Christopher Schroeder

Category: local

  • If We Can Keep It

    If We Can Keep It

    I didn’t expect to be politically re-energized again.

    I was, and still am, confused and curious about the next No Kings initiative of “hyper-local actions” alongside larger gatherings. I can understand the Indivisible mid-term optimism as a result of current polling data, Trump’s alienating actions, and its hope strategy but cannot ignore that I’ve been here before.

    I naively hoped that the first rally (April 2025) would capture politicians’ attention and compel substantial responses. I was more and more discouraged after subsequent rallies (June and October 2025 and March 2026).

    I objected to the way that Indivisible deployed a similar exclusionary strategy as others who critiqued mainstream Democratic leadership. I agree with the need for this specific critique, and support such critiques generally, but I wish liberals would lose their purity tests, and their political hypocrisies, and instead emphasize cross-community coalition-building.

    Then I read Jill Lepore’s most recent book about the Constitution. This book, which won the 2026 Pulitzer Prize for history, offers an account of this foundational document that focuses on the part played by people in the pursuit of a more perfect union.

    The Constitution according to Lepore was designed as both a resistance and means to change. Central was the assumption that this document would not be preserved in its original form at all costs but that it would consistently and constantly updated and changed through amendments and other ways by the American people.

    Such a perspective, which she painstakingly establishes, is also clear in her critique of originalism. This interpretive strategy, which is predicated upon the search for the original intention or meaning, reinforces the impression of an artifact or relic to be preserved rather than a principled process for adaptation and change.

    This book, which some consider Lepore’s best, isn’t my favorite one of hers. Nonetheless, it convinced me that the American political system is a participatory sport, and not something seen from the sidelines.

    And it restored my motivation to reconnect with No Kings, Indivisible, and other political organizations that are calling out and challenging the corruption of this current administration, its Congressional enablers, and my fellow Americans who voted for them.

    Benjamin Franklin’s qualified answer to that Constitutional Convention question seems as relevant today as ever.

  • More Public Media Concerns

    More Public Media Concerns

    I was relieved that WBEZ ended its fall pledge drive yesterday and resumed its regular programming. However, I was reminded even before the broadcast began of my Chicago Public Media concerns.

    I had to listen to two sponsor spots on my smart speakers on my smart speakers. Then I lost count of the number of these and other disruptions such as show promos and apparent advertising — one lauded an antacid? — before I couldn’t listen anymore.

    I didn’t clock the minutes but couldn’t endure any more disruptions. I had spent too much time listening to something other than news, which is the primary reason I listen, and support, public media in the mornings and afternoons.

    I also predicted based upon experience that some of these segments from both NPR and WBEZ would be recycled for afternoon and weekend broadcasts. And I’ve begun to notice more excerpted podcasts on these news shows than original reporting.

    I realize that WBEZ and NPR are confronting challenging financial circumstances even without the incessant pledge drive reminders. I also still am, and have long been, a public media supporter, and long for a government-funded approach as is used in other countries.

    I’m still surprised that NPR and WBEZ hadn’t prepared for these federal funding cuts given how often conservatives have threatened to do so, which seems almost irresponsible. I’m moreover bewildered by the seeming inconsistency between the impression presented in the recent Chicago Sun-Times wraparound for example and these and other experiences, including ones with support staff and upper management, since these funding reductions and even earlier.

    I’ve volunteered for an upcoming usability test for < chicago.com >, which is its latest initiative. I’m skeptical that Chicagoans are seeking a synthesis of social media and reliable reporting but might misunderstand the scope and goals of this initiative.

    I just hope that Chicago Public Media can restore my confidence in it, and convince me to reverse my own financial support reductions, soon.

  • Some Vital Signs

    Some Vital Signs

    Chicago Public Media could be showing encouraging signs of life.

    It recently announced the release of a new website about Chicago for its residents. This space, which reportedly reflects a passion for this city and confronts its fractured communities, is based upon a central public media belief that some “civic infrastructure” cannot come from, and depend upon, the marketplace.

    This site at the moment is basic. It features slick testimonials about the city, a donation link, and a contact form link for those who want to contribute to its development.

    The most exciting element is the link to its rationale, which explains that CPM hopes to offer “trusted local information, communication knowledge, civic and cultural resources, and new opportunities for participation” from its “trusted organizations” — the Chicago Sun-Times and WBEZ. Like these, this new space will be driven not by profit but by the public media mission, and will consider its members not as “number[s]” but as “neighbor[s]”.

    This proposal suggests an awareness of its challenges. However, the proof obviously will be the ways these principles are converted into practices.

    The world has obviously changed, and these changes seem to be accelerating. CPM exists in a world for example where fewer people read newspapers and listen to the radio, and do these if at all online.

    At the same time, the last few years have been challenging. CPM seemed unprepared for instance to integrate the newspaper and to compensate for the predictable federal funding loss.

    Perhaps more challenging has been the inconsistency between its assertions and its actions in small and big ways. Most if not all of these efforts to confront such inconsistencies have been frustratingly ineffective and resulted in maddeningly inadequate responses if any at all.

    Public media are essential, especially in this disinformation era (McQuade 2024, e.g.). Chicago Public Media must retain the best of its previous purposes, such as providing reliable information and curating news stories, and reconfigure its contributions for a fluid future.

    That could go far in restoring my confidence in, and restoring my reduced financial contributions to, this important Chicago institution.