When did Chicago Tribune last endorse a Democratic Presidential Nominee?

[LondonReign2]

I can't seem to Google this, but I thought I saw this information on these boards.

Thanks in advance.

[greatauntoftriplets]

1. Never in my memory...

...and I have lived in Chicago for 55 years. Frankly, I doubht that they ever have.

[calico1]

3. Is the Sun Times any better? n/t

[greatauntoftriplets]

5. No.

especially not under the current right-wing ownership.

[calico1]

9. So what is a good Chicago paper? n/t

[greatauntoftriplets]

12. The New York Times???

The Tribune's local coverage is excellent.

[settembrini]

13. The Sun-Times

is worse. I find the Tribune has balanced news reporting, with a slightly more conservative editorial page. The Sun-Times is right wing and worthless for actual news (it is a Hollinger operation). As for columnists, it publishes Novak, and Mark Stein, but does often publish Ivins, Jesse Jackson, and Father Greeley.
But the Sun-Times has the better sports page, hands down, and has Ebert.

[mark414]

2. i don't think ever

i read somewhere they've endorsed repub in every election since 1892...now i don't know how long they've been in circulation, but it can't be much longer than that.

[greatauntoftriplets]

4. The Tribune has been around since the 1850s.

And I still bet they have never endorsed a Democrat for president.

[Norquist Nemesis]

6. 1882

Heard this last weekend on one of the Sunday shows (don't remember which one, but I think it was CNN Late Edition...could be wrong about that).

I distinctly remember it because I was shocked that it's been over 120 YEARS since they did it (and it was for Grover Cleveland).

Mind boggling!

[greatauntoftriplets]

7. I AM surprised!

n/t

[apnu]

16. I'm not...

The Chicago papers suck, they've always sucked, and they will continue to suck. Sorry to the loyal Trib readers out there but it's all a veneer of "stuffy old white guy" that makes the Trib seem like a good paper because they've been around for a long time and have a very beautiful building to crap in.

And the Sun-Times... the 'blue collar paper' has been desperately trying to shed their blue collar-ness and are going for the white collar, Cub fan, crowd. This ad campaign I see on the trains: "the Sun-Times is just 'Brighter'" is, literally, the poster child of that idea.

The truth is, none of the media is completely on our side. Well, maybe the Boston Globe but I have my doubts. Look at the NY Times and the WaPo... its nutty that, in this day and age, 2 of our 3 most famous papers are still drinking kool-aid and aren't aware of it. (The other being the WSJ who actually makes the kool-aid)

Sorry for the rant, but I'm an ex-journalist student, and my naivete was shattered by the Chicago papers. And the others, which are good, don't really have the readership nor the 'respect' that the Trib and Sun-Times has, so I don't include them in my rant.

[KharmaTrain]

21. Spot On...

The Sun-Times has gone to hell under Hollinger. It used to be the blue-collar alternative...catering to the "Studs Terkel Union Democrats" that dominated the city. Now it caters to those yuppies who still subscribe and the big department stores and grocery chains covet. Their "Red Streak"...the Yuppie paper in the city...is even fluffier.

The tradition of local independent media died when the Field family sold to Murdoch and a legacy of great writers from Algren & Royko have passed into oblivion...replaced by fame seeking bylines and TV gigs.

But I think the influence of these papers have been extremely diluted in recent years by cable news and the internet...no longer do we come to them for the news, they have to come to us.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

23. Chicago is a blue city in a blue state so I'm not so sure

what impact Trib endorsements have had on the average voter. I read the Trib online for local coverage and for the pleasure of reading Eric Zorn, an excellent columnist and someone who's on our side (ask Walt Starr). Zorn's comments about the endorsement:

Author and commentator David Corn has written a detailed antidote to the Trib's endorsement of President Bush.
http://www.bushlies.ws/2004/10/in_endorsing_bu.html

Respectfully, I advise those of you who have written to me saying you're cancelling your subscriptions over this endorsement to take a deep breath and remember that it's only an editorial.

It doesn't necessarily (or even probably) reflect the consensus view of the writers and editors who put out the paper every day.

And even if it did, the proof is in our product, our coverage, the range of the commentaries we present.

Judge us on that, please. And do stick around. We need you.

Zorn's blog: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ericzorn/chi-zornlog.story

I don't know what your professors covered but in the days that Chicago had four daily newspapers, only the Trib was conservative enough to get banned from our house - plus they had that ugly, years-long printers' strike. The Chicago American (later Chicago Today), the Sun-Times, and the Chicago Daily News were all more moderate.

I watched the decline of the Sun-Times after the Trib became its only competitor. In an effort to target people who didn't read the Trib their national and international story coverage declined and the quality of the writing became frankly unreadable. I stopped reading it in the 80s and I don't know what it's supposed to be anymore.

I stopped buying the Trib when I got a computer. I read books and magazines on the train.

[Tesibria]

8. I heard that too -- eom

[Walt Starr]

10. Actually, 1872

They endorsed Horace Greeley over Grant due to Grant's corruption.

[Norquist Nemesis]

18. Thank you, WaltStarr! I stand corrected

My IIRC ain't what it used to be. :hi:

[LondonReign2]

11. Thank You

eom

[WoodrowFan]

14. 1882

Since the Presidential elections were in 1880 and 1882 their endorsement in 1882 must not have been worth much! :)


they probably mean 1884. Cleveland beat James G. Blaine of Maine, who was a HUGE crook.

[Norquist Nemesis]

19. WaltStarr and IMRadioactive have it correct at 1872

my mistake. :)

[KharmaTrain]

15. Horace Greeley...1872

No surprise they went with the Chimpster...plus they have a lot of broadcast money riding on his re-selection like Sinclair does.

The surprise in Chicago was the endorsement from the suburban Daily Hearld...that has NEVER endorsed a Democrat and it's condemnation of Bunnypants, from a "true" Conservative viewpoint is damning.

I'm not certain where the Chicago Sun-Times will fall. They'll endorse on Sunday. In 2000 they went with Gore, but with Hollinger in so deep with Likud and this regime, I wouldn't be surprised if they also endorse the boyking.

[settembrini]

22. Nope

Sun-Times endorsed the chimp in 2000. Daily Southtown endorsed Gore. Sun-Times has yet to make an endorsement this year, and almost were unable to (a looming strike was averted at the last minute yesterday).

[apnu]

17. The GOP can trust Tribune support like they can trust WSJ support.

Remember people, this is the paper that famously said "Dewey Defeats Truman"

They also said that Harold Washington would embarrass himself in his run for mayor. And when Harold Washington won in a land slide, the Trib asked him how he won the mayor's office when all the polls showed him to be in the trash bin, Harold quipped: "You didn't bother to poll the South Side"

I don't understand how anybody is surprised by the Tribune's endorsement of Chimpy McDumbass. However, they've been blasted with angry letters and emails about it and the editorial board is wondering how to wash the stench of Bush off their feet.

I believe the Sun-Times has not made an endorsement yet. Well, a Google search turns up nothing on a Sun-Times endorsement.

[Norquist Nemesis]

20. You have a good point about that! Maybe it's really a

good luck charm that they endorsed Bush.