60 Year Subscription Comes To End...Chicago Sun-Times Cancelled

[KharmaTrain]

Here's the letter my wife and I have sent this morning...

To: John Cruickshank
Publisher
Chicago Sun-Times
401 N. Wabash
Chicago, IL 60611
[e-mail]

Dear Mr. Cruickshank,

Nearly 60 years ago, the Sun-Times was founded as an alternative to highly partisan, Tribune. Marshall Field felt readers needed a voice that reflected the common sense values of Chicagoans as opposed to being a mouthpiece of a political party or pushing their political agenda under the guise of "news". My parents and grandparents....some of those working class stiffs, became highly loyal Sun-Times readers. For almost all my life, my days have started with the Sun-Times, but this is soon to end.

I found today's Jack Higgins editorial cartoon to be extremely offensive. This was an overt and slanderous attack on Mrs. Heinz-Kerry as well as bringing up uncalled for images of Chappaquidick. The cartoon was based on comments Mrs. Heinz (and she was Mrs. Heinz at the time, the wife of the Republican Senator of Pennsylvania) about Ted Kennedy...remarks surely Mrs. Heinz-Kerry hasn't made in recent years.

It's highly doubtful your paper would ever run an editorial cartoon featuring George W. Bush's wife in a similar situation or publish oe that put Mr. Chenney in that car with the words he uttered on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

While I've enjoyed Mr. Higgins in the work (a copy of some of his finest pieces from the the past decade decorate our refigerator), this cartoon resembled the worst of "the politics of personal destruction". I thought both Mr. Higgins and the Chicago Sun-Times was above this level of jingoism. Unfortunately, I without a retraction and/or appology by yourself and/or Mr. Higgins about this cartoon, the time has finally come that I take those free Chicago Tribune trial subscriptions and only check out the Sun-Times via the internet.

This is an extremely difficult letter to write, since it's like losing an old trusted friend, but I feel I can't support with my subscription dollars a newspaper that presents such offensive material.


Repectfully,

<snip>

P.S., this letter or a revision goes out registered mail tomorrow morning along with a fax. It'll be interesting if we get a response.

Cheers!

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. Two Thumbs Up!!!

n/t

[wolfgirl]

2. Bless you n/t

[Catch22Dem]

3. Let us know how it goes

Is Cruikshank a common name? I had a supervisor named Dave Cruikshank in the Air Force.

[Stephanie]

4. I"d like to see the cartoon

Can you post or link?

[KharmaTrain]

6. Here Ya Go...

[Stephanie]

Good god!

That's despicable.

[WolverineDG]

13. did they change the cartoon

all i'm seeing is the jack ryan one, which as a texan, doesn't make sense to me. :shrug:

dg

[KharmaTrain]

15. Hmmm...

Here's wndycty's post from earlier and the cartoon is definitely there...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2129313

[WolverineDG]

23. i caught that

then went back to the sun-times homepage & sure 'nuff, they replaced the jack ryan cartoon w/the actual cartoon that ran. i still sent my letter to the editor about it anyway, because i DID see the jack ryan cartoon on both the homepage & wndycty's post.

they DID change it, then they changed it BACK. :grr:

dg

[ugarte]

5. A tough call. I've never read the Sun-Times

I know how you feel, but if I canceled all the papers and magazines that published mindless right-wing drivel, I'd be left reading Mother Jones.

[wndycty]

7. I can vouch for the Sun-Times rightward slant. . .

. . .in 2001 when Hillary was booed at the 9/11 event at MSG a friend of mine who is a columnist wrote about it, the next day Hillary received a warm welcome at another 9/11 event and he did not. When I wrote my friend and asked why he did not mention Hillary's warm event, he wrote that the editors of the Sun-Times encourage any articles that put Bill and Hill in a negative light. I have saved the e-mail forever and will not share it to protect my friend, who is in fact very liberal.

[KharmaTrain]

14. I Have A Good Idea Who You Are Referring To...

For the most part the writing in the Sun-Times and a majority of its columnists are realists and "liberal"...productst of that dreaded educational system that forces people to think for themselves.

Honestly, I know it's important to protect a friend, but it's this silence that has led to the media being dominated by the Reich wing. I know of reporters (who claim to be "liberal" when you get a drink or two in 'em) who have been promoted through keeping silent and producing "hit pieces" that they feel their bosses will like.

It's time we make some noise about this and start to level a very uneven playing field.

[wndycty]

22. Well this is not Roeper or Ebert. . .

. . .so its someone you might not expect.

[blm]

8. The blame rests on the op ed page and managing editor, as well.

.

[NJCher]

9. that is a letter that will touch a heart

All newspapers like to think of their readers as a sort of "family."

Very well written. Designed to touch on the emotional level.

Please keep us posted about any response you get.


Cher

[LibDemAlways]

10. I cancelled my LA Times

subscription back in 2000 after they did a hatchet job on Hillary paired with a puff piece on Laura Bush on the same page. I wrote a letter similar to yours explaining why I was cancelling. I actually received a call from the office of the editor asking me to reconsider. I explained it was too late - that they had lost credibility and that I didn't want my money supporting repuke propaganda. I think it was the right decision, too. The Michael Ramirez cartoons they run on their op-ed page are a disgrace.

[wndycty]

11. Also I have it on good authority. . .

. . .that Higgins often using his cartoons to carry out orders from higher ups. Another friend of mine who served as press secretary for one our mayors (not telling) says that half of Higgins cartoons are created to reflect the views and biases of the editorial board.

[blm]

12. I would cc your local news networks, too.

That would REALLY increase the impact.

[MajorFlaw]

16. While I agree with your sentiment, I wouldn't use the word, "jingoism"

as it doesn't apply.

[mike_c]

17. with all due respect...

...might I suggest that you reconsider? You might simply arrive at the same conclusion, and nothing's lost, but it does seem odd to cancel your subscription solely on the basis of a single cartoon, especially since you acknowledged that you have enjoyed the cartoonist's work previously. You'll likely enjoy it again. Has the paper become more generally partisan otherwise?

Political cartoons, by their very nature, poke at social and institutional sore spots, sometimes in bad taste. The cartoon you describe sounds like it was very low-brow, but is that matched by an equally partisan and attack-dog mentality across the editorial board? If it is, then by all means buy your bird-cage liner elsewhere, but if not, cancelling your subscription over a single cartoon seems rather a knee-jerk reaction. How about a letter that simply conveys your distaste for the cartoon itself?

[Frances]

18. Laura Bush ran a stop sign and killed someone

Perhaps you would want to say that you will renew your subscription if there is a cartoon with a reference to Laura's killing someone with her car.

Teddy's accident and Laura's accident are very similar. People need to know that.

On edit: I think someone at DU said that the person Laura killed was a former boyfriend. The gossip about Teddy is that he was having an affair with the woman who died in his car. So there are possibly even more parallels.

[KharmaTrain]

20. There's A Line That's Been Crossed Here...

Yes, political cartoons generally are considered satire, and for the most part that is exactly how I view them. I can laugh at a funny Clinton cartoon if it's done well. But this is not a gentle jab at a news headline or pundit-buzz item...this was references that showed hate and a mean-spiritedness that I hadn't seen in Higgins before.

I'd gladly discuss with someone from that publication more reasons why we have cancelled, but just need to get to a pair of eyes, a decission maker and see if there's a response. This is intended to establish dialogue and see what happens from there.

I'm not looking for a LTTE here, but to express genuine outrage at what both my wife and I see as a real right wing slant in this publication of late and not worthy of the $300 or so dollars a year I spend on our subscription.

[mike_c]

24. then if I were you...

...I'd focus my letter PRIMARILY on the RW editorial slant and simply cite the cartoon as the latest example, perhaps as the straw that broke the camel's back. That will likely be much more credible-- and attention getting-- than a letter that focuses on the cartoon itself. Think of it his way: EVERY political cartoon likely offends SOMEONE, so editors accept the risk of running cartoons as part of the cost of having an op-ed page. They're likely prepared to lose an occasional subscriber as a result. Buh-bye! On the other hand, being perceived as having an unbalanced general editorial policy is much more dangerous to the paper because it threatens to alienate whole blocks of readership-- the reason I'd sooner open a vein than buy a Washington Times. A letter focusing on that perception will likely have more impact.

on edit: obviously, I'm not familiar with the Chicago ST, and several other replies to your thread have characterized it as a RW rag, so don't take my comments as excuses for the paper's behavior....

[KharmaTrain]

26. I Very Much Appreciate Your Comments

My hopes are that bringing to light what is perceived by long time readers as recent hard shift to the right from this paper and to see if there's a response. Just a response.

From there I'd gladly go chapter/verse, if so asked for to show where I see such bias. A good example is the selection of their syndicated columnists in Op/Ed. This is Bob Novakula's home, but he's never been considered really Chicago, but also in the same edition were editorials by Betsy Hart, George Will & Mark Steyn...a piece by Kondracke (far from a Democrat in my book) and William O'Rourke...the lone truely Democrat perspective in the paper.

Yes, the intention is to show that bias and do so with their own words and actions that many Chicagoans aren't really familiar with. Most here read the paper for Ebert or Roeper or the coupons.

I do appreciate your critiques and a reason I'm letting this letter gestate for a few hours before it's sent (fortunate it's Sunday), but a letter will be sent with the intentions of seeing if there's a response and, if possible, to share it with others here and other places to document how this paper can justify it's current position and credibility.

[devinsgram]

19. Thank you

for sharing this with us and hopefully they will learn that this kind of news will only hurt them in the long run. They are attacking the wrong people.

[LTR]

21. CST has become a rag

The only thing it has really going for it is Roger Ebert.

Screw 'em - Get all of Ebert here:

http://www.suntimes.com/index/ebert.html

Just use this direct link, skip all the other RW bullshit.

My local paper (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel) is somewhat tolerable. Sure do miss the Minneapolis Star Tribune though.

[TryingToWarnYou]

25. One little suggestion...send it to their entire board of directors

NT