The special demands of covering a Bears move as local news
From the first hints in the summer of 2021 that the Chicago Bears might be seriously considering a move to Arlington Heights, covering the twists and turns of the story has involved an elaborate mix of approaches for a community newspaper.
From a purely informational perspective, the story’s potentially vast scope, offering transformative possibilities for the region that have rarely been seen since the construction of Woodfield mall in Schaumburg a half-century ago, demands that the local newspaper be the dominant, authoritative source for information. Christopher Placek’s award-winning reporting in the past three years has certainly helped secure that reputation.
This is no mean accomplishment, considering that the reporting requires work with both the city of Chicago, where we don’t have a strong presence or source network, to the village of Arlington Heights and neighboring suburbs, where we do. And beyond the mere function of getting information and getting it first, Placek and our editors must tread careful reporting paths to ensure that our stories are not simply local cheerleading or, by contrast, doom-and-gloom visions of the impact a Bears stadium development could bring.
The concurrent appeal of the story to national media beyond the boundaries of the Chicago region adds an additional level of complexity that was evident this week. These media are not especially concerned with the interests of the suburbs, so as they delved into the team’s seeming shift of interest back toward the city, their reporting naturally presented strong impressions that the entire story had shifted. There was a decided feel that the climax of this plot had been reached and the city-focused denouement was all but ready to be written.
But as Placek’s story on Tuesday emphasized, and as countless commentators including our Editorial Board have repeated often, this is a story that defies simple one-dimensional plot lines, appealing though that prospect may be. It involves complicated regional political influences and, most likely, intrigues. It involves high-stakes economic interests. It involves quality of life issues and cultural shifts and ramifications for schools, communities and taxpayers. Expecting a development in any one of these elements to forecast the end of the game is as unrealistic as expecting, say, a runback for a touchdown at the opening kickoff to signal an impending Bears Super Bowl victory or, in a more recent and perhaps more appropriate comparison, a seemingly dominant San Francisco 49ers’ performance for three quarters to presage that team’s appearance hoisting the Lombardi Trophy at the end of the big game.
These considerations extend beyond our reporting, too, of course. Our Editorial Board struggled this week with the analysis in the wake of the reports regarding the Bears’ apparent offer to the city. On one hand, we felt it important to keep the reports in perspective; on the other, we didn’t want to seem naive about the political, social and economic forces at work in this story.
In the end, I think we pursued the one theme that has been prominent from the beginning of this strange journey and will remain so until shovels are in the ground at either the Soldier Field parking lot or the former oval at Euclid and New Wilke, or who knows, some current dark-horse interloper.
Whether you favor or oppose a Bears stadium development in the suburbs, be careful about how you interpret any one scene in this long-running story. There are many more scenes to come and much more time in which they will play out.
One thing is certain, though. You’ll continue to get comprehensive best local reporting and analysis from the local newspaper whose primary focus is on our communities and our region’s future.
• Jim Slusher, jslusher@dailyherald.com, is managing editor for opinion at the Daily Herald. Follow him on Facebook at www.facebook.com/jim.slusher1 and on Twitter at @JimSlusher.