Letter to Chicago Tribune -- Suggestions? Corrections?

[Tesibria]

Ok -- I plan to submit this letter to the Chicago Tribune today -- does anyone have any suggestions/comments for making it better?

Letter is in response to: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0410210321oct21,1,1702703.column?coll=chi-news-hed

I want to thank Mr. Wycliff, for his October 21 column, "How we came to make that endorsement." It confirmed what many readers suspected: That the Chicago Tribune’s October 17 endorsement of George W. Bush for president was disingenuous and dramatically contrary to the paper’s own stated principles.

Wycliff states that the editorial board is guided by judgment and by the “Tribune manifesto,” which includes the following: "The Tribune believes in the traditional principles of limited government; maximum individual responsibility; and minimum restriction of personal liberty, opportunity and enterprise. It believes in free markets, free will and freedom of expression.”

Oh really? I note with great interest that the endorsement for Bush does not even attempt to defend Bush’s administration with respect to most of these principles, choosing instead to reiterate the standard Bush/Cheney campaign tired slogans and attacks on Kerry. A few examples:

Tribune Principle: “traditional principles of limited government”:
Under the Bush administration, the government has expanded, and government spending has increased even more. A good portion of the “new jobs” included in the Bush/Cheney campaign figures includes newly created government jobs. The single “limit” this administration has placed on government is its ability to pay for its existing programs. While expanding governmental spending and governmental control, this administration has shown remarkable fiscal irresponsibility – and we, the people – will be left with the debts they have created.

Tribune Principle: “minimum restriction of personal liberty”:
Under the Bush administration, government controls over individuals has also expanded dramatically. The Patriot Act has given the government unprecedented power to intrude into the private life of individual citizens, business, and public organizations. And if Bush has his way, they’ll be restricted even more in the next four years. The Bush campaign seeks to amend the Constitution - twice! – not to further limit government, but rather to expand government control over individual liberties. Their proposed “no gay marriage” amendment will usurp state control over what constitutes marriage, and ensure that no state has the right to grant individual liberties to one specifically identified minority group. Their proposed amendment to criminalize abortion (and let’s not kid ourselves – that is the unavoidable outcome of the amendment) will usurp state control over what constitutes what constitutes murder, and ensure that no woman (or girl) can legally obtain an abortion. Whatever one’s views of the “rightness” or “wrongness” on these issues, it is incontrovertible that the Bush platform – if successful -- will increase restrictions on individual liberties.

Tribune Principle: “Free expression”:
Under the Bush administration, the level of censorship and governmental secrecy has risen to levels not experienced in more than 50 years. Bush’s Attorney General has turned the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) upside down, preventing “we, the people” from obtaining information about the government’s actions. For the first time ever, “we, the people” carry the burden of proving that information about what our government is doing and how it is doing it should be released. The actions of the Bush Justice Department in gagging multiple whistleblowers, preventing them from telling “we, the people” about governmental misconduct, and retroactively classifying documents to prevent their disclosure has been so outrageous that even several Republican senators have called for an investigation – and for additional protections for such whistleblowers.

That the Tribune editors failed to even mention these issues which go to the heart of its stated guiding principles is not just a disappointment to its readers. More significantly, it’s an utter failure to apply the basic journalist principles the editors purport to follow.

[lil-petunia]

1. I wish I knew the way to program applause here

that is one fine letter. Much better than mine.

Wonderful!

[Technowitch]

2. This is great as-is

[Martin Eden]

3. Great knock-out punch!

You demonstrated clearly and concisely how the Tribine violates its own stated principles with their endorsement of Bush.

The only advice I might give you would be to shorten it, because they rarely print letters that long. However, do not compromise the clarity of your argument on each main point. You might limit the "we, the people" phrase to a single entry encompassing the points it touches without repreating the phrase (although I must admit that the repetition has a greater impact).

If you can't find a way to shorten the letter (and I think it's great as is) then I would suggest also sending it directly it to Mr. Wicliff. He often includes excerpts from such letters in his column.

[Tesibria]

5. thanx --

and thanx for the suggestion to send it to Wycliff -- I cc'd him on it :)

[Tesibria]

6. He responded

Thank you for writing....dw

[Tesibria]

4. THANK YOU ALL -- letter as sent ....

I got it down to 600 words ...
=================
I want to thank Mr. Wycliff, for his column, “How we came to make that endorsement,” because it confirmed, as this reader suspected it must, that Tribune’s presidential endorsement was both disingenuous and contradictory to the paper’s usual fine journalistic principles.

According to Mr. Wycliff, the board was guided by a Manifesto, which states, “The Tribune believes in the traditional principles of limited government; maximum individual responsibility; and minimum restriction of personal liberty, opportunity and enterprise. It believes in free markets, free will and freedom of expression.” Yet these laudable principles had no place in the Tribune’s endorsement.

The Tribune Principle of Limited Government: Under the Bush Administration, the government, and government spending, has expanded dramatically. Non-defense discretionary spending alone has increased by a whopping by 20.8 percent. Many of the “new jobs” touted by the Bush campaign are new government jobs. Indeed, the only limit placed on the government by the Bush Administration has been the ability to pay for the “war on terror,” and domestic programs including the “No Child Left Behind” program lauded in the endorsement. These actions are directly contrary to the beliefs set forth in the Manifesto – and yet the Tribune endorses George W. Bush.

The Tribune Principle of Minimum Restriction of Personal Liberty: The Bush Administration has shown nothing but disdain for personal liberties - other than the right to own Uzis. The Patriot Act gives the government unprecedented power to intrude into the privacy of individuals, as well as the operations of business and public libraries - and the Bush Administration has shown that it is more than willing to abuse the powers provided under the act. The administration’s efforts to criminalize abortion (an unavoidable outcome of the proposed constitutional amendment) will usurp state control and ensure that no woman can obtain an abortion without risking both her health and her liberty. The proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is yet another example of this administrations’ attempt to usurp state control and slither under the doors of our homes. These actions are directly contrary to the beliefs set forth in the Manifesto – and yet the Tribune endorses George W. Bush.

The Tribune Principle of Freedom of Expression: Under the Bush Administration, the level of governmental secrecy and citizen censorship has risen to levels not experienced since at least the McCarthy era. This administration has been the most secretive in history, turning the Freedom of Information Act inside out, such that the government no longer bears the burden of accountability to its citizens. Instead, as Valerie Plame and Richard Clarke have discovered, the information selected for release is not to ensure government accountability, but rather to punish and harm those who dare exercise their “freedom of expression” to criticize Bush. Bush officials charged those who express questions about its handling of 9/11 with helping terrorists, and those who express question about its handling of the Iraqi war with lack of patriotism. They have gone to court to prevent whistleblowers from “expressing” concerns over documented governmental misconduct. They have prevented the press from showing the dead and wounded soldiers returning from Iraq. They have created “free speech” zones, herding protesters into pens far away from the President, a tactic blatantly designed to discourage free expression and to limit press coverage of any such dissenting views. These actions are directly contrary to the beliefs set forth in the Manifesto – and yet the Tribune endorses George W. Bush.


The Tribune’s refusal to address and acknowledge these issues is a grave disappointment to its readers and constitutes a fundamental failure to abide by the principles of its own Manifesto.