It is hard to muster sympathy for the rich. Wealth can provide a buffer to many of life’s misfortunes but not, in the case of the Oct. 8 Tribune Sunday Magazine, to the misfortune of being the subject of an unflattering cover story.
The subject was certainly intriguing, that a handful of the city’s wealthiest families built their new homes along several streets in Lincoln Park. To say that the homes are huge is an understatement; some take up nearly half a block, and they are valued in the double-digit millions.
There were fascinating bits of first-rate reporting on financing and square footage, good examples of Chicago history, details on how the wealthy of old had built their own mansions on Prairie Avenue and Astor Street, and flashes of interesting background on four wealthy families building new homes.
There was even fair commentary on how a handful of individuals can make such radical change in a neighborhood.
But the piece became flawed, in my opinion, when it veered from the reporting of a worthwhile topic to holding the subjects of the article up to ridicule and treated them more as caricatures than individuals.
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.
Architecture critic Blair Kamin wrote a separate article, a critical assessment of the houses and their impact on the neighborhood. This article, by accompanying the main story, added to the impression of piling on the scorn.
But the most egregious example of pop-psychology and morphing real people into symbols of tastelessness occurred when the main story quoted a psychiatrist to suggest that house size was a public way of displaying power and the size of a sexual organ. The aim of that quote and another more sociological comment by an architect-author was to broaden the story and go beyond just the four families, Chandler said. But those comments, combined with a graphic cover recalling horror-movie posters from the ’50s, “ATTACK OF THE GIANT HOUSES!” made it seem both personal and mean-spirited.
More Top Picks Best Tens Units For Migraines
Was the article, titled “Flaunting It,” interesting? Yes. Did it speak with attitude? Absolutely. An accompanying note by magazine editor Elizabeth Taylor asked rhetorically “Are we simply indulging in real estate pornography?” She answered herself: “Perhaps,” but then argued it is important to “chronicle transformations as they happen.”
The article raised some issues for the newspaper to address in the future. Among them is the desire to write in a lively and responsibly provocative style, an admirable goal aimed at enlivening the traditional and often flat newspaper style of ordering facts and presenting events.
That is a challenge to help attract and engage readers. But it is often a fine line between writing and presenting a sprightly account versus being flippant and making people look like cartoon figures.
In the past, the newspaper went to court to argue against sealing court records of the Pritzkers, one of the families in the magazine piece, and argued that wealth or social status should not provide them privileges in court, or in the newspaper, not available to others.
But the same is true in the reverse, wealth or social status should not make anyone vulnerable to less straightforward and respectful treatment than any other newsworthy individual or family.
Speaking of provocative
Some readers were outraged last Wednesday at the six-column, front-page photo of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka taken during their interview before the Tribune’s editorial board. One caller, John Ridgeway of Gurnee, described it as “stunningly biased” against Topinka and said it made her look almost asleep.
I was at the interview and the photo was not an isolated or off moment. Topinka often had a bored/dismissive expression on her face when Blagojevich was speaking and he was more animated and kept reaching over, basically invading her space, as if to provoke her. The photo truthfully represented the body language of the session.
Still, it was not a flattering portrait of Topinka. There were other photographs to choose from that showed her in a more forceful light. The choice facing photo editors was to find one that was balanced politically or one that reflected the moment.
———-
Timothy J. McNulty is the Tribune’s public editor. He listens to readers’ concerns about the paper’s coverage and writes periodically about journalism issues. His e-mail address is [email protected]. The views expressed are his own.