Wondering whom the New York Times intends to endorse for president? A string of editorials published since the conventions ended may have tipped its hand:
The Chicago Tribune is a different story. Against the Times‘s seven editorials since the convention commenting on any of the candidates, I’ve spotted just two in the Tribune, both about Palin. They were as two-fisted as the Venus de Milo.
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
And in conclusion, “There are plenty more questions that deserve answers. And if Palin can handle them with confidence and skill, she can do herself a world of good among voters who need proof that she can grow quickly into the responsibilities she seeks. It’s a challenging assignment for someone suddenly thrown on to the national political scene.
Furthermore, Obama’s a hometown guy the Tribune knows well and, if past editorials are any indication, greatly admires. In January, endorsing Obama for the Democratic nomination, the Trib editorial page called him “the rare individual who can sit in the U.S. Senate yet have his career potential unfulfilled…. The professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish Barack Obama. We endorse him convinced that he could lead America in directions that the other Democrats could not.”
But whatever “consensus” existed for Bush four years ago was unenthusiastic, I heard then, and I doubt there’s any at all for McCain in 2008. Bruce Dold still leads the editorial board, but today a new publisher, a new editor, and new owners are reckoning the Tribune‘s best interests. (There’s also no longer a public editor.) And, of course, we have two new candidates.
Care to comment? Find this column at chicagoreader.com. And for more on the media, see Michael Miner’s blog, News Bites.
