Obama or Satan: Who Would the Chicago Tribune Endorse for the Presidency of the United States?

The smart money is on Satan. If history is indication, well, it's Satan for President.

Funfact for those of you on the hunt for liberal biases in the media: The Chicago Tribune has never--not even once--since 1872, endorsed a Democrat for the Presidency. In "Boss," Mike Royko called the Trib "the voice of Middle Western Republicanism," and it's fair to say little has changed.

Think about that, for just a moment. 1872. Goldwater. Harding. A second term for Herbert Hoover.

In a great article in the April 21st Chicago Reader, Michael Miner discusses the Trib's smug celebration of this fact in a recent "lighthearted" editorial about how the Chicago Tribune endorsed a Democratic candidate on "The West Wing," and the justifiable anger they got in return from some perceptive letter writers tying this in to the paper's constant lamentations that "kids just don't read papers anymore cuz they just don't care."

Colleen Fleming in a letter pubished in the Tribune on April 15th wrote: "Forgive me if I can't take seriously a newspaper that is so wrapped up in its Republican bias that is hasn't endorsed a Democratic candidate since 1872. With newspapers like the Tribune wearing their biases on their sleeves and largely ignoring other issues that are important to youth readership, it's no wonder that younger generations look elsewhere for their information."

And Amen to that. This "blaming the victim" is ridiculous, especially for anybody who has taken one look at "Red Eye," the Chicago Tribune's attempt to tap into the youth market with dumber "news," shorter sentences, vapid columns about fashion and celebrity, and basically the kind of corny fawning attempts to "relate" to the under 30 crowd that used to be the domain of guidance counselors and teen church ministers. It's clear from the market research that went into the Red Eye that the Tribune came to the conclusion that all their potential readers from 18-34 are, well, idiots. Idiots with short attention spans, more concerned with Desperate Housewives than Plamegate.

They couldn't even sell the paper for a quarter, and now they can barely even give the damn thing away. If Karl Rove was to be indicted, it's safe to say the Red Eye would be too busy trying to woo "the kids" with glossy covers with headlines like "Kanye West's Bling Bling in the Hizz-ouse!" or something equally and cringeingly hokey. That joke isn't even that far off the mark either for anybody who has noticed what they've chosen to cover these past 3 years since "Mission Accomplished."

Some of us are convinced "Red Eye" is a paper owned and operated by Narks. It just has that feel of the youthful-looking square infiltrating the high school dressed in grungified flannels.

So...don't act surprised that Colbert's caustically brave "comedy act" was pretty much ignored by the Trib and all its media tentacles, or that the Bush Imitator "stole the show," according to their reports (On "Inside Edition" today (fuck off--it was on at the Y while I was working out, okay?) (double fuck off--I work out, okay?), they used the phrase "stole the show" no less than 5 times in 2 minutes). It's a paper owned and operated by Total Squares trying desperately to remain relevant while clinging to their conservative traditions.

Based on history, it's pretty easy to predict that, yes, Satan would win the Chicago Tribune's endorsement for the Presidency of the United States, and while the good folks in Du Page County might be pleased to know that Satan is a solid leader who means what he says and says what he means, the rest of us will be getting our news from the internet, weekly papers, the News Hour, Now, the Daily Show, the Colbert Report, C-Span, and anybody else who doesn't insult our intelligence with narky patronization.