Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Pritzker challenges LaHood to defend Medicaid to his constituents
Next Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup
Posted in:
* From a Sun-Times piece entitled “No more editorials at the Sun-Times, but letters, op-eds and columns will continue”…
For more than 75 years, the Sun-Times Editorial Board has been an important voice in Chicago, advocating for the well-being of our city, holding the powerful to account and helping readers understand and navigate the complexities of the news.
We are grateful to Lorraine Forte for serving as editorial board editor since 2018. Forte, along with longtime board member Tom Frisbie and editor/writer Marlen Garcia, have strengthened Chicago with their collective positions on some of our most pressing issues. All recently accepted voluntary buyouts.
As a nonprofit media company, this is an important opportunity for the people of Chicago to become more the voice of Chicago. Beginning today, the Sun-Times will no longer offer editorials. We will, however, continue to publish Letters to the Editor, which we receive in abundance every week and run in print and online. We will also continue to publish op-eds and guest columns from community members, leaders and scholars.
In addition, we are committed to providing our own journalists, including Rummana Hussain, Neil Steinberg, Lee Bey and Alden Loury, space to write from their personal experiences, points of view and subject matter expertise. Natalie Moore’s monthly column will continue as well. […]
This change does not mean we are retreating from public dialogue or silencing debate. Rather, we’re acknowledging that the voices we need to uplift in Chicago are the voices of the people.
* The Question: Do you agree with this decision? Please explain your answer in comments. Thanks.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Mar 24, 25 @ 11:21 am
Previous Post: Pritzker challenges LaHood to defend Medicaid to his constituents
Next Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
On the one hand, saving reporters’ jobs by sacrificing opinion jobs is quite understandable. On the other hand, an important voice is being lost.
I, personally, lean more toward agreeing with saving reporters’ jobs, even though I had a great experience working with those editorial board members (and their predecessors).
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 24, 25 @ 11:24 am
Completely disagree with this decision.
The Times made a very bold change in how it was funded and I feel like they need to give their new approach more time to work.
In a state as large as Illinois we should be able to support a quality newspaper like the times. It is one of the few news sources that that that you can go to that gives you timely, professional and objective news.
Yes, I know things a bit bumpy right now, but reducing these important sections is not the way to go.
Comment by Back to the Future Monday, Mar 24, 25 @ 11:44 am
I understand why the paper made the decision. That said, editorials are valuable as they provide an insight where the opinions of a paper/organization are explicitly represented - you know like when the editors wish a hurricane would hit Chicago.
Comment by We’ll See Monday, Mar 24, 25 @ 11:45 am
Editorials are just a persons opinion and you know,what they say about opinions…the,world will spin on fine without them editorials. Younger folks,dont read them anyways
Comment by Barney Monday, Mar 24, 25 @ 11:47 am
I vote yes with a caveat. To be honest I never thought of editorials as “must read” journalism. They were necessarily brief and thus most always lacked nuance. This however has zero to do with “uplifting voices.”
That’s just a virtue signal. This is a result of a lack of investment in journalism in general and is a creatively lazy way to say “we don’t want to pay for editorial staff.”
Comment by Nope. Monday, Mar 24, 25 @ 11:50 am
It’s the other paper that needs to get rid of its clueless editorial board.
Comment by Big Dipper Monday, Mar 24, 25 @ 12:01 pm
I subscribe digitally to the CST and rarely read the editorials. I get caught with the click bait headlines but more often then not never finish the article.
I for one won’t miss them rather hope they can find a business model which keeps it in business.
Comment by Annon3 Monday, Mar 24, 25 @ 12:08 pm
=We will, however, continue to publish Letters to the Editor=
At least the S-T is keeping that for now, unlike the SJ-R. Looks like they got rid of their Letters of the Editor in recent years, in favor of more USA Today syndicated editorials. But at least the Illinois Times still has reader letters.
Comment by Leatherneck Monday, Mar 24, 25 @ 12:11 pm
Strong no - the entire reason the Sun-Times exists was to be a counter to the Tribune’s editorial voice. In these days of wanton propaganda in the news, the institutional editorial board brings some gravitas to the analysis (if that weren’t the case we wouldn’t call the Tribune out when they fail to do so).
Comment by lake county democrat Monday, Mar 24, 25 @ 12:14 pm
I respectfully disagree. The Sun-Times editorials have, over the years, been important in raising public awareness of many issues, including issues about our legal systems and government agencies. Completely eliminating them is a significant loss.
Comment by Keyrock Monday, Mar 24, 25 @ 12:17 pm
I think the era of the newspaper editorial has passed. The idea that a group of people can pose as the voice of authority based on sound, reasoned judgement does not square up with the overtly partisan nature of media these days.
Agree it’s best to save reporter jobs.
Comment by Friendly Bob Adams Monday, Mar 24, 25 @ 12:18 pm
As others have noted, this is likely a cost saving measure. But that is an assumption, because the announcement doesn’t say why the S-T is making this change. It focuses on the “voices” it will maintain and add, which is both reassuring and a bit diversionary.
TLDR: can’t opine on this decision without a little more “why.”
Comment by Marine Life Monday, Mar 24, 25 @ 12:25 pm
Wishing this was the Tribune doing it. Their editorial board is so disconnected from the news the reporters write. Sun Times has been less so. I think what you get by making this change is that you are creating plausible deniability for the paper for opinions that could offend advertisers. You can say “That’s not us, it’s a crank letter we chose to publish in the name of equal representation”.
Also, publishing opposing letters might be their idea of “creating engagement”. In the same way facebook promotes “engagement”. The tell will be the ratio of op eds to letters.
Comment by Give Us Barrabbas Monday, Mar 24, 25 @ 1:04 pm
I’m fine with it. Whether it’s the Sun-Times, or other papers, the editorials are so clearly tainted by ownership’s views and agendas that they’ve become worthless. Wapo is a great example of this.
Comment by Boone's is Back Monday, Mar 24, 25 @ 1:20 pm
All reporting is editorialized by definition, so nothing has actually changed. This is not a critique of the Sun-Times, which is a completely anodyne institution. Let’s just not pretend that writing can exist that is not editorialized.
Comment by Garfield Ridge Guy Monday, Mar 24, 25 @ 1:26 pm
Another option would be to publish an editorial only on rare occasions — not every single day. That would actually give any editorial much more heft.
Newspapers probably publish too many editorials to begin with. I mean, does anyone care what a couple nameless, faceless edit board members think about the Real ID lines at the DMV or Southwest Airlines bag fees — two topic the Trib chimed in on last week.
Editorial boards should save what limited interest there is in what they have to say for the big stuff.
Comment by Roman Monday, Mar 24, 25 @ 2:03 pm
It’s concerning that this part of the paper is going away. I didn’t always agree with the editorial , but I appreciated the insight on issues . The way people get information has changed . This I guess is part of it . But I feel as if we are losing something .
Comment by Tinman Monday, Mar 24, 25 @ 2:06 pm
too many opinions and not enough news.
Comment by old guy Monday, Mar 24, 25 @ 2:46 pm
Disagree. While the new ownership model prevents endorsement of political candidates, they are certainly free to offer opinions on all other topics. We need their voice.
Comment by Ben Tre Monday, Mar 24, 25 @ 3:34 pm
Absolutely not. First they stop endorsing candidates and now they won’t be opining on any civic issue no matter how important. It’s a total abdication of their civic responsibilities. And I don’t accept that they can’t afford the one or two salaries necessary to maintain an editorial staff. If they’re that close to insolvency then they won’t be around too long anyway.
Comment by New Day Monday, Mar 24, 25 @ 3:45 pm
No because corporate oligarchy has silenced voices that need to be heard in any free society. The editorial is the voice of the newspaper and a main feature of the editorial section. Recalling one or more editors having resigned for not being allowed to endorse against Trump. A Washington Post editor recently resigned or was forced to do so in hypocritical irony by the multibillionaire owner who censored the editorial section. Opinions opposing “personal liberties and free markets” are no longer allowed. So much free speech from the free speech people.
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Mar 24, 25 @ 4:11 pm
they can still show thought by publishing op-eds and columns. keeping reporters is vital so glad the $ can be spent on that.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Mar 24, 25 @ 5:03 pm
Washington Post lost over $100 million dollars last year because the market for their product is very limited.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Mar 24, 25 @ 5:06 pm
Bad move. How about the brass at Chicago Public media and the sun times take a hair cut in order to save critical editorial positions. The Sun-Times editorial board engages in thoughtful and well researched opinion pieces on issues we are facing as a city and state and often is a good contrast to the Tribune, although the Trib is different today editorially than it was several years ago in that respect. The minute CPM tossed political endorsements was the first dagger in the heart of that editorial department. And, they pushed all these people out the door with all this experience and expertise, while at the same time are bringing on teenage columnists…help this makes sense.
Comment by Shytown Monday, Mar 24, 25 @ 5:48 pm
I’m okay with it as a way to save reporters jobs. I do think endorsements can be helpful to voters down ballot, but I also don’t think many people buy the paper for endorsements.
Comment by ArchPundit Monday, Mar 24, 25 @ 7:53 pm