promote each other, and they all portray a peculiar version of Chicago that favors their own profitablility. Tribune executives never made it a secret that they bought the Cubs so all those media venues also have Tribune-owned content.


Cub$ Worth vs. Wrigley Worth

Thanks to the reader who alerted us to this story in the Tribune-owned LA Times on June 21: Times business writer Michael Hiltzik notes that the Tribune has a valuable investment in the Cubs. Purchased in 1981 for $20.5 million, the Cubs are now worth an estimated $455 million, according to Forbes. But Hiltzik leaves an important question unanswered: How much of that value consists of the property value of Wrigley Field? The Cubs are one of the few teams in baseball that owns its stadium and operates without any stadium debt. The White Sox, according to Forbes, are worth $315 million. Their stadium, which is owned by the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority, is worth about $210 million, based on its construction and improvement costs (and not including the development value of its parking lots along the Dan Ryan Expressway). Those figures put matters in context, putting the Sox and their stadium at a value of $525 million, about $70 million more than the Cubs. This is not to say that the Cubs weren't a good investment from a financial, if not a journalistic, point of view. It just makes us wonder: If this is a Cubs town, and Wrigleyville is baseball heaven, why do the Bridgeport Sox command so much more value?

Conflict of Interest 102

Today Tribune business writer Phil Rosenthal vents his troubled conscience in a long column about the trouble Tribune writers have covering the troubled Tribune Corp. The column includes this statement:

Whatever our loyalty to the newspaper, our relationship to Tribune Co. management, no matter what critics think, is hardly one of unwavering affection. One colleague of mine, not covering the story, recently confided that the decline in Tribune's share price in recent years has meant he has lost more money from his once-sizable retirement investment in the stock than he has earned on the job.

Chicago Tribune reporters are rewarded for their service with Tribune Corp. stock, which means Chicago Tribune reporters have a direct investment in the success not only of the Tribune Corp, but also of the Chicago Cubs.

'nuff said?

If not, please see Ethical Disclosure 101.

Tribtanic Meets Iceberg

In the Century just past, while the Chandler family was building the Los Angeles Times into one of America's finest newspapers, the Tribune Corporation was turning the Chicago Tribune into the World's Greediest Newspaper, the Walmart of American journalism. By owning newspapers, television stations, radio stations, dot-coms, a baseball team, you name it, in the same market, the Tribune Corp. figured it could cross-promote itself to success, quality be damned. Now, the Chandler family is out to reform the Tribune.

They're not doing it for the reasons we would like, such as ethics, responsibility, equality, principles and stuff, they're just doing it because they think the Tribune's management is inept. But at least they're doing it.

The Chandler Trust acquired a 12 percent interest in the Tribune Corp. when the latter swallowed the LA Times in 2000. Now the Chandlers hope to bust the Tribune Corporation apart, according to a letter sent to Tribune directors this week:

As you know, the basic strategic premise of the Tribune/Times Mirror merger was that the cross–ownership of multiple premium major media properties in the nation’s three largest media outlets would provide a platform to produce above-industry performance for both its newspaper and broadcast assets and for strong growth in interactive and other media opportunities. This strategy has failed and the regulatory change anticipated at the time of the merger to make legal the permanent cross-ownership of certain of key assets has not occurred. Over the past two years, Tribune has significantly underperformed industry averages and there is scant evidence to suggest the next two years will be any different. Clearly, it is time for prompt, comprehensive action.

The Chandlers want the Tribune Corp. to break apart its newspaper and television properties and dispose of some or all of its properties. They've also called for a special committee to take over management of the firm. We volunteer to serve. Certainly there should be a seat at the table for Sox fans. No one knows the backhand of Walmart journalism better than we do.

When Dugout=Sales and Bullpen=Newsroom

Why is it news that the Cubs are using a cell phone to call their bullpen? The Chicago media, on bended knee, are reporting this cute story ad nauseum, but the most important question remains unanswered: why would you use a cell phone to call from one stationary location to another, bouncing the signal off of distant towers, instead of using the wire that already runs between those two locations? A cell phone is just a telephone that can easily be misplaced, fueled by a battery that frequently dies. Is the point of this whole exercise just to generate free advertising for Motorola? Since the Cubs are owned by a media corporation, it seems they can offer free publicity, disguised as news, to any corporation that partners with them."

Welcome to McCormick-Tribune Cubune Watch

I was watching Dan Jiggetts interview a Tribune columnist about the Cubs on Comcast Sportsnet's Chicago Tribune Live when I realized that I was watching one Tribune employee interview another Tribune employee about one Tribune asset on another Tribune asset. Then Jiggetts promoted a poll at Tribune-owned ChicagoSports.com. Shew. Sometimes I wonder if they own the viewer too. I take that back. I know they own a lot of the viewers on the North Side.

Meanwhile, at ChicagoTribune.com, the World's Greediest Newspaper has a front-page promotion (is it news, an ad, both?) for the new McCormick-Tribune Bridgehouse & Chicago River Museum. Wow, another new museum. I haven't yet had a chance to visit the new McCormick-Tribune Freedom Museum.

Museums are great. Chicago is famous for them, tourists love them, and they last a long time, unlike the McCormick-Tribune Printers Row Book Fair, which was over in one weekend. Yes, public institiutions are wonderful, thank you very much for them, but who was it -- Confucius? -- who said, "To give is good. To give anonymously is better"? Can we please have a moratorium on McCormick-Tribune as part of the name of anything? Is it too much to ask the McCormick-Tribune Cubune Empire to show a little class at this late date?

Or we could just get it over with and change the name of the city to the McCormick-Tribune City of Chicago.

It's not hard to see, is it, why sleazy media monopolies like the McCormick-Tribune-WGN alliance are no longer legal in these United States. The task of supplying information to the people, a task crucial to democracy, turns into an incestuous circle of self-promotion.