(2 of 2)
Unflattering Insights. The wide-ranging Review offers other unflattering insights into the quality of Chicago journalism. It contends that the American killed a series on malpractice in a hospital because the institution had "well-connected officials." After police staged a raid on prostitutes operating out of the city's fashionable Ambassador East Hotel, the afternoon newspapers somehow failed to name the hotel. But when American Reporter Gary Cummings then attempted to omit the names of hotels that were the sites of such respectable functions as conventions and speeches, he was ordered to write them in. The Review also noted that even after University of Illinois officials told the Tribune that a police estimate of $50,000 in damages as a result of a black student demonstration was greatly exaggerated, the paper continued to use the figure. The university's final damage estimate was $3,812.49.
The Review assailed the Sun-Times for claiming that a LIFE magazine article on Chicago police corruption contained only "old stories that were printed here when they were news." Countered the Review: "About 90% of the LIFE material had never been printed by the Sun-Times or any other Chicago newspaper," including. the names of involved officers.
Delicate Line. The Review criticizes reporters as well as editors. In one article, Sun-Times Reporter Ben Heineman Jr., son of the president of Chicago's Northwest Industries, accepted part of the blame himself for the failure of the city's newspapers fully to pursue leads that pointed toward police responsibility for the deaths of four Negroes shot during the April disorders. The Review pointed out that city hall reporters normally accept Christmas gifts from aldermen and get at least "$200-$300 and 25 to 30 bottles of booze" each year.
Although circulation is growing (it is now 3,700), the Review, at 50¢ a copy, does not break even; the deficit is made up by an anonymous donation and a foundation grant. The reaction of newspaper editors to the efforts is cool but not overtly hostile—yet. "We welcome criticism," says Daily News Editor Roy Fisher. "But I think reporters for the News could be more constructive by channeling their criticism within the paper." Sun-Times Editor James Hoge praises the Review staff for its ability to draw a delicate line between'"what's legitimate information for a critique and what's a violation of inner office confidences." Tribune Editor Clayton Kirkpatrick is less charitable. "We don't tell people what they can do with their free time," he says. "But I can't say that I take it seriously."
There is something distinctly disturbing about newspaper employees in effect snitching on their own bosses in public. Yet the Review can clearly serve a useful purpose in Chicago. Besides, its kind of self-criticism might be even more important in the nation's many one-newspaper towns, where journalistic complacency often goes unchallenged.