Your article on my daughter, Amy Jacobson [Tale of the Tape, by Lucinda Hahn, December], seemed to indicate that life in her childhood home was a reign of terror. It wasn’t. The topics of divorce and money in the article were also incorrect and incomplete. None of my daughters had to work their way through college.
Amy has gone through more crap in the past year and a half than most people do in a lifetime. To her everlasting credit, she has maintained a strong and positive attitude. Her tremendous talent, empathy, and determination are undeniable.
We all love her and know something great is in her future.
Lucinda Hahn has written a very readable and well-researched article concerning the Amy Jacobson videotape. Hahn’s treatment of all parties appears to be fair and balanced, helping the reader to understand the competitive struggles of newsgathering and the media’s relations with the police and each other. The article certainly describes well the dark side of being a successful newsperson in a cutthroat business. Concerning Amy Jacobson, it appears that he (or she) who lives by the media sword can be done in by the media sword also.
I saw Amy Jacobson covering the Obama rally in Grant Park last November. I was very happy to see that she was working and almost went up to her to show my support. I think it’s ridiculous that she got fired, and I hope she wins her lawsuit against Channel 2. Channel 2 did make it appear at first that Jacobson was doing something that she wasn’t, and that wasn’t right. Just as she misses her job, I miss her doing her job as well. She was my favorite reporter on Channel 5 and their broadcast hasn’t been the same since her departure and because of that I’ve switched on Channel 7.
How nice Oprah Winfrey made your December ’08 cover [Oprah Unbound, by Marcia Froelke Coburn]. As if we are not already overexposed to her through her TV show, magazine, book club, Web site. Frankly, I have my own opinions and am bored and annoyed with Oprah telling me what to read, eat, give to charity, and be appalled with.
Thanks, but no thanks, Oprah. I don’t care what your favorite things are, even if they are less than $50. I will continue to enjoy my husband, my kids, my friends, and my favorite Scotch and water with or without her approval.
Oprah, Oprah, Oprah.
Was that really necessary? If I wanted to read about this egotist, I would buy her Oprah magazine and read about the real sensitive Oprah, the down-to-earth Oprah, the philanthropist Oprah, Oprah’s school, Oprah’s photo shoots, Oprah’s social life, Oprah’s homes, what Oprah had for breakfast. Oprah’s dentist’s magazine subscriptions, Oprah’s book club. Oprah, Oprah, Oprah.
Thanks for putting her face on yet another magazine.
I’m afraid that your story in the December issue regarding the Great Soccer War of 2008 [“Turf War,” by Debra Pickett, Reporter] was a story where the spin on facts went wild. All of the dates and players were well documented, but the issue here was not about a neighborhood organization being steamrolled by City Hall, but rather a small group of people who are fortunate enough to live near Lincoln Park wanting to keep it as their own private back yard and a few local political wannabes using a small patch of underutilized park space to make a big issue out of a nonissue.
The city of Chicago has more waterfront park space than [many other cities] in America. It doesn’t take a genius to recognize the need for more playing fields, given the use of those playing fields presently available. The City of Chicago should be applauded for seeking out alternative financing to defray the costs of offering these improvements for all of Chicago to enjoy.
It’s really just a shame that a few well-heeled people who live near Lincoln Park chose to force the city to waste precious resources to respond to lawsuits about who should have the right to enjoy this public park.
UPDATE: THE STRANGE CASE OF THE DENTIST AND THE PIMPS
In October 2006, Chicago limned the curious story of the dentist and the pimps, a noirish tale about a respected Chicago dentist named Gary Kimmel who became involved in a tangled money-laundering scheme involving a nationwide prostitution ring.
In the story, Kimmel, who had yet to be convicted when the article was published, claimed he had no idea that the man to whom he was renting one of his many Marina City condos trafficked in women and underage girls. He also claimed not to know that he was doing anything wrong by allowing the man and two other pimps to pay him for use of his fleet of luxury cars.
Last May, however, Kimmel pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering. In November, he was sentenced to three years in federal prison. In a plea agreement, Kimmel admitted that he let three pimps use flashy cars he had bought and put in his own name in exchange for cash from the ring, which operated out of Chicago, Detroit, and Honolulu. He also acknowledged renting his Marina City apartments to at least one of the pimps and to performing dental work on several prostitutes, including one who had had her teeth knocked out.