July 18, 2012
STEWART MARKS 40 YEARS AS COLUMNIST; RANK'S BEST, WORST POLITICIANS

ANALYSIS & OPINION BY RUSS STEWART

With this column, I mark the commencement of my 40th year of "analysis and opinion." That's 2,025 1,500-word columns, or roughly 3,037,550 words -- the equivalent of at least two books.

But 2012 is not 1973. A generation and a half has passed. The "Paper Boy Age" has become the "Digital Age." Here are some frequently asked questions:

First, what's changed?

Newspapers are under duress. The operative word is "stalepapers." News is disseminated by the minute. The cable organizations such as Fox and CNN have "news" 24/7. The Internet providers, such as AOL, have "news" and gossip posted and updated constantly, and analysis within the hour.

The local television news shows have broadcasts at 4, 6 and 9 a.m., noon, and 4, 5, 6 and 10 p.m., with national news at 5:30 p.m. Even then, the news, weather and sports are hours old, almost stale. All day long, the evening's "investigative reports" are hyped. Even so, viewership is receding.

Every credible entity has a Web site that is continually updated. Information can be accessed on one's cell phone. Facebook and Twitter are making phoning and written corresponding nearly obsolete.

Newspapers are in danger of becoming an anachronism. Who wants to read yesterday's news today? The size and quality of dailies has diminished. The number of in-house, bylined stories has dwindled. They barely survive by running "exclusives," with tabloid-style headlines. Only tabloids, filled with salacious gossip, titillating photos and moronic articles, continue to prosper, and that largely because they can be bought at the supermarket checkout.

Some weekly community papers have vanished, but not because their news is stale. It's because people now post want-ads on the Internet, because struggling small businesses don't have the funds for display ads, because paper boys and girls are hard to find, and because the larger food chains, retailers and fast-food joints would rather send out coupons by mail or insert colorful fliers in the Sunday supplements.

Weeklies remain the only source of local news and community events. The problem is that more and more people want their news either electronically or visually, if at all. The newspaper-reading generation is aging. Without ad revenue, newspapers cannot survive; an Internet posting means no sales revenue, and advertisers are leery of the advertising impact.

Even weekly print magazines are vanishing. Who wants to have this week's news analyzed next week? Time, Newsweek and U.S. News have gone online with their subscriptions, saving printing and mailing costs, but advertising is down and they are a shadow of their former selves. Interestingly, because of the profusion of Internet porn, the print porn magazines are vanishing.

Second, how can I become a political columnist?

There are journalists, and there are writers -- very distinct entities. A journalist is university-trained, drilled in the tradition of "Dragnet's" Joe Friday -- "just the facts, sir." It's all about who, what, where and when, and occasionally the why. Journalists are reporters, and some eventually persevere to become editors, keeping rambunctious reporters on the straight-and-narrow. Writers, conversely, are unconstrained; they can explore the "why," and their job is to entertain, infuriate, offend, titillate, enlighten and otherwise be a nuisance. They also make sure the publisher has libel insurance.

Back in the 1970s there were two ways to break into the newspaper business: either get a degree and become an underpaid cub reporter at the dailies (Chicago had four daily newspapers) or weeklies or become a "stringer." That meant covering boring school board or community meetings and submitting boring recitations of what transpired. Now there is a third option: Create your own Web site, become a blogger, and try to stir up attention and controversy -- while not getting paid.

When I presented myself to Nadig Newspapers in June of 1973, just after college graduation, I offered to become a "political stringer," a rather creative concoction involving political stories interspersed with political analyses. No boring meetings (unless they were candidate forums), but every week my submission got on the front page as "analysis and opinion." In 1977 it was properly moved to the editorial page, and it has been there since.

There are, of course, a plenitude of columnists, who tend to be writers rather than journalists. There are those who focus on sports, advice, gossip, entertainment, movies, finance and general muckraking. Chicago is a political town, where politics is an institutional sport. Until the 1990s, Chicago's dailies had full-time political columnists. Now they have columnists who describe the stupidities of the town's politicians but who do not analyze, predict or project election results and behind-the-scenes jousting. Politicians crave information from sources other than their cronies or coworkers. If they hear it or see it in print, it becomes credible. So here are the criteria necessary to become a political (or any other type of) columnist:

Credibility: You need a base from which to disseminate or pontificate. That means either a newspaper which publishes the column or a radio or TV show which broadcasts it. Blog sites do not qualify. The premise is that everybody who reads/hears your opinion believes that everybody else is also reading/hearing it, and therefore continues to read/hear it.

Information: I have archived newspapers clippings dating from 1973, segregated by ward, office, politician and subject matter. To be sure, a lot of info can be Googled on the Internet, but a columnist needs his own information bank.

Contacts: Every politician has an agenda based on self-interest and shares information only when beneficial. They love to gossip, especially when revealing negative tidbits about past or future rivals. Creating a huge file, engendering trust, and extracting information are paramount.

Insight: Oftentimes politicians don't want information published. A columnist needs sufficient insight to intelligently speculate as to who is doing what and why, and what are the odds of success.

Entertainment: A dry recitation of facts does not a column make. Readers want to be entertained, and they also want to be enlightened. So a modicum of sarcasm, irreverence and insult, intermingled among facts and predictions, keeps the reader's attention.

Discipline: A column is a long-term commitment, not a yearlong indulgence. Once the groundwork is laid, the knowledge accumulated and the credibility accrued, it is utterly fatuous to quit.

Third, who do you deem the best and worst politicians?

The yardstick is judgmental ability, which is a precursor of political success. The presence or absence of ingrained character flaws is another. The worst in my experience have to be Jane Byrne, Carol Moseley Braun, Todd Stroger and Rod Blagojevich.

Byrne, abrasive, egotistical and paranoid, was the darling of Richard J. Daley's regime, serving as the city's consumer affairs commissioner, but she was not a Bridgeport insider. After Daley died in 1976 and Mike Bilandic succeeded to the mayoralty, Byrne launched a quixotic mayor campaign for mayor which was going nowhere until the great snowstorms of 1978-79 and Bilandic's inept response. Byrne beat Bilandic by 412,909-396,134, a margin of 16,775 votes.

However, as mayor Byrne launched a war, intent on exterminating the Bridgeport infidels; she also, in her quest for ultimate power, removed black workers from various boards and offices. By the 1983 election Byrne had polarized the city and enraged African Americans, and she got only 382,798 votes (33.6 percent of the total cast). No competent Chicago mayor should ever lose.

Moseley Braun was Barack Obama before Barack Obama -- the darling of the liberal news media and a hero to blacks and women. She beat a sitting U.S. senator in the 1992 primary, and she was elected by 2,631,229-2,126,833, a margin of 504,396 votes, but her character flaws and arrogance spelled her doom. She lost re-election to a Republican in 1998 by 1,610,496-1,709,041. In 6 years she lost one million votes. Inexcusable.

In heavily Democratic Cook County, county board presidents are lifers. George Dunne served from 1969 to 1990, and John Stroger served from 1994 to 2006. Todd Stroger was appointed to his father's nomination in 2006 and proceeded to compile a record of such incompetence that he got 8 percent of the vote in the 2010 primary. Todd Stroger will be forever remembered as a disaster as board president.

Blagojevich: insecure, spiteful and ungrateful. Dick Mell made him all that he could be -- and it wasn't much.

Among the best, at least judgmentally, is Jim Thompson, Illinois' governor from 1977 to 1990. He was "Mr. Fix-It," the master of the deal. While Pat Quinn cringes, quavers and vacillates, Thompson got the job done. He understood that self-interest is the grease that makes Springfield work. He doled out state jobs and used state contracts to get legislative support. He promised not to raise taxes in 1982, but raised them in 1983; he promised again in 1986, and raised them again in 1987. He wanted a new White Sox stadium and rammed it through. Thompson was a leader, and he bent the Democratic legislature to his will.

Another was Dick Ogilvie, who aspired to be the "boss" of Illinois. Virtually very state job was held by a Republican, who were required to work for the party. He imposed an income tax in 1969, and he was defeated for governor in 1972. He had a bold dream, and he almost fulfilled it.

Last is Harold Washington, a backbench state legislator who had the judgmental acuity to run for mayor in 1983, transforming Chicago politics. He was a polarizing figure, but he awakened the minority vote.