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.
Fox Business host Larry Kudlow has no plans to leave his role amid reports detailing…
Morgan Meaker, a senior writer for Wired covering Europe, is leaving the publication after three…
Nick Dunn, who is currently head of CNBC Events as senior vice president and managing…
Wall Street Journal editor in chief Emma Tucker sent out the following on Friday: Dear…
New York Times metro editor Nestor Ramos sent out the following on Friday: We are delighted to…
Rahat Kapur of Campaign looks at the evolution The Wall Street Journal. Kapur writes, "The transformation…
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.