Hey, remember the time that the New York Times was awash in scandal? Like, good old Jayson Blair, who should've been seen as an obvious fraud when he said there was a 'y' in his name for absolutely no reason. Or the wonderful master of creative "non-fiction," Mr. Rick Bragg, who had us all convinced he grew up in Alabama walking to school uphill both ways, when really he just touched down in a plane there during his childhood. Then, of course, there's my personal favorite, Judith Miller, whose On the Media interview with Bob Garfield is the best laugh I've had in a loooonng time. So there they are, chillin' in their rows of cubicles, and they get the call from Chicago - "Hark! 'Scandal Is Loosening Daley's Grip on Chicago'!"
Well, I have a few teeeeeny, tiny problems with this. The first, but not least, is the old adage, "Don't throw bricks if you live in a glass house" or whatever you might see embroidered on a pillow to that effect. Now, I'm all for investigative journalism, don't get me wrong, but it's so hard to take a publication seriously when it is rife with scandal itself. I still read the Times and I still find it interesting and, for the moment, an essential newssource. But that distinction is slipping, fast.
Second of all, I have a hefty amount of skepticism with regards to the author of the piece, New York Times Chicago bureau chief Jodi Wilgoren (Please see below: Thursday, May 20 2004).
Third, and perhaps the most fundamental problem, the story has been done to death. I hardly believe that people in the country/world have absolutely no idea about scandal rocking Chicago's city hall, and, besides, a lot of places in the country get Chicago newspapers. Plus there's the plain old regular news. The story has been beat to a bloody pulp, and, what, the Times just couldn't resist getting a thumb in the pie? Lame.
And finally, the story isn't really all that great. It's lofty and quasi-historical, and it bites off more than it can chew. Sort of like this blog. And maybe the previous one.
If I haven't adequately explained my position, or if you disagree, too f-ing bad. There's no Blogger Umbudsman. Aw, come off it, I'm kidding. I would love to talk more about this, but I'm afraid I can't tolerate much more of my whining.
[Just another misguided dose of youthful idealism]