Talk:Mike Royko

Royko remembered

Another good one, Shsilver. Royko's columns were regularly ripped off by the Boston Globe's phony columnist, Mike Barnicle, who was a fair-haired boy until he got caught and fired.

I covered City Hall in Chicago while Royko was covering Cook county. It was always a pleasure when he showed up at a news conference because he never took any nonsense from anyone and always asked the best questions. He was a great reporter before he became a columnist. I introduced him to blues guitarist Mike Bloomfield, which was some of the first publicity Bloomfield ever got. Royko was Polish and "Polish jokes" enraged him, making for some of his best early columns. Can you write about Slats Grobnik? Ortolan88 09:58 Aug 12, 2002 (PDT)

scavhunt

No references to scavhunt?

no years about when he did many things, joined sun times, etc?

Unsourced comment

During Operation Desert Storm, Royko wrote many columns that were critical to the soldiers fighting the war. For some reason, the veteran columnist was very antagonistic towards them. He mocked the outpouring of support and patriotism when they came home and said they didn't deserve it. Many took him to task for this. Jokestress 21:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Slats Grobnik

Would somebody who really understands Slats Grobnik start a page for him? --Metzenberg 06:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure Slats really needs a page of his own. Shsilver 14:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Royko and Controversy

Great bio, very good writing, but a paragraph needs to be added about the more controversial elements of his history. It's akin to a footnote on a great career, but he was the source for a few flare-ups just as explosive as the ones he spent a lifetime writing about. These could include positions he took in his column that were unpopular such as the first Gulf War, as well as satirical pieces that caused protests, examples of which are listed below. Not as easily related to his writing were his 1995 DUI arrest and his rant against the arresting officers and ambulance crew on the scene. It was eerily similar to Mel Gibson's recent trouble but predated it by a decade. In Royko's case the comments were anti-gay and he inquired about one person's ethnicity, not their religion.

I'd hate to see it overshadow the article, but ignoring it is so contrary to Royko's style. If I were a good writer I'd tie it together with an old-school vs. political-correctness theme, a battle which he fought often and wrote about in the last decade of his life.

Examples of controversies he created with his writing:

- His satirical columns supporting Pat Buchanan's campaign in 1995-96 angered a lot of Hispanics despite Royko's intent.

- The 1996 Hawaii Supreme Court decision on gay marriage laws gave him fodder for several columns, but the humor fell flat with the gay community. One element in particular that infuriated activists and some feminists was Royko's suggestion that police could ignore domestic violence between same-sex couples because "...two muscular guys, or even scrawny ones, ought to be able to duke it out on their own and not involve cops and the courts."

An argument could be made that Royko was a not-so-closeted homophobe. He provided ample material on the topic in the examples above and the very public fights he picked with activists on topics like gays in the military. I'm sure you can add a boat load of quotes culled from years of writing as well. I'm not so certain it's a case for bigotry as it is an example of the boundaries between generations the conflicts they foster. In his case though, the conflicts are often created and well-documented, sometimes articulately so.

It's not my article, so final word doesn't rest with me. But if I can help, let me know. Tmorris 21:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC) T Morris

All that seems to relate to the last few years of a whole long career... AnonMoos 15:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"An argument could be made" hardly meets the threshold for inclusion in the main article. Like anyone else Royko was entitled to state his opinion - in his case he was paid handsomely and widely read for doing just that. He was beloved and noted for his iconoclastic views - such as suggesting voters intentionally sabotage exit polls during elections. His refusal to toe the PC line - especially the 'rule' that states gays and minorities are exempt from being the subjects of humor - is completely consistent with his fearless approach to other topics such as city politics. Putting a dead man on trial for his views is a fool's errand and serves no purpose vis-a-vis a Wikipedia article. Countryroads 17:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

why remove material?

I didn't get the reason for the removal of all that material. Surely the Pulitzer Prize should be in the lede. If you are going to remove material en masse, please discus it here. Smallbones (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)