The Right Coast

Editor: Thomas A. Smith
University of San Diego
School of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Friday, January 12, 2007

Is the Chicago Sun-Times Kow-Towing to Federated Department Stores?
Gail Heriot

Ah!  I'm happy to see that somebody in the media--Michael Miner at the Chicago Reader--is starting to comment on the Chicago Sun-Times' coverage of the Marshall Field's fiasco.  It's been rather creepy reading the Sun-TImes lately.

Why would a newspaper care one way or the other about a department store?  Very simple.  Department store ads are newspapers' Number 1 source of revenue.  And Federated Department Stores, Inc. is the largest department store operator in the nation.  That makes it the most important "client" of almost every major newspaper in the country--including the Sun-Times, whose financial troubles make it particularly vulnerable to "client" pressure.

In fairness, the Sun-Times didn't start out toeing the Federated line.  When the rumors started flying in early 2005 that Federated would take over Marshall Field's (and other May Department Stores) and turn them into Macy's, Sun-Times movie critic Roger Ebert wrote a series of scathing columns.   In the first, he told Federated:  "Don't mess with Chicago, and don't mess with the name Marshall Field's.  You will generate rage beyond your wildest nightmares."  In the second, when it had become clear that Federated was going to ignore his advice, he howled that "[t]his is an abomination on a par with renaming the Chicago Cubs the Chicago Mets."  And in the last, he called Terry Lundgren, the "three-headed chairman, president and CEO of Federated" and wrote:  "I am looking at my Field's charge card, which I have cut up into tiny pieces.  They look like little tears ...."  Huge numbers of Chicagoans followed suit.

Rumor has it that Federated wasn't amused, and let the Sun-TImes know in no uncertain terms.  I've no idea whether it's true.  But the fact is that, by September 21, 2005, the Sun-Times was actually editorializing in favor of the Macy-ification of Chicago's beloved department store with an essay entitled, "We'll Miss Field's Name, But We're Ready to Move on." 

Perhaps, of course, this was an expression of the editors' actual view uninfluenced by their need for ad revenue.  But I am skeptical.  If you really think the change is no big deal, why bother to editorialize about it?  The demise of Marshall Field's was and continues to be a huge issue for large numbers of Chicagoans, who for reasons I have discussed in previous posts, feel deeply about the store.  Why would the Sun-Times want to anger their readers if they weren't being encouraged to do so, subtly or otherwise, by Federated?  Why not editorialize about the war on terrorism instead?

The same week, the Sun-TImes ran several articles with headlines like "Macy's Is Here to Stay ... and We'll Get Used to It" and "Few Are Outraged Enough to Cut Ties with Their Old Friend" as readers quietly (or not so quietly) seethed.  The author of the latter article--Mark Brown--was then deluged with letters.  To his credit, he acknowledged several of the letters, but asserted that he believed the change was a "done deal" and argued that a boycott would be "the wrong way to go," since it would "undermine[] the thousands of Field's employees who will be left behind to make it work."  But the precipitous drop in sales since the changeover proves that his notion that "few are outraged enough to cut ties" was dead wrong.  Just as Ebert predicted, lots of them were.

More recently, the Sun-TImes was the only media outlet to fail to cover the very photogenic protest held on the day after Thanksgiving 2006 in front of the State Street Store.  The Tribune ran the story.  And television cameras fell all over themselves to get pictures of the crowd of a hundred or so protesters, many of whom were wearing 19th century fashions.  But the Sun-Times was nowhere to be found.  Instead, it was busy running front-page ads for Macy's (the first front-page ad I'd ever seen), and co-sponsoring a number of Macy's promotions.  Authors of anti-Macy's letters to the editor complained that no letters were being published.

Miner gives another example in his Chicago Reader article.  He writes:

"[T]his month Macy's announced that a new manager was taking over the State Street store .... On January 3 the Tribune ran the story on page one, under the headline 'Macy's learning it's what's in a name.' The backdrop to the change, the Tribune told its readers, was a weak Christmas, an estranged public, and a critical Wall Street. It quoted a retail consultant who lives across the street from the State Street store observing that 'you could shoot a cannon through there most of the time.'

"The Sun-Times story -- back in the business section -- read like a personality profile of the new manager, Linda Piepho. Readers learned that she'd gone to Evanston Township High School and studied education and communications in college and that her mother had worked part-time at Field's on State Street. 'I walked in the store,' Piepho told the Sun-Times, 'and said, Oh, my God. How lucky am I to be coming home to run this facility.'

"This heartwarming tale didn't hint that Piepho was coming home to trouble. And whereas the Tribune wrote neutrally that the old store manager was taking the newly created post of "regional vice president of corporate communications" -- a title with a kicked-upstairs ring to it -- the Sun-Times called the move a promotion."

I've got other examples, but I'll spare you for right now.  Suffice it to say that while Federated stock was plummeting in the wake of dismal sales, the Sun-Times re-printed a piece from another newspaper in which the author gushed like a school girl about how Federated's CEO looks like a movie star, only taller, slimmer and better dressed.  (Swell. We're all happy to hear it.)

Rumor has it that many Sun-Times employees are angry at their employer's stance.  And I strongly suspect it's true.  I corresponded with a Sun-Times employee last Spring who wanted to help the efforts to save Marshall Field's in any way she could.  But she made it clear that it was imperative that her employer not find out about it.  Complaining that the atmosphere at the Sun-Times was one of complete submission to the will of Federated, she feared that she would lose her job if she were seen publicly opposing the change.  (No, for obvious reasons, I can't give you her name.)

((Loyal right coast readers will also recall that I blogged about the difficulty I had in placing an ad for free "Keep It Marshall Field's" lapel stickers in the Sun-Times last summer.  When I told the account representative, Richard Hummel,  what I wanted to do, he  replied that "Federated is a big client of ours" and expressed doubt that the Sun-Times would be willing to print it.  When I suggested that it wouldn't look good for the Sun-Times to decline such an ad, he replied, "I can tell you right now that not going to matter.  Federated is our client."  The Sun-TImes did end up relenting, but only after I complained to the publisher.))

Uh oh!  I've allowed this post to get entirely too long.  I'd better finish my tea and go to bed.  Let me finish by stating that no, not every article published by the Sun-Times seems biased to me.  But the totality of the coverage suggests an eagerness to please Federated that is disturbing in a newspaper.  It's a good thing Federated doesn't take stands on the war on terrorism.  Who knows what mischief it could cause if it chose to throw its weight around.

http://rightcoast.typepad.com/rightcoast/2007/01/the_chicago_sun.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bf6e253ef00d834d69bf753ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is the Chicago Sun-Times Kow-Towing to Federated Department Stores?
Gail Heriot
:

Comments

The idea that people could get this worked up about a department store is almost enough to convince me that Marx was onthe right track -- that people could work up love for a profit-making institution of the sort that would get them out in the streets in protest is comic.

Posted by: hoya | Jan 12, 2007 9:56:33 AM

Really? People develop passions for sports teams all the time and nobody bats an eyelash. They are profit-making institutions.

Posted by: gail | Jan 12, 2007 11:33:09 AM

Developing a passion for sports teams is far less reasonable than developing a passion for a store. A store provides merchandise and services that affect our daily lives, and we reward stores that provide them well with our business and our loyalty. Being passionate about a sports team assigns you to a group that takes credit for their victories, commiserates over their losses, and makes sworn enemies of people who favor other teams. And Marx would love what Macy's is doing - the proletariat needs to be told what to buy, and where to buy it from. They've even got a big red star to go with it!

Posted by: Michael | Jan 14, 2007 6:29:56 AM

Marshall Field's was a special place. Macy's is a dump.

Macy's will be run out of Chicago within 18 months!

Field's shall rise again!!!

Posted by: Field's will rise again! | Jan 15, 2007 8:17:24 AM

I have read all the posts on TRC about the Marshall Fields/Macy saga. It makes me wish I had, at elast, shopped in a Marshall Field's Store. As it is, grwoing up in San Diego, I like shopping at Macy's. It is my first stop, and usually my last stop, for a special occasion dress. The employees are friendly, the stores are clean, and they have good sales. I am not advocating that all department stores should be Macy's stores. My point is that you might get more support and empathy if you relate it to something people like me in San Diego would understand - like my favorite place to watch a football game, Jack Murphy Stadium.

Posted by: KD | Jan 15, 2007 9:01:37 AM

I grew up in the heart of Federated, and I grew up with deep feelings for Lazarus. When Federated took on Macy's and Lazarus started selling Charter Club I saw the future. Now Lazarus is gone, as are Abraham & Straus and Filene's, all original FDS founding institutions. When I return to Columbus to visit family I have no interest in shopping Macy's--I have them in New York where I live.
When I return to Detroit, where I lived for 7 years, I have no reason to visit Macy's--it is not Hudson's (or Field's).
I do wonder, how old is the writer from San Diego who has the fondness for Macy's? When I first moved to San Diego in 1996 Federated was converting it's real estate from Broadway to Macy's and Bloomie's in California, and it was killing off the Bullock's, too. Macy's, in SoCal, really began in 1996. Not much heritage there. When I left in 2003 there was still Rob-May, but now, . . . . .

Posted by: Jon Weatherman | Jan 16, 2007 9:44:15 AM

hello, i like this post because has useful information.

Posted by: Invertir en oro | May 11, 2011 1:53:56 PM