Christopher Schroeder

Tag: Chicago Tribune

  • Sunnier Days Ahead?

    I’ve known for weeks that I need to make some difficult decisions about newspaper subscriptions.

    I currently have daily Chicago Sun-Times delivery, and also receive the Chicago Tribune on Sundays. I also prefer print versions although I’ll read the Tribune opinion articles on a tablet throughout the week.

    I had traded the New York Times for the Tribune soon after moving to Chicago more than twenty years ago. I switched to the Sun-Times in 2022 after it became a part of the Chicago Public Media.

    Since then, the Sun-Times has lost much of its allure. More journalists for example seem to be doing cross-over work for the CPM radio station. Also, it recently dissolved its editorial board, and stopped producing editorials, and has fewer op-eds, and some days none at all.

    At the same time, the Sun-Times informed me that it was increasing its cost. After that, I was spending more — $9.50 for the daily Sun-Times each week in contrast to $7 for daily Tribune delivery — although I was assured that it would reduce my rate to $7.70 / week, which only raises more questions about the ways the Sun-Times treats its subscribers.

    Both newspapers seem to be nudging readers to go digital. Those who wish to pay for their journalism for whatever reason will spend $7-$15 / month to support the Sun-Times or $5-$7 for the Tribune. (The difference is access to local coupons or events.) Both newspapers at the moment also seem to offer electronic versions of its print papers for free, which raises a different set of questions about the future of journalism more generally.

    Daily Sun-Times subscription in other words costs more for less, and both newspapers are available, and more affordable, online if subscribers read these in electronic format.

    The bigger problem for me is the future of journalism. The reason I switched several years ago to the Sun-Times was to support a public media approach. I had long been impressed by the work WBEZ does, and I hoped that would stabilize and even develop the Sun-Times, which could only be good for Chicago.

    Such an outcome would strengthen the future of two competitive newspapers, which could challenge each other for their coverage. Moreover, it could expand audiences, and even offer a counterbalance to the hedge fund that had purchased the Tribune in 2021.

    Since then, I’ve been underwhelmed by this merger, which seems to have been more challenging than expected. I realize that the recently rescinded federal funding hasn’t helped, but I had assumed that Chicago Public Media would expect such an outcome, which has been a conservative goal for many years.

    I also had hoped that CPM would have resisted a reactionary response and instead would have offered a more brazen and bold reimagination of its contributions to metro Chicago and American democracy. Such a response would have reassured current supporters and inspired new ones.

    Perhaps CPM is starting to realize what it should do. Its CEO Melissa Bell, who described this rescinded funding as a “sudden loss,” nonetheless lauded the Chicago community for replacing 86 percent with “recurring community support” and to pledge a future of “true financial stability,” and twice the members, based upon a “100% community -funded model,” one that is “stable” and “independent” as if it couldn’t have had such plans in place even before that funding crisis.

    I also donate monthly to WBEZ in addition to my Sun-Times subscription, which given its free digital access seems like a second monthly donation. At the same time, I like many must carefully consider my expenses, especially as inflation increases, especially now that I’ve retired.

    Chicago is better with a second daily newspaper, and legitimate competitor. I hope that Bell and other CPM leaders know what they’re doing.

  • From Bad to Worse

    Current educational challenges are bad enough without the Chicago Tribune making these worse, which it did with its recent editorial.

    In it, its editorial board admonishes “emboldened” teachers who are pressuring students to accept teachers’ politics or be excluded from classroom communities, which it argues deprives these students of their rights. It argues that such teachers are doing a “disservice” to their students’ learning, that schools must consider how their employees “present” present themselves, and that classrooms cannot become “perfect captive audience[s]” for teachers or anyone considers “politics as the highest social calling.”

    The editorial board is right to remind educators to remember the power that they hold but wrong to ignore pre-existing pressure beyond classrooms, which existed long before Charlie Kirk was assassinated. For example, I stopped challenging college students and started self-censoring classroom comments upon learning that he had been encouraging them to record and report professors.

    I wondered if I were overreacting but was later relieved to have done so. Campus colleagues were cited in a 2023 Fox News report, and others across Chicago have been threatened after appearing on Kirk’s watch list.

    I discovered that this pressure could be institutional when for example my hapa, or mixed, kid was excluded from a high school assembling that was restricted to African-American students. I similarly had an August Wilson new course proposal returned because it insufficiently explained I was informed how this course would serve diversity, equity, and inclusion goals as if any explanation could be necessary.

    The bigger problem however is that the Tribune constructs a caricature of teachers. Some teachers I’m sure suggest to students that their political opponents are “bad, evil and wrong,” but not all do, and none would consider such statements as smart pedagogical strategies.

    Such a caricature in other words misunderstands the essence of education, at least in the humanities where I spent my academic career. In contrast, I considered my obligation to be challenging students to develop their thinking abilities in addition to imparting whatever knowledge central to each course.

    As a result, I would deliberately describe the best challenge to students’ arguments regardless of whether it was liberal, conservative, or something else, and regardless of whether I personally believed it. In fact, I often reminded students that they shouldn’t assume every argument I offered reflected my professional or personal beliefs, and that I had done my job if they were unsure of these at the end of the semester.

    I’m not suggesting that such an approach is apolitical. I unlike the Tribune editorial board believe that politics are inescapable and that choices reflect these. At the same time, it and I seem to agree on the purpose of education, which is perhaps more central than ever.

    Nonetheless, I concede that such an approach has to be used within the context of intellectual freedom. Moreover, I would define that not as the ability to articulate any thought but rather as I learned from another Chicago colleague a balance of freedom of thought and expression and a right of inclusion, or a space where students can both offer their observations and are welcome to do so.

    I wasn’t trying to reinforce some students’ preconceived perspectives and changing others’ minds but rather trying to push every student’s ability to think, and to do so for all students, or at least as many as I could convince to respond. I hoped even those whose perspectives hadn’t shifted at least learned to develop rebuttals, and an ability to consider the limitations of any position they might advocate.

    At least I did until I learned about Kirk’s professor-watch list, and would have continued doing if I had greater confidence in campus administrators and professional and social support, including from the Tribune editorial board.

    I agree that classrooms offer “captive” audiences, that students needn’t know their teachers’ politics, and that schools should be “the freest places” for curiosity and critical thinking. I just think that these insights aren’t news to good teachers, who are already aware of these.

    I experienced educational challenges from liberals. I just was, and am, much more concerned about conservative challenges, which seemed emboldened in the current president’s first term and even more so in his second one.