Timothy McNulty, the public editor of the Chicago Tribune, took issue Monday in his column with an article written by business writer Susan Chandler about the large homes being built by rich families in the Lincoln Park area.
“Tone and innuendo fueled parts of the story, as it began and ended with a negative and superior attitude that seemed to say ‘Look at The Rich, aren’t you glad we’re not that tacky.’ The article conveyed an attitude of reverse snobbery, of class superiority, against those who could afford to buy up swaths of city lots, take advantage of zoning rules, hire expensive architects and create an enclave by tearing down old houses.
“Though the story noted, correctly, that these houses ‘all but shriek for attention,’ everyone does consider the home, no matter how grand or modest, a personal sanctuary. Though only one of the four families chose to talk with the writer, Susan Chandler, a top business reporter, their views could have been better represented.”
Read more here.
The Wall Street Journal is seeking a senior video journalist to join its Features video…
PCWorld executive editor Gordon Mah Ung, a tireless journalist we once described as a founding father…
CNBC senior vice president Dan Colarusso sent out the following on Monday: Before this year comes to…
Business Insider editor in chief Jamie Heller sent out the following on Monday: I'm excited to share…
Former CoinDesk editorial staffer Michael McSweeney writes about the recent happenings at the cryptocurrency news site, where…
Manas Pratap Singh, finance editor for LinkedIn News Europe, has left for a new opportunity…
View Comments
Ombudsman McNulty had a problem with that article? He must have got a phone call from a rich person who is unusually sensitive.
Everyone thinks huge SUVs and colossal mansions are compensation for small penises. (Everyone, that is, except small-dicked dudes who own huge SUVs and colossal mansions.) As for the rest of the article, I just don't see that snarky tone that McNulty complains of.
It's interesting how it's perfectly acceptable to make moral judgments about poor people based on the conditions of their homes, but according to McNulty, it's unacceptable to make judgments about rich people because of their architetural choices. I mean, McNulty doesn't complain about this passage from Susan Chandler's article:
"But by the '70s, there was a feeling that the neighborhood was going seriously downhill. Kids from the Cabrini-Green housing development used Orchard to walk to and from school. Their shouts and laughter seemed an ominous sign to some old-time residents."
Poor children shouting and laughing! Oh, my! It's certainly understandable, in the views of McNulty and of the subjects of Ms. Chandler's article, for rich people to fear poor people who live in scary housing projects and who have children who shout and laugh on the way to and from school.
McNulty doesn't object to that line of reasoning -- that an influx of poor people is taken as "an ominous sign to come for old-time residents." But McNulty does object to the obverse observation -- that an influx of super-rich people with awful taste is taken as an ominous sign.
Well, at least we know what McNulty is all about. He's a bigot.