Thanks as always for your feedback, Lily.

I'd say that the primary difference is that the McKinley Park News serves a news audience first and foremost.

Often not-for-profit publications will serve a purpose first: one that it is the messaging priority over all else, and for an entity that's formally incorporated as a public charity with such a stated advocacy purpose.

Their advocacy agenda is almost always driven by the priorities of the publication's monolithic funders, who'd pull funding if the publication veered from its primary purpose of marketing their agenda, facts be damned.

That's not news. That's marketing. (Agenda marketing.) These marketers demonstrate why they're not to be trusted, even though they may pantomime as news.

I've been thinking of the term "blue slime" -- in contrast to fascist-led "pink slime" -- to describe it.

Read my first Letter from the Editor about "Building a Trustworthy News Business" to learn more about how we operate, and our philosophy toward news and serving the trust of our audiences first and foremost.

As for the Southwest Chamber, there was and has remained zero organizational advocacy on the bike lanes issue, including in the meeting presentation, which just presented facts about the issue.

As the Wall Street Journal coverage notes, both sides of the issue were well-represented at the meeting, and indeed business owner and meeting attendee Andrew Mack received the most coverage of all for his pro-bike lane advocacy (even a photo of him and his cargo bike setup).

The chamber has established no stance on this issue or any other, nor has it represented that it has. We do allow open, convivial discussion and do not gate-keep participating businesses for talking about any particular issue, especially those that affect their businesses.

Note that the Southwest Chamber of Commerce is also very different than many non-profits in that we are a 501(c)(6) business association with formal membership, leadership and governance directly tied to member engagement and oversight. This contrasts greatly with 501(c)(3)s that are too often zero-member, grant-driven money-pumps for a bloated staff and an eternal leadership star chamber with zero accountability to the communities they purport to serve.

Should the Southwest Chamber of Commerce establish a position on implementing protected bike lanes? That might be something taken up by an Advocacy Committee and adopted with a member vote. If someone could sell our membership on the business benefits of bike lanes, a pro-bike lane stance might be more likely to be adopted. Any takers?

Right now, no one talks to or engages the business community on this issue ... and too many others.

Also, no advocacy consideration has started because the Southwest Chamber of Commerce is a brand-new group. For the immediate future, we're focusing on onboarding new members and getting ready for our August meeting, where we'll learn about property and real estate management from one of our members. Bike lanes are just one of many business topics.

Any businesses are welcome to join us on August 26: Click here for meeting details.

Justin, it's ironic that you're referring to Streetsblog Chicago as "lying marketers" (although we're upfront about being "The region's sustainable transportation news and advocacy website"). We literally persuaded Wall Street Journal to correct a false statement in their article!
chi.streetsblog.org/2026/07/31/joe-barre...t-the-safety-project

Cheers, John Greenfield, Streetsblog Chicago editor

justin lives here the other dude dont and does it for a living $$$

Thanks for replying here, John (Greenfield)!

I see Streetsblog, like many non-profit publications, to be marketing vehicles, rather than news outlets. This is because their purpose is not to inform the public by presenting factual news, but to manipulate perception in order to enact specific social agendas.

Do agenda-driven not-for-profits also sometimes engage in journalism? Sure! So does Fox News. It's still lipstick on a pig.

But there's even failure on the side of Streetsblog as a tax-free charitable organization awarded such because you're supposed to be serving a public good.

Your campaigning on behalf of and against specific candidates for political office comprises illegal electioneering by a not-for-profit corporation. Non-profits are banned from doing this, even though so many ignore this law, from Christian nationalist churches to neighborhood development councils.

An investigation into Streetsblog Chicago, and Streetsblog more broadly, might be fully justified to question Streetsblog's status as a public charity, and then rescind it. Do Streetsblog's lawyers care about this stuff? Do other Streetsblog outlets also campaign for and against specific candidates for office? That's what charities are explicitly prohibited against.

I also see Streetsblog's failure to your audience by subjecting them to harmful and unwanted consumer surveillance by integrating Google throughout your publication. Not only is Google formally guilty as a monopolist against the news industry, it engages in rapacious, harmful and unregulated surveillance against the audience of any website that integrates its tools. What public good is served by your "charity" harming your users by serving their data up to Google?

Here at the McKinley Park News, we reject and sever all such consumer surveillance and affiliation with anti-news entities like Google because we serve our audience first and foremost, even in our platform. Making the right choice is very achievable, even for tiny, independent outlets like the McKinley Park News.

We also do our best to educate and inform users about guarding against abuse enabled by publications like Streetsblog.  Readers: Click here to learn how to protect yourself.

Marketers often try to present themselves as news in order to piggyback on journalism's legitimacy. They are a big part of the public's loss of trust in news. Journalism is a product, not a purpose.

So there's a whole bunch of reasons why readers shouldn't trust Streetsblog and other agenda-driven publications, and especially those that choose to sell out their users for convenience and profit.

dude is a scumbag carpetbagger pretending to advocate for the working class when in fact destroys our city with neo-liberal ideologies of control and subjugation ...