Tribune Public Editor Feels He Has to Justify Kerry Coverage

Don Wycliffe, public editor of the Chicago Tribune, had an amazing column today. Not amazing in its content - but amazing that he felt he needed to address this issue at all.

Apparently a lot of rabid Bush fans from the Land of DuPage, including one Barbara Critton of Naperville, did not like the front page banner headline coverage in the Sept. 21, 2004, Tribune of Kerry's speech on Iraq. Wycliffe's column quotes this woman's phone message:

"Why would you possibly put [Kerry's speech on top] and a huge picture of him and a very small picture of our president who gave a wonderful speech in New Hampshire--why would he be below Kerry? ... Why aren't you fair and balanced like a newspaper should be?"

Anyone note the "fair and balanced" lingo? Mayhap her eyeballs are stuck to FOX News and her brain is leaking out her ears. If she read the editorial pages or John Kass at all, she'd realize that The Trib is on her side .

Wycliff's column continues:

Critton would have made CBS' apology for using phony memos in a story about Bush's Air National Guard service the lead story. Another caller agreed with her and voiced the suspicion that the CBS story, which appeared just below the Kerry story and above the fold, did not lead the paper because it was an embarrassment to the media industry.

Yet another caller felt the story of the beheading of kidnapped American Eugene Armstrong by Islamic militants in Iraq ought to have led the paper. (Incongruously, that same caller lamented all the "good news" stories we let go by.)

I am happy to say to these and all other readers who had a different notion of what should have led the Tuesday front page: You may be right.

He goes on to justify the wholly justifed coverage like this:

Quite simply, [Kerry's speech] was civically more important than any of the others, and the newspaper's civic role is paramount. The Democratic presidential nominee had made a frontal assault on perhaps the single most controversial policy decision of the Republican incumbent, in the hope of forcing the "great national debate on Iraq" that should have been had before the war began.

Come Nov. 2, many Tribune readers are going to have to perform the most important duty of their offices as citizens: They'll vote for a president. They'll be passing judgment on George Bush's decision-making on Iraq, either approving it by voting for him or disapproving by voting for an opponent.

Arguably, from now until Nov. 2, the Tribune and other serious news organizations have no weightier duty than to see that citizens are informed on the key issues of this presidential campaign. Without question, Iraq is one of those.

So there's my take on that Tuesday story and headline. And, I am happy to say, I may be right.

MAY be right?! Harumph! You are right, Don! Good God, the major challenger is addressing the incumbent on the key issue the incumbent is running on! The challenger will likely win the majority of votes in the city and the state (OK, but probably not Naperville). Don't we voters deserve to see this critical coverage dominate the news? After months of coverage in which the RNC and Bush has harped on Kerry's alleged flip-flopping on Iraq, not taking a stand, blah blah blah -- here is Kerry with his point of view. Wouldn't even Republicans in the deep dark bowels of Naperville be interested in that?

Nah - why challenge these folks devoted to "fair and balanced" with reality?
Note: Chicago Tribune links are up for one week. The Tribune requires registration.