Alden Global Capital, the hedge fund that bought the Chicago Tribune Company this past May, named Chris Jones editorial page editor on July 1.  Jones has been the Tribune’s theater critic for two decades.

When asked about his new gig, according to Media Post’s Publishers Daily, Jones said, “I’m still the theater critic, which is important to me and the paper, and I will review the major shows as I have for the past 20 years.”

Jones’s promotion was part of Alden’s downsizing of the Tribune, a strategy Alden, which is now the second-largest newspaper owner in the U.S., has used in buying several other newspapers.  In March 2018, Margaret Sullivan, the Washington Post media columnist called Alden “one of the most ruthless of the corporate strip-miners seemingly intent on destroying local journalism.”  And Denver Post staffers referred to Alden as “vulture capitalists” after multiple layoffs in 2019.

So, was Chris Jones, promoted because no one else was left to take over as editor of the editorial page, or was it a shrewd move?

I think promoting Jones was a good idea because it was recognition that politics is theater.

Last week the Pew Center released its annual State of the Media Report which indicated that in 2020 newspaper subscription revenue passed advertising revenue for the first time as the number-one source of income for newspapers.  Therefore, editorials will have to appeal primarily to subscribers, who are the same people who go to the theatre: old people who are college graduates.

So, what might a future Tribune editorial/review of a politician’s speech read like?

In New York Times’ film critic, A.O. Scott’s 2017 book, Better Living Through Criticism, he writes that it is the job of the critic “to disagree, to refuse to look at anything simply as what it is, to insist on subjecting it to intellectual scrutiny.”

Scott then writes:

Anti-intellectualism is virtually our civic religion.  “Critical thinking” may be a ubiquitous educational slogan – a vaguely defined skill we hope our children pick up on the way to adulthood – but the rewards for not using our intelligence are immediate and abundant.

As consumers of culture, we are lulled into passivity or, at best, prodded toward a state of pseudo-semi-self-awareness, encouraged toward either a defensive group identity of fanhood or shallow, half-ironic eclecticism.  Meanwhile, as citizens of the political commonwealth, we are conscripted into a polarized climate of ideological belligerence in which bluster too often substitutes for argument.

What would subjecting a political speech to anti-bluster intellectual scrutiny look like?

First, an editorial/review might identify a speech as a comedy or a tragedy.   For example, Trump, the most obvious example of politics as theater, delivered speeches as tragedy – crime, rape, and death in America that only he could fix (and enrich himself).  Biden, on the other hand, tends to deliver speeches as comedy – optimism and happiness ahead.

Second, an editorial/review might identify the overall theme of a political speech – what is the basic message such as fear, optimism, collaboration or insurrection that the actors try to communicate.

Third, an editorial/review might examine the script that lays out the arguments to support the theme.  Was the script well written, did it follow a logical structure and was it persuasive?

Next, an editorial/review might look at the setting.  Did the setting appropriately enhance the theme?  Was it like George Bush’s appearance in flight suit on the deck of an aircraft carrier to announce victory in the Iraq war or was it like Donald Trump’s appearance, holding a bible upside down in front of a defaced Episcopal church after police brutally dispersed protesters in Lafayette Park?

Next, an editorial/review might comment on the direction, the choreography and the casting.  Were the actors’ movements properly motivated, driven by the script? 

In the past year, the Democratic stage direction has been excellent.  The Democratic convention was superb television – virtually flawless, with the exception of letting Tom Hanks almost freeze.  And Biden’s inauguration was expertly cast (with the exception of Garth Brooks singing “Amazing Grace”) with Amanda Gorman reading her inspiring poem, “The Hill We Climb,” and the coup de grace of Lady Gaga singing “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

Finally, an editorial/review might assess the actors.  Did they play their parts convincingly?  Was Donald Trump presidential?  Was George Bush or Barack Obama authentic, presidential?  How about Joe Biden?

As an actor, Trump didn’t follow the script; he made it up as he rambled. He did not play the role of President of the United States.  He played Donald Trump as his fans wanted him to be.  The emotions of fear, anger and outrage are easy to incite, especially among white, uneducated voters, which Trump did cynically and ruthlessly.

Biden seems to be playing his part as written – a decent, nice guy who happens to be president.  He seems authentic, but he doesn’t elicit strong emotions like Trump did.

I look forward to seeing how the Tribune editorializes about the theater of politics.

I’m also glad that Alden Global Capital didn’t name a sportswriter as editor of the editorial page because nothing would have changed.  Political coverage in the past has been horserace coverage – who’s ahead and who’s behind – and in the last two elections, the horserace information was based on unacceptably inaccurate polling. 

It’s much more realistic to cover politics as theater rather than as a sport, especially as a horserace.