I enjoy writers in both papers. I get my national and international news elsewhere. The Trib used to absolutely thump the S-T on the comics pages, but “Raising Hector” has lowered the Tribune’s average down to S-T levels.
But despite parity elsewhere, there can be no doubt that the Tribune’s television critic, Maureen Ryan, is in a different class than Doug Elfman in the Sun-Times.
So, in overtime, the nod goes to the Trib.
- ChiCountryGuy - Thursday, May 31, 07 @ 10:20 am:
Tribune, SunTimes endorsements of candidates lack commonsense and sufficient explanation. Take a look at their endorsement of Stroger, ’nuff said.
I have to go with the Trib. The writing is just much better…plus they tear Blago apart. The Sun Times is good if you want some light entertainment. Neither is good for international news-you have to go with the New York Times on that.
- ElijahLovejoy - Thursday, May 31, 07 @ 10:23 am:
Tribune — usually larger, more absorbent. soaks up spills better, More coupons
I subscribe to both papers because I feel it is important to support “print” journalism. I’m glad Chicago still has two papers.
I think the Sun Times does a better job on “Chicago” political stories. Carol Marin and Mark Brown are clearly the best columnists in Chicago. Although, Kadner and McQueary would be in contention if they were in a “Chicago” paper.
I’ve always gotten the sense that the Tribune would like to move out to Naperville and rename itself the “Chicagoland Tribune”. That way John Kass could save himself on the commute to various downtown steakhouses.
- Jacques Strappe - Thursday, May 31, 07 @ 10:30 am:
Tribune. And Daily Herald. And CapFax.
I know people like to rag on it, but the Trib is the closest thing to an NYT of the Midwest we have. As a suburban dweller, Daily Herald covers state govt. news from a suburban perspective, so I get to figure out how my region is being screwed or rewarded, depending…
I favor the Sun-Times but it was better politically when Steve Neal was alive and writing. Carol Marin and Mark Brown always want to find the “stink” in local politics and Steve Neal was a much better informative journalist.
Tribune. They run Doonesbury and Dilbert. I have my priorities.
For a city like Chicago, we have pretty bad local coverage. Neither paper does much with local issues, which is unfortunate (although Blair Kamin’s articles are worth reading, and I hear that the Sun-Times does a decent job of covering Springfield).
Both papers do a terrible job of reporting on the local food scene (I suspect that Phil Vettel would give three stars and a glowing review to the local McDonald’s).
It is not just consumers on utilities that the Tribune despises.
The Tribune also loathes anything involving unions, to the extent that they endorsed Natarus over Reilly. That endorsement of Natarus was a low point for a paper that claims to desire clean government.
I think they both kind of stink. Their some good writers on both papers, sure, and the Trib wil usually have a one or two really great in-de[th stories a year, but they’re dinosaurs. The daily political reporting here is far more interesting and far more in depth than anything on either paper, and they have no excuse. Rich Miller is one guy, yet manages to post several entries a day. It’s not like the Trib and Sun Times don’t have reporters covering Springfiield and Chicago politics.
The way the Trib and the Sun-Times cover Obama and Daley respectively says a lot. Both papers have relished their role as part of the Obama hype juggernaut, but both papers have enthusiastically pushed stories about the shocking revelations from Obama’s past, be it Rezko or whatever. With Daley, an early commentator pointed out the obsession with corruption at the Trib, yet really refuse to hold the Mayor accountable. And some of those Sun-Times columnists just love to play around with the folks at City Hall.
I’m ranting, but I just feel like with these papers, and so much of the older media, they stopped doing real journalism and just focused on selling papers.
- Jake from Elwood - Thursday, May 31, 07 @ 11:49 am:
I subscribe to the Tribune on Sundays only. Everything else is read online, including the newspaper websites.
It’s like comparing apples and oranges. One is a real paper, respected worldwide (the Trib), the other a nice, local rag. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve nothing against the Sun-Times. It’s just they are in two different leagues in terms of what they can and do offer readers.
On a side-note, congratulations Rich for getting a shout-out on Newsbusters as Illinois’ best political site.
Tribune and the News Sun…the combo provides a fairly comprehensive mix of national, state and local news for the northern suburbs. I think the Daily Herald is a waste of space…it tries to be too much and ends up doing nothing.
The Trib’s got the ST beat on analysis, big trend stories, comprehensive coverage. They’ve got the money to do it.
But on just straight out, breaking investigative journalism in the political sphere, the Sun-Times more than holds its own. It wins. Brown, Marin, McKinney, Speilman, Novak, etc. tie or beat the Trib on that with about a 10th of the manpower.
Plus, Sun-Times reporters aren’t afraid to admit that their story’s only worth 300 word sometimes.
I agree with anon409’s assessment, but I want to add Chris Fusco to the list. Great investigative reporter. The Sun-Times is lucky to have him. Loved his piece recently on the veteran affairs liaison in Pat Quinn’s office who was let go.
ST wins on city/county coverage although I find Marin and Brown less than insightful. Both papers have few “up and coming” reporters with both writing and investigative skills. Zorn, Kass and Steinberg are equally lame … Zay Smith may be the wittiest writer currently on the scene. For serious and comprehensive coverage for political junkies, it’s strictly on line with Capitol Fax blog … CS Monitor .. W Post and NY Times. And Rich, Paul is doing a terrific job. Congratulations to you both for your current Springfield coverage — it’s the only breaking news “work in progess” information available in the state.
Neither. Both are garbage (shallow, inaccurate, biased, etc.).
- Captain America - Thursday, May 31, 07 @ 1:33 pm:
I read both selectively. I think the Sun Times has better political columnists. I concur with those who really miss Steve Neal - but he wasn’t always objective or fair (e.g. Dick Durbin). I think the Tribune has really done an outstanding job advocating for reform of County governmnet the last 4 years. They really wrotw some powerful editorials on County government.
Who can forget the infamous ST publisher decision to endorse Blago rather than Vallas in 2002. We’ve all been paying the price of that decision since 2003
Neither one does that great of job on international and national news sompared to the NYT, but the Tribune is much stronger.
I think it would be tragedy if Chicago were to becme a one newspaper town.
Both could do a much better job on local and state government.
Capital fax definitely fills a real void on State politics - wish I could afford to subscribe.
The Sun-Times’s coverage of the city is better. On the other hand, they continue to employ Mariotti. That ranks with the Tribune’s ‘04 endorsement of Bush as indefensible affronts to journalistic integrity.
Skeeter, I love Phil Vettel, and Boone is right-on with Mariotti. Neither are great. Mark Brown is the best columnist ( aside from Rich ) in the city right now. I used to read the S-T and NYT and skip the Trib but now I’m back to both locals. Just knowing how biased they are on certain points makes it easier to skip those pieces, whether they are editorials or columns or whatever. The Trib has gotten better with their editorials with Bruce there, but…
Living out in the corn fields near Starved Rock, the Trib doesn’t have much news. For some reason, there is a change in the published editions once you get past Marseilles. I have to get the thinner version. I get the Trib for the comics and the cross word puzzle.
Huh? living near the cornfields…that explains his detachment from reality.
- Man Who Grew Up Reading Chicago Today - Wednesday, Jun 6, 07 @ 7:26 pm:
I know it is late but I was away from the computer until now. Tradition is one thing (hence the nickname), but I have to say Sun-Times. They have more of a consistent conservative balance to their liberal columnists with writers such as Mark Steyn, George Will, Betsy Hart and John O’Sullivan. They even ran Pat Buchanan’s column at one time. Although I sometimes agree with columnists such as Chapman (Libertarian? Can’t always tell) and Parker (sometimes hits it out of the park), the Tribune is much more bereft of conservative voices than the Sun-Times is. If John Kass was in the Sun-Times, I would probably never buy the Tribune again; and this is for a myriad of other reasons that I will not detail here–they run the gamut from bad reporting to biased reporting (fairness:sometimes it is wire services) to illusory, non-solution editorial stances (fairness: it is a committee) to dropping certain comic strips. (How could Hi and Lois be controversial?) Like all readers of any columnist, I do not agree with him 100% of the time, but Kass regularly writes effective columns that hit home beyond the political world, as well. The column he wrote after the Virginia Tech shootings hit me especially. I myself played football (no soccer back then) at that park when I was that age. College was years away (or so it seemed)for me and my contemoraries back then, as it is for those kids now. I am sure many parents had to have felt something after reading that. And maybe he was reflecting their own feelings in print as well.