Tinkering With the Tribune
At first glance, the ongoing shuffle of personnel at the Chicago Tribune would seem to be just another of the paper’s irregular upheavals designed to provide the illusion of corporate vitality to the people working there. In fact, though, this one may prove to be a good deal more methodical than merely madcap.
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
As you’ll notice, the Tribune is never at a loss for loading up the bureaucracy with subtly graded job descriptions. (What exactly is the distinction between a “deputy” and an “associate” editor?) You need the skill of a Kremlinologist to pierce the veil and decipher the hidden meanings, but they are there. For instance: Tyner’s new mission is actually to mediate between the foreign and national desks in constructing the paper’s first section. Dretzka is really one of two new associate features editors, and the smart money says that this is the first step in reducing the considerable power wielded by Colleen Dishon; although she is listed on the masthead as one of three associate managing editors of the Tribune, she in fact maintains control of nearly every department outside of news and sports. And Carr’s background in the arts makes him well qualified for one of his new responsibilities, that of acting as a sort of liaison between Tempo and the news section in moving some arts coverage into the front of the paper.
An example of their research can be found in the new “science and technology team” that was assembled back in May. It comprises Gorner; reporters Jon Van, Ronald Kotulak, and Casey Bukro, each of whom has concentrated on health and science topics; and Mike Millenson, who has been writing for the finance section, specifically on the health-care business. As Fuller explained, the entire unit is assigned to the newly unified national and foreign desk (in contrast to the metropolitan desk, which used to administer the science beat); their work is then placed in the appropriate Tribune section, be it news, Tempo, business, or even sports. While it may sound only commonsensical, it’s a plan that not only consolidates the paper’s coverage of science, but has ensured it a higher profile in the first section. (This is a far cry from the Tribune’s “media team” of a few years back, which lumped together no less than four writers covering television and the broadcast industry. The paper’s coverage promptly diminished in quality.)
On Thursday, August 18, the front-page headline in the Chicago Tribune screamed out the news–“GOP Nominates Bush for President.” (Did we say news? In case you’ve been in a shallow grave since May, this event had been a foregone conclusion for months.) If you believe that a big black page-one headline should actually give you news, you’ve got to think there was something else to be done with this one–maybe some mention of the vote total, or Bush’s well-regarded speech, anything beyond the obvious. And even though we realized that this headline wasn’t really for the readers of that day’s Tribune–but rather a banner for posterity, a safe, bland statement for the historical record–we still had to giggle at the silly solemnity staring us in the face.
