On Page 1 on Thursday, Jan. 20, under the headline “Jackson Jr. scalds Daley on contracts,” the Tribune reported that Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), for the second time in two weeks, had taken Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley to task publicly for failing to properly oversee the city’s minority contract set-aside program. By this dereliction, the congressman said, Daley was endangering similar affirmative action programs nationwide.
Most reader reaction to the story focused on the headline–several people thought the “a” in “scalds” must have been a typo; the paper must have meant “scolds.”
Not so, said senior news editor Rich Anderson. “Scalds”–obviously in a figurative sense–is what was written and what was meant.
But one caller–he didn’t identify himself–had a different concern.
“I appreciate your story on `Jackson Jr. scalds Daley on contracts,'” he said in a phone message. “[But] the Jackson family has their own scandals, and I’m wondering why that also isn’t broached in tangent with this vis-a-vis their liquor distributorship, a monopoly, in the Chicagoland area …
“I would hope that you would resurrect, or at least balance, the current campaign on Daley with the Jackson family, which is extremely palpable and a real story. And so, come on, guys, balance it, you know? Wise up, OK?”
Now there’s a notion of balance I hadn’t thought of before–not to mention a definition of “scandal.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it is legal in this country to own a beer distributorship, is it not? And it is Jesse Jr.’s brothers, Jonathan and Yusef, who own such a business, is it not? So where’s the scandal?
Is it in the fact that their father, who campaigns for civil rights and human rights and affirmative action and every so often manages to spring from the clutches of one of America’s enemies some hapless victim who has fallen under their control, used his clout to help them get that distributorship?
Goodness knows America never saw the likes of that kind of behavior before the Jacksons came along. The Kennedys, the Daleys, the Bushes, the Adamses, the Roosevelts, the Rockefellers, the Pritzkers, the Trumps, the Smiths and the Joneses–they all got theirs the old-fashioned way: They earned it. And if you don’t believe it, just ask them.
And then there’s the notion that whenever Jesse Jackson Jr., elected to represent the interests of the voters of Illinois’ 2nd Congressional District, speaks up, we in the news media should mention parenthetically that his father helped his brothers get a Budweiser beer distributorship, which, by the way, is exclusive, not monopolistic. (Just ask the powerful Wirtz family, owners of the state’s largest wine and liquor distributor, about the distinction.)
This gives a whole new meaning to the notion of being “my brother’s keeper.” Shall we mention the Daley family “scandal”–their father was, you know, the mayor of Chicago–each time we write about Richard M. or John or Bill?
I would never go so far as to say my anonymous caller was manifesting a particular animus toward the Jackson family. He obviously just had them confused with the Ewings, who all live together out at South Fork and are, each and every one, involved in and answerable for each other’s business.
I’ve always liked Rev. Jesse Jackson, the paterfamilias of this Chicago clan, because of his mental quickness and his willingness to put himself out front for a cause (including some of which I heartily disapprove). But what I like most is that he has the ability, simply by shrewdly playing the classic American game of getting up and getting ahead, to drive his critics out of their minds with jealous resentment.
There’s your balance.
Setting the record straighter
On Jan. 20, the following correction ran on Page 2: “Because of an editing error, a New York Times news story Tuesday [Jan. 18] about Chinese military sales to Iran referred to Iran as an `Arab nation.’ It is not.”
We don’t ordinarily name in our corrections and clarifications the cause of the error we’re correcting. In this case, Tribune managing editor James O’Shea insisted that we do so, so that it might be clear to readers that the error was introduced into the story in our shop and didn’t originate at The New York Times.
I wonder, however, whether that really was clear to the readers. I wonder whether we are not altogether too cryptic in our corrections. I wonder whether, in this key area of “transparency,” or candor, we are being candid enough to our readers.
When we adopted our error policy and began to formalize our corrections format back in the mid-’90s, we made certain concessions in order to win the support and cooperation of the staff, for many of whom this was a new venture. One such was to refrain from naming the causes of errors.
But over the last decade, correcting ourselves has become so routine, so much a part of the Tribune way of doing journalism, that it may be time to rethink some of those early practices. Our goal is, after all, to be candid with our readers.
What do you think?
———-
Don Wycliff is the Tribune’s public editor. He listens to readers’ concerns and questions about the paper’s coverage and writes weekly about current issues in journalism. E-mail: dwycliff@tribune.com. The views expressed are his own.
