Tribune Decides What Council Shouldn't Address
A very slanted editorial appeared today in the Chicago Tribune blasting Joe Moore for his work on the “Big Box” minimum wage ordinance and the “Foie Gras” ban. In the article it ignores the fact that both of these ordinances passed the city council, not only with a majority, but also with a significant majority of the members voting in favor. These are not ordinances that are unpopular with the body. Even after heavy lobbying, bashing the ordinance for weeks, and vetoing the “Big Box”, it still enjoys the support of a significant majority of the Alderman. Of note is the fact that of the three Daley was able to switch over to uphold his veto, two are H.D.O. owned and operated Aldermen and the third is increasingly looking like she has some serious moral and ethics issues.
But even if you feel that the two Moore ordinances are insignificant, misguided, and/or inappropriate for a local city council to consider, ask yourself this: Who is it that is really driving the foie gras to be a day to day story? Here are the facts. A quick search of the Sun-Times website shows that since September 7 the Sun-Times has printed 9 stories about foie gras. I can tell you that Joe Moore has initiated two press conferences on the issue during the entire life of this issue, once for the initial vote and once when it became clear that it was going to be considered for repeal by Ald. Natarus and Ald. Stone. What is fascinating is the number of times the paper who finds this issue so incredibly inappropriate has done a story related to this issue. The number of time the Chicago Tribune has written something about Foie Gras during this same period of less than a month is 33. It was reported on WBEZ’s 848 program that on the day the ban went into effect that the Chicago Tribune covered the story that day with 6 reporters. That sounds like a major news story, not something insignificant. I think it is clear that the Tribune is using this issue and “big box” to drive its own agenda forward.
Ask yourself this, “What right does the Tribune have to decide what is an appropriate for the City Council?” Where is their objectivity? There is none, and that is my point. Because it is an editorial it doesn’t require objectivity. But as a reader you should know that it is opinion, an opinion that is not any more important or significant than your own. You should understand that they do have an agenda and it has been much the same agenda for a very long time. It is a pro-establishment, pro-big business, pro-Republican/Bush, pro-big guy, and a pro-conservative agenda. The 49th Ward is none of those things and neither is most of the city. If you are not Republican, if you’re not conservative, if you live in the city rather than the suburbs, if you are a progressive, a Democrat, a liberal, pro-worker and pro-union person you should be looking elsewhere for leadership and opinion on these issues.
There are some problems that need to be addressed in the ward. Many issues have already been addressed and resolved, but even when those few items mentioned in the editorial are resolved, there will be others to replace them. The ward will never be perfect so there will always be another issue in front of any Alderman. Ward issues are being addressed. That doesn’t mean that nothing beyond the boundaries of the Ward should ever be addressed. That is simply what the Chicago Tribune would like. That doesn’t make it true nor does it make the way things should be done.
Do you care about these issues? Do you think they should never be discussed at the city council? I have to agree with you who have said that the Tribune is being a bully using its big stick to try and force public opinion in its direction. There are several issues they are championing. Let's see how it works out when we, not the editorial board members have the final say.
