Digg this
Post to del.icio.us
E-mail to a friendAbout the only Chicagoan who comes out looking good in Ryan Lizza's recent New Yorker profile of Barack Obama (yeah, it's in the issue with the cover) is Fourth Ward alderman Toni Preckwinkle.
She's depicted as a person of independence, integrity, and selfless dedication to her community -- one of the few politicians or activists in town who's not a sellout, hack, or Daley suck-up.
"Preckwinkle is a tall, commanding woman with a clipped gray Afro," Lizza writes. "She has represented her slice of the South Side for seventeen years and expresses no interest in higher office. On Chicago's City Council, she is often a dissenter against the wishes of Mayor Richard M. Daley."
Preckwinkle's quote about Obama, which closes Lizza's introduction, is particularly provocative: "'Can you get where he is and maintain your personal integrity?' she said. 'Is that the question?' She stared at me and grimaced. 'I'm going to pass on that.'"
Has Lizza's praise gone to her head? Has the prominence of her part in the profile changed her life?
"Not really," she says with a laugh. "I have been getting a lot of calls from the media."
And what are you telling them?
"Not much. I'm keeping my head down to avoid any more attacks of truthfulness."
Ouch. Who knew--she jokes . . .
"re Ben Joravsky
July 17th - 8:28 p.m.
Hey, Benny Jay, care the wade in, where Mickie Dee fears to tread?
http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/
Come on over, the water's fine."
Yeah, I know, it might feel like one of those 'strange bedfellows' kind of experiences, from both parties perspectives, but, remember, once upon a time, the USA and the USSR joined forces to defeat Hitler.
:)
July 15th - 10:08 a.m.
You guys won't give it up. I still say we are in better shape. Mayor Kilpatrick has been indicted and probabily is going to jail. Can you Chicagoans make the same claim,about Daley getting indicted.We have a honest States Attorney who will indict politicans unlike your States Attorney. Daley steals land away from people to on bogus Airport and Olympic projects. Your city is broke also, but your politicans cook the books and bullshit Chicagoans that everything is fine. Detroiters don't have to sell parking meters,public Gargaes ,and lease Airports, like you Chicagoans do. I feel like saying to Detroiters if you Don't like Detroit move to Chicago,and live under Warlord Daley.
Give me a break. Preckwinkle would give her left nipple to become Congressman but she knows that her anti black moves have made her the mulatto Ed Burke - forever an alderman. At least Burke has a good committee assignment. Preckwinkle is content to do the bidding of the U of Chicago and sit on hundreds of thousands of dollars of campaign funds for a higher office she could never win.
"often" is too strong, it means "frequently"
better would have been "occasionally"
Preckwinkle asked herself, avoiding
"Can I get where I am and maintain my personal integrity?"
People in Hyde Park seem to value her for ideology and either ignore or are completely ignorant of what kind of services one can expect from their elected officials. I've even had some tell me that the services are lousy because Daley doesn't like her -- which may be true, but I'd like to ask other than the symbolic value of standing up to our semi-benevolent dictator, what has she actually done for her residents?
Preckwinkle's stance on TIF is entirely unambiguous and consistent pre- and post- Olympic fever.
Preckwinkle has voted for EVERY TIF district and EVERY TIF subsidy that has come before her since joining the Council in 1991.
This is a FAQ. Please bookmark this page:
In the two decades plus history of TIF in Chicago, there has been only ONE dissenting vote in City Council on a new TIF district, expansion of an existing TIF district, or approval of a TIF subsidy: Moore's (49th) vote against the LaSalle St TIF in November, 2006.
OK?
As long as she stands with those idiots about the stupid rocks at the point, she will forever be their golden child in Hyde Park.
They DO have an overpriced for the area Treasure Island grocer though
Why don't you run for Mayor. I'll help you on the North side. My name is chocalate chip now in the 41st ward. Come it's your turn !
Clout Monkeys.
Because:
Someone has to eat the politicians shit and like it.
By Ronn Torossian, President & CEO, 5W Public Relations
Working in public relations and, in particular, crisis management, there is a tremendous balancing act between projecting clients’ images and agendas and, at the same time, protecting them – essentially keeping the press at bay. Often, as it is, the purpose of PR and wrangling with the media is to encourage positive coverage for whomever or whatever you represent. If the story is not going to be positive, then it is best just not to do it. The job of a good PR person is to protect his clients and make them look their best in the media and in public.
It is for this reason that I found myself agreeing with the recent Obama campaign's decision to ban a reporter deemed to be from a publication believed to be less than objective for Obama from his press plane on this week’s International “foreign policy” trip. Let’s face it, there’s no shortage of reporters wanting to travel with the presidential candidate – as the campaign received 200 requests for press seats on the plane, of which they were able to grant only 40 – so why grant space to a publication who has previously hurt the campaign, and who may skew coverage in place of someone less inclined to do so? It is hard to imagine the New York Yankees allowing a Boston-minded sports reporter unfettered locker room access.
Candidates and clients as well, offer access to media with the hope, and perhaps even the expectation that media will present a positive narrative. Yet, anyone worth his salt in public relations knows all to well that media access by its very nature presents the possibility of either a good or a bad story. So, if there is choice, why ante-up with media deemed to be biased against your position when there are so many other journalists one can gamble on to better the odds?
Equally as reporters at the top tier publications want exclusive information, unique off the record comments and the like, so too must there be a very fair and real expectation for them that if they present a negative or seemingly prejudicial story then the possibility of being excluded is very real – especially when there is a major issue at stake, like a presidential election, and especially where the candidate has the luxury of choosing any media he prefers. Indeed, he cannot avoid bad coverage from someone inclined to do so, but he does not need to offer a seat on his plane.
The banned reporter in question, Ryan Lizza of New Yorker Magazine learned that Obama had earned a reputation of "'you're not going to punk me, you're not going to roll me over, you're not going to jam me.'"[i][i] This is not an issue of Freedom of the Press; Lizza can write what he wants, but Obama is not obligated to open his arms in welcome. Outrage by media over such policies is also hypocritical, as stated in The Huffington Post, “Wow. So it's gonna be like that, is it? Retribution for unfavorable coverage is a chilling thing to contemplate.” No, it is not chilling – it is valid. As journalists are arbiters of fate, they should expect that those on the receiving end of their opinions or ideals be cautious.
I find myself agreeing with this statement from Anita Dunn, an Obama advisor, “The press corps wouldn’t be doing its job it if weren’t demanding more access than we’re willing to give,” Ms. Dunn said. “We wouldn’t be doing our job if we didn’t occasionally irritate the press.”[ii][ii]
I understand those of us in the public relations business who feels that media must not be allowed to simply run rampant over clients - especially those who garner tremendous media attention. It does not mean that we should not cooperate with media – We do, but while we would love totally positive coverage, we generally seek what we can expect to be fair and objective.
[i][i] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/21/obamas-re...
[ii][ii] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/us/politics/19ca...