Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  
Home

Chicago Tribune Censors a BuzzFlash Reader's Obituary Because It Stated "In lieu of flowers, vote Democratic."

Share
Submitted by meg on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 3:14pm.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
by Meg White

Kenneth Swanborn, a BuzzFlash reader, died at age 49 last week. His family took out an obituary in the two main papers in Chicago: the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times.

In the Trib, Swanborn's obituary was censored. The last line should have been (and is, at the Sun-Times) "In lieu of flowers, vote Democratic." The Trib said they were concerned that the line would be "offensive" to readers.

According to local writer Eileen Favorite, the family has said that Trib eventually relented and will reprint the original obituary in full, albeit without the information about the already-passed memorial services. Neither the director of corporate communications nor the obituary writer for the Tribune returned messages from BuzzFlash requesting confirmation, so we'll have to take Favorite's word for it.  At the time of publishing this News Analysis, the phrase "In lieu of flowers, vote Democratic" has not been reinserted in the online obituary for Swanborn.

Simply perusing the online guest book for the obituary shows Ken (who also performed stand-up comedy under the name Ken Swann) was well-loved not only for his big heart and sense of humor, but also for his political passion.  Here are a few highlights:

"Swanny, you got my vote."   
-- Mo (Grand Ledge, MI)
"...my only regret is that he won't be casting his vote for Obama come November, as it was one of his hopes to do. I like to think he knows the outcome already."
-- Rita Mitchell (Chicago, IL)
"Swanee, this is the first obituary I have read that requests a Democratic vote in lieu of flowers. Thus, I will vote Democratic this year in your honor."
-- Kim Mulvenna (Grand Ledge, MI)

"I knew Ken from an online community of Democratic activists. He told us years ago about some skinny guy from Chicago with a funny name, long before the rest of the country knew who he was."

-- Gene Winters (Independence, MO)
"Swannee, I miss already our weekly political discussions for a most-needed change."
-- Mike Ploski (Frankfort, IL)

Unfortunately, it seems the Tribune also took great pains to be sure nothing "offensive" appeared on the guest book. Aly Pierce of Spring, TX, told BuzzFlash that she waited 24 hours and her tribute to her friend Ken still hadn't been posted. She called the Tribune and they subsequently sent her a letter suggesting that Ken's family would be offended by something she wrote. They were worried about a story Pierce retold about Ken endangering his life in a storm-chasing incident. In it, she recalled laughing it up with him later and telling him that she was glad that "God protects the stupid." The paper did eventually post her comment in full.

"Laughing was a good thing. But, it took that long for the Tribune to figure that out? I really don't think they would have posted it, if I hadn't called. I just thought for them to leave out 'in lieu of flowers, vote Democrat,' was way over [the top], since that is what the family asked," Pierce wrote in an email to BuzzFlash. Though she offered to take the provocative story out, she wasn't worried about her anecdote being taken the wrong way: "I knew Ken and his family wouldn't take it personally."

Michael Miner of the Chicago Reader reported that a woman at the Trib's obituary desk responded to questions about the story with the following:

"...we do have protocols and we do have rules we have to follow."

That statement made us wonder if the Tribune actually has an anti-Democratic rule. The obituary was paid for; would the Trib turn down advertising dollars from MoveOn.org, or other left-leaning groups? Or perhaps they just believe that people lose their First Amendment rights when they pass away?

In all seriousness, though: As Chicagoans, we can tell you that the Trib has been known for its Republican leanings for decades. As the Sun-Times slides deeper and deeper into E!-style journalism and the Reader cuts its news and feature space (but kudos to Miner for catching this story), we worry that this once-bastion "Windy City" of journalism will go the way of one-horse towns all over the nation.

Or, it may just be the case that the Tribune doesn't have Ken's famous sense of humor.

In any case, Ken was a reader of ours, and to honor him, we thought we'd re-post a letter (uncensored and in full) he sent to our "Mailbag" feature last year:

If Only

What a great country we could be if only those spending every waking moment debunking global warming had spent five seconds wondering about the intelligence (I still laugh writing that word) that put us in Iraq.

But, no, we must never question a president in a time of war, forgetting the fact that Iraq never was involved in Sept. 11, 2001. Such a minor detail.

But no, they tell us, global warming advocates want to destroy the United States. Not exactly sure why. But let's humor them. They were wrong on Iraq. So hundreds of thousands are dead, and we will be bankrupt any day now. Evil Empires don't last forever.

Say the advocates of global warming are wrong. We would have less pollution. Spend less on gas. And maybe live longer because you walked to the store instead of loading up the Hummer to drive five blocks.

God, that would be awful.

Ken Swanborn
Calumet City, IL

Well said. Rest in peace, Ken, and BuzzFlash will post what the Tribune wouldn't in your obituary: "In lieu of flowers, vote Democratic."

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Technorati Tags:Technorati Tags:

»

Ken Swanborn

Submitted by oneeggcream on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 5:17pm.
WE NEED MORE PEOPLE LIKE YOU IN THIS WORLD! Unfortunately, only the good die young and we are left with the likes of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Limbaugh, O'really,etc. RIP sir and know that your words will not die with you but be told to others who have the intelligence to listen. Peace to you and yours....
»

SADLY WITH YOU DEAD.... i assume your ballot will be cast GOP

Submitted by codypup on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 6:28pm.
ahhh yes.... time for the GOP to be out stumping in graveyards again
»

Swanny, May your soul rest in peace while battling evil empire

Submitted by Norm on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 5:05pm.
The 911 Evidence that May Hang George W. Bush Wednesday, 12 June 2002, 2:37 pm Article: Cheryl Seal The 9/11 Evidence that May Hang George W. Bush http://web11.superb.net/www.nodomain.com/editorials/smoking_gun.html The Case Against G.W. Bush: a Preliminary "Hearing" in the Court of Common Sense At the very least Bush allowed 9/11 to happen. But the evidence indicates his guilt involves more than just a huge intentional sin of omission – this now seems certain. So it is ulcer-fomenting to watch him, Cheney, Condoleeza Rice and their PR army try to sell America yet another Big Lie – that they had no idea such a thing as 9/11 could happen...they could never have imagined it in their wildest dreams...they had no specific warnings...there was nothing unusual about the summer 2001 warnings, etc, etc, ad nauseam. I have compiled some material that clearly shows that the above litany is blatantly, arrogantly false. But first, let's hold a preliminary hearing in the "Court of Common sense". To see through a wall of propaganda and determine what's really going on, one must tune out the spin completely and take a good, objective look at what has been DONE and what the parties involved have to GAIN by their actions. Let's look at the well-documented facts: First, when Bush, Rice and the other top Reichmeisters discarded the warning on August 6, Bush's approval ratings had sunk to just 49% – this is the red zone for a president. As any political expert or presidential historian: Hit 45%, and impeachment may soon loom on the horizon. Second, Bush's actions throughout his entire life show a clear and consistent pattern: without exception, he has always chosen the path that will benefit himself and his corporate friends the most and will do so in the face of even the most outraged criticism. Third, the stolen election of 2000 proves that Bush was willing to participate in a very daring, very large scale crime in pursuit of power. Fourth, Bush's father's approval ratings went from shaky to astronomical within a month of declaring war on an "evil terrorist" leader back in 1991. This lesson could hardly have been lost on Bush, Jr.: Start a war and the emotions of the public can be whipped up to a point that will push presidential approval ratings way, way up. So, given the above facts as "evidence," what do you imagine a self-serving man who has faced no serious opposition from Congress, the press, or the American public would be likely to do? A bookie would most certainly lay odds that Bush would stand aside and allow an event like 9/11 to happen. Another action that must be considered in the cold hard light of day is Bush's behavior after 9/11. He seized upon national fears, worked at intensifying them, and immediately, without waiting for Congress or serious discussions with other nations, called for an attack on Afghanistan and a global war on terrorism. At the same time, he worked through John Ashcroft with stunning swiftness to dismantle civil liberties. These are not the actions of a leader who wants to keep his nation calm, reassured, and standing tall in its principles in the wake of tragedy. They are the actions of an opportunist who knows, from watching his father's presidency, that the window of opportunity for consolidating his power will be narrow: Bush Sr.'s approval rating high lasted only a few months. Last, why would Bush admit to having been warned about 9/11 in the first place? In the corporate and political world, this admission is a strategy that has been used over and over by creeps who are guilty of huge crimes and know the heat is on. By confessing to a lesser charge, they try to draw the heat away from the main, more dangerous issue. Ken Lay, the head of Anderson, and every criminal who has ever copped or tried to cop a plea bargain have used this ploy. If Bush were innocent of any complicity in 9/11, why should he make ANY statement? It is always the guilty who feel the need to make statements: "I am not a crook!", "I never had sex with that woman!" Or how about that row of tobacco industry CEO's who all swore that none of them knew their product was harmful or addictive?
»