Viewing entries tagged

Why We’re Creating the Press Club, City Bureau’s Membership Program

Join us in our commitment to reimagining local journalism. Plus: from now until Dec. 31, your donation will be matched dollar-for-dollar up to $1,000.

One year ago, City Bureau launched the Public Newsroom after the success of a month-long Kickstarter campaign. Contrary to crowdfunding best practices, we asked people to donate only $10 each — even discouraging larger donations, asking donors to spread the word instead — to create a truly democratized space where people could learn from each other, share skills and hear about amazing things happening in the local media world.

It may have sounded crazy, but it worked. We raised over $13,000 from 662 people in 30 days.

Since then, the Public Newsroom has gone from twice a month to once a week. Our workshops has been led by a wide array of community members, from civil rights icon Timuel Black to journalists to game designers. It’s always free, and always public. And most importantly, it was made possible by the collective efforts of our supporters.

Join the Press Club / Make a Donation

It struck us that this model — creating a program that’s not just for the people and by the people, but funded by the people — was the truest expression of City Bureau’s mission. We wrote back then:

Despite being widely considered a public good, American journalism is largely funded through big-dollar bets by a few decision makers, whether it’s corporations or foundations. Foundations have an important role to play, and we’re proud to have the support of some of Chicago’s best. But we also believe that if our coverage is going to be inclusive, our funding model should be too.

City Bureau is grounded in the belief that when community members get involved in journalism, everybody benefits. We built our nonprofit newsroom around the ideals of inclusion, equity and trust. The Public Newsroom is just one part of that — we’re also expanding our Documenters program and running an innovative Reporting Fellowship, all with just two full-time employees. As we enter our third year of operation, we are taking the next, critical step toward truly putting the public at the center of all our work: building a membership program.

The Press Club, as we’re dubbing it, will have many of the hallmarks you might expect from media memberships. We’ll have members-only events and newsletters, a cute coffee mug and other fun swag, and opportunities to give feedback at the earliest stages of our projects. (You can read all about it here.)

But becoming a City Bureau member means something more. Your contribution represents our shared commitment to reimagining local journalism. We often say that we started City Bureau because we thought that local media could be better — and we didn’t want to wait around for someone to improve it for us. In the last two years, hundreds of people have agreed; they’ve showed us by joining our programs, attending our events and sharing our work on social media.

[embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed]

If you believe in the power of journalism — the kind that gets citizens involved and makes people proud to live in their communities — then we hope you’ll make a financial commitment as well.

We’re also proud to announce that any donation (up to $1,000) to City Bureau between now and December 31 will be doubled, due to generous support from News Match, a collaboration between Democracy Fund, Knight Foundation and MacArthur Foundation. The News Match program is aimed at supporting nonprofit news organizations like us, which play a vital role informing the public and holding those in power accountable. We are excited to have such essential support in our launch of our new Press Club program, and as we prepare for our launch party, the Soap Box Ball, on November 2.

Every little bit counts. If every Chicagoan donated just a single dollar per year, we’d be a nearly $2.7 million organization. (It would only take 28,000 Bronze-level members ($8/month) to reach that same figure.)

Your donation ensures City Bureau has the resources to grow sustainably, independently, and — most importantly — to be accountable to you, our readers, supporters and neighbors. With your support, we are able to keep our core programming free and open to the public.

We invite you to join us in our civic journalism mission and become a Press Club member today.

Join the Press Club / Make a Donation

  • Want to tell us, face-to-face, what you think about the Press Club? We’re hosting a Public Newsroom on Oct. 12, with the help of Emily Goligorski of the Membership Puzzle Project, to get your early feedback and incorporate it into our program.
  • Celebrate the launch of our membership program with us on Nov. 2 at the Soap Box Ball.

Do Residents Believe Their Aldermen Will Represent Their Interests in the Obama Library Plan?

We interviewed folks at a recent community meeting, hoping to gauge how constituents feel about City Council and the Black Caucus.

Obama CBA meeting at St. Philip Neri Elementary School (Photo: Charles Preston)

It’s always surprising when folks show up for something of a civics lesson after work.

On a balmy Wednesday in August, the crowd at St. Philip Neri Elementary School looked thin just minutes before 6 p.m., the start time for a community meeting about sustainability and transportation around the planned Obama Foundation library and golf course in South Shore.

But just on cue, people flocked in, dutifully took fliers at the door, and filled the rows of tables and metal folding chairs in the cavernous gym.

For City Bureau, we have spent the past several weeks working on a project about City Council, specifically examining the actions of the 18-member aldermanic Black Caucus after the video of Laquan McDonald was released in November 2015. As the city has sought to address issues affecting African American communities — a soaring crime rate, an exodus of residents from many African American communities and a loss of trust in the mayor and politics in general — we wanted to see how politicians had responded by taking a closer look at the caucus’s actions. We also wanted to find out what happened behind the scenes during this period of political turmoil, talking to politicos and aldermen about their roles and why proposals for stricter, more community-oriented police accountability legislation had failed.

And while we’ve had some success exploring some data and talking to political players — stay tuned for the results — we hadn’t yet had a chance to talk to regular folks, voters and would-be voters, about some of the basics: What did they think of City Council? How did they feel about their aldermen? In the political doldrums of August, the one month without a City Council meeting, political activity tends to take a pause before school starts. The Obama Foundation meeting on August 16 seemed like a rare chance to chat with people about some of these issues.

One of the first people who bounded into the meeting was Paula Robinson, who murmured something about the heat — a fan in the back of the room seemed to simply stir the humidity — before finding a spot to sit. Before we could ask about her feelings on City Council and the Black Caucus, she wanted to discuss the Obama library. (The reason for the meeting, more specifically, was to talk about the environmental sustainability of the project, transportation concerns, and ensuring that the project would bring jobs to nearby residents.) Robinson is a community developer and a member of the Bronzeville Community Development Partnership, and she believes developers should work more closely with communities.

“The city should say to any developer … that they are going to need to support these community plans, community visions,” she said.

Juanita Irizarry, the executive director of Friends of the Park, which is pushing for the preservation of park land, wondered aloud into the microphone as part of a group of panelists: “Is this just a done deal? Is this planning process just a charade?” Several other attendees expressed similar skepticism—especially since Obama Foundation officials were not present to answer any questions, though organizers said they had been to previous meetings. (Incidentally, the Sun-Times enshrined this angle with a cover headline: “Obama library details: Shhhhhhhh!”)

Thomas Petty, a 21-year-old who said he was there to make sure locals get jobs that come along with building and maintaining the library, said it didn’t occur to him to go to City Council for answers or leadership. “It depends on us,” he said. Other attendees said they were worried the development would eventually price long-time residents out of the area.

The organizers of the meeting, including Anton Seals, with Grow Greater Englewood, have pushed for a Community Benefits Agreement, a legal document that would bind the city to certain goals proposed by a coalition of community groups. Seals said he believes the city isn’t sharing its intentions with the public about the Obama library, and he’s not expecting much help from City Council.

“A plan is done and they’re not being really open about it,” Seales said. They’re all Obama-ites. [City Council] is not going to challenge Barack. And they don’t challenge Rahm.”

The Chicago Reader reported in July that Obama’s library plans are indeed on the fast track and that officials do not intend to sign a Community Benefits Agreement. This, despite foundation officials releasing a statement last year to CBS, saying that they agree with locals’ goals: “Our efforts are focused not only on ensuring that residents aren’t displaced, but that they feel the economic benefits of the project.”

Jeanette Taylor, an organizer with the advocacy group Kenwood Oakland Community Organization (KOCO), bolted from the meeting early—she wasn’t the only one to leave in frustration. “When have they ever stood up?” she said of City Council.

Robinson, for her part, is more hopeful about the library’s prospects for partnering with the community.

“We have a 99-year eclipse [coming],” she said. “All things are possible.”

It’s good to be reminded that the state of politics is in the eye of the beholder.

A Media Model For Chicago

Notes, tweets and worksheets on envisioning a thriving media landscape, from City Bureau’s Public Newsroom #33

First things first, if you missed our Thursday, August 31, Public Newsroom, you can now listen in each week via our audio livestream (Public Newsroom Radio, anyone?). Join us live on the digital airwaves or bookmark this page for later listening:


Last night’s workshop was a long time in the making. Our invitation to the public went like this:

Chicago media is in a moment of transition. The Chicago Sun-Times is under new ownership, local nonprofit and community news outlets are working for change on the ground as national outlets move to the city, and foundations are seeking to stabilize a fractured media ecosystem.

At City Bureau, we believe a thriving media ecosystem is key to an informed citizenry, but solutions to our collective challenges will require diverse voices, ideas and input. #PublicNewsroom #33 is one of many places where this conversation will take place.

And it did. Nearly 50 journalists, editors, community members, students and freelancers stopped by our South Side newsroom to hear Sheila Solomon (Rivet Radio, Democracy Fund, formerly of the Chicago Tribune), Scott Smith (Digital and Social Strategist, formerly of Touchvision) and Blanca Rios (ABC7 and NAHJ Chicago chapter president) discuss sustainable media models, newsroom diversity and Chicago’s local media ecosystem.


As always, we kicked the night off by having our audience introduce themselves and tell the crowd why they came from across the city to spend time at our space. This portion of the night takes a minute but, honestly, it’s worth every second—it breaks the ice and puts audience members on the same plane as panelists. (Not to mention, it allows attendees to more easily identify connections between each other, and, if they choose, to share contact information after the event.)

We eventually got down to business.

Blanca Rios, Sheila Solomon, Scott Smith and Darryl Holliday

I started by posing a general question to the panel to get our collective creative thoughts flowing: “When you think of media models that Chicago needs to thrive, where do your thoughts go?”

Meanwhile, City Bureau’s lead editor Bettina Chang started a thread that you can follow here:


I can’t thank our panelists enough for their readiness to go in on the issues—and our audience for sharing so many questions and insights throughout the conversation.

The first eye-opening moment came via a question from Rivet Radio’s Sheila Solomon:


The response was telling. Of a diverse group of ~50 people in the room, less than a handful raised their hands when asked if they feel represented in the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times. It’s a point Blanca Rios raised not just in terms of audience, but also in the highest levels of newsroom staffing:


While alarming, this isn’t news on the South Side of Chicago. In many ways, City Bureau was founded as an infrastructural and solutions-based response to this core issue which, to us, involves a few key points: 1) a lack of community trust in media, 2) a lack of equitable reporting on the part of news outlets, and 3) a traditional gate-keeper approach that doesn’t acknowledge the boons of providing direct services around information and engagement.


At the same time, our panelists agreed that an insistence on labeling Chicago a “two-paper town” is flawed in itself. It doesn’t reflect the many community, ethnic and alternative presses that currently exist on Chicago’s media landscape:


Some folks in the audience agreed:


While Public Newsroom #33 tackled issues of resource distribution for existing and incoming nonprofit news outlets via foundation support, we kept coming back to public support as a means of decreasing reliance on “power” and special interests:


Our panelists and audience had clearly spent time thinking on this:

[embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed]

As we’ve noted in past blogs and events, this last point is in many ways the question that launched City Bureau:


While we value our expert panelists for their insight, experience and time spent with our team, my personal favorite portion of each #PublicNewsroom event is the workshop. For this event, we had our panelists join the audience for small-group discussions.

This included filling out a worksheet, which serves two functions: 1) to help attendees explore their media consumption habits and and how that connects with their daily lives, 2) to provide us with vital data and information that helps us refine our work and events.

As always, we saved time at the end of the night for each group to share out their discussions to the full group for further reflection:

[embed][/embed] [embed][/embed]

Overall, feedback from Public Newsroom #33 was earnest and affirming—City Bureau Community Engagement Director Andrea Faye Hart may have summed it up best:


Some last housekeeping notes:

To follow our reporting and engagement efforts, join our twice-a-month newsletter for updates. Reporting and free community-based events like this is brought to you by a staff of experienced and emerging local journalists working collaboratively to share skills, stories and information in your community. Subscribers are vital to continue our mission.

To support our work at any amount, visit our website.

Lastly, for some further reading, please see the material Scott Smith collected during his preparation for our Public Newsroom panel and workshop from folks like Jeff Jarvis, Jack Conte, Texas Tribune and Nieman Lab. We also encourage you to read his Day 2 thread on some of the issues that weren’t raised during our event (to be sure, these are issues we’ll dig deeper on in a #PublicNewsroom continuation of this conversation):

[embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed]

Case Plods Along for Man Who Sued ICE, County for Civil Rights Violations

The waiting game continues for Wilmer Catalan-Ramirez, his wife and children. Here’s our dispatch from a recent court date.

Celene Adame, wife of Catalan-Ramirez, spoke with reporters and supporters at Dirksen federal court building last week. (Photo: Geoff Hing)

Navigating the legal system involves a lot of waiting. In the lobby of the Dirksen federal courthouse in Chicago, Wilmer Catalan-Ramirez’s children tried their best to pass the time before their father’s court date on Tuesday. The youngest played on a handrail and ran toward the courthouse’s revolving door before being called back by adults and eventually sitting to play with a fidget spinner. The oldest sat silently, staring at a phone. The middle child buried her head against her mother, who was discussing the upcoming hearing with supporters.

Their father’s case alleges that Immigration Customs and Enforcement officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights and used excessive force when arresting him. It also claims that Catalan-Ramirez was mistreated by corrections officers and provided with inadequate medical care at McHenry County Adult Correctional Facility after his arrest. Since he was detained in late March, it’s the second time his children have been to court.

The children understand what’s going on with their father’s case, but not in great detail, Celene Adame, the children’s mother and Catalan-Ramirez’s wife, said. Faced with an incarcerated partner, “I really have no choice but to keep on going,” Adame said, “My family needs him, my kids need him.”

Before the hearing started, Adame found out that Catalan-Ramirez would not be able to attend his court date; she had hoped the kids could see their father as it’s difficult for the family to travel to McHenry County for visits. Instead, he would remain at the detention facility.

During the hearing Judge Joan Lefkow ruled that the six ICE agents listed as “John Doe” in the lawsuit will have their names revealed, as the 7th Circuit court rarely allows anonymous defendants, she said.

Lefkow also urged Catalan-Ramirez’s attorneys and Jana Brady, attorney for Correct Care Systems, to reach a settlement over claims involving Catalan-Ramirez’s medical care at the county facility, which Correct Care provides. Catalan-Ramirez has ongoing medical needs as a result of a drive-by-shooting; he is partially paralyzed and requires pain medication, and sustained additional injuries during his arrest, according to his suit. Brady asked the judge to sever the claims against Correct Care Systems into a separate case as her clients would not agree to the medical demands made by Catalan-Ramirez’s attorneys. “That ship has sailed,” Brady said, referring to the possibility of settling out of court.

There were six defense attorneys present in court, an indication of the complex relationship between local law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement. In addition to ICE and Correct Care Systems, the lawsuit also names defendants that are part of the Chicago Police Department and the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department.

The lawsuit alleges that Catalan-Ramirez was arrested without judicial warrant or suspicion of being involved in a crime, a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. His arrest was a result of being included in CPD’s gang database even though he has never been a member of a gang, the lawsuit alleges. While Chicago’s Welcoming City Ordinance generally restricts collaboration between CPD and ICE, gang affiliation is one of the exceptions that allows cooperation between the two. The suit also claims that Catalan-Ramirez suffered a shoulder injury and loss of eyesight during the arrest, which means he now needs help with tasks like eating and getting dressed.

Speaking to supporters after the hearing, Adame said Catalan-Ramirez was struggling with the length of the case and the uncertainty of the outcome. The next hearing in his case, which his lawyers expect to be a brief status hearing, is scheduled for September 6.

This summer, City Bureau reporters are investigating the agencies and policies that make up immigration enforcement in Chicago. If you have any experiences with immigration enforcement to share, please reach out here or at

5 Things We Know About the New Court Opening in North Lawndale

City Bureau will be reporting on restorative justice on the West Side this summer. Here’s what we know—and you can tell us what we need to find out.

By Jennifer Simeone-Casas, Resita Cox and Sarah Conway

(Photo: William Camargo)

Court officials and North Lawndale community members gathered Thursday at the Nichols Center (3605 W. Fillmore St.) to cut the ribbon on a new type of court that doesn’t hand down prison sentences: Illinois’s first Restorative Justice Community Court.

This summer, City Bureau reporters will follow the progress of the court—one of 10 restorative justice projects nationwide supported by the Department of Justice—and document community attitudes toward the program. Here is what we know so far:

1 — It’s not a traditional court

Like its name suggests, the court operates off principles of restorative justice, an alternative to the country’s standard incarceration system.

“This is about the community,” said Judge Colleen Sheehan, who will be presiding over the court. “The community has the power to determine how to heal the harm from crime and conflict. It is the community that has the wisdom and humanity to do this.”

This resolution is decided within a “peace circle,” a conflict resolution technique with a long history in American Indian culture—and a strong presence in Chicago, especially the North Lawndale neighborhood. Trained North Lawndale residents will facilitate the court’s circles, creating a nonjudgmental space of mutual respect where victims and community stakeholders can explain how the crime impacted them, and the accused can share what led them to commit the crime. The goal is to reach a solution that will restore both victim and offender to the community.

“Once the harm has been repaired, the case will be dismissed,” Sheehan said. “This court provides a way for the defendant to take responsibility for the harm they have caused without losing opportunities that often come with a felony conviction.”

Sheehan and the court’s Social Service Department will make decisions on community-based sentences and treatment for the defendants.

2 — It will only try nonviolent crimes

The new court’s defendants must be between 18 and 26 years old, live in North Lawndale, charged with a nonviolent felony or misdemeanor, have no violent criminal history and be willing to accept responsibility for harm done.

Chief Judge Timothy Evans said court organizers chose to focus on young adults who are not eligible for juvenile court but are still cognitively developing. “They suffer from the same syndrome that plagues our juveniles — they often embrace risk-taking activities and don’t consider the complications that flow from those kinds of sensation-seeking activities,” he noted.

While the court only pulls from a small candidate pool in North Lawndale, Evans hopes to eventually expand to other neighborhoods like Roseland and Englewood.

3 — It will be temporarily housed at UCAN

The Restorative Justice Community Court has yet to find a permanent home, but for now it will be housed at the Nichols Center, headquarters of Uhlich Children’s Advantage Network. UCAN, which moved to the neighborhood in 2015, is a social service agency for youth who have suffered trauma.

“The hope is to have another location in the neighborhood,” Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx said. “The only way that this works is if it is easily accessible to the people who will use this court and those are the people in the neighborhood.”

4 — The court will open on August 31

After three years of planning, the court finally has an opening date. “It has been an ever-evolving process: Where are we going to find the building? How do we staff the building? How do we screen the cases?” Foxx explained.

Cases have yet to be selected, but court officials said they expect to serve about 100 defendants in the first year. It doesn’t sound like a lot, admitted Cliff Nellis, the executive director of the Lawndale Christian Legal Center. “[But] this has never been done before. The court will only be operating one day a week; it’s not like we’re going to jump in and take 1,000 cases the first day. It’s going to be a trickle because we really want to learn as we go.”

5 — For the next year and a half the court will be funded by a federal grant

The Circuit Court of Cook County received a $200,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Assistance to fund the court. It was one of 10 similar grants from the federal agency, totaling $2 million in assistance across the country.

The guidelines for who can be served by the court are in part dictated by the grant’s restrictions. For example, the grant does not allow courts to hear gun cases, said Jeramey Winfield, a restorative justice practitioner at Lawndale Christian Legal Center.

But, he added, there is room for expansion: “The community and the system is so committed to the process, that after the grant has come and gone, we still anticipate continuing with the court … At that point we will revisit what types of case we are taking based on the needs of the community.”

A City Bureau reporting team will be covering the progress of this court, community reactions and related stories throughout the summer. Have a tip, suggestion or question? We want to hear about it! Let us know here, via email or call/text us at 312–361–0881.

Public Newsroom #18: Timuel Black on the Art of Oral History

On June 15, civil rights leader, educator and oral historian Timuel Black joined author Audrey Petty in conversation at the Public Newsroom, hosted by Build Coffee. Black spoke for nearly two hours, answering questions from Petty and then from the audience, and talked about growing up in Chicago, his experiences in World War II, his thoughts on the importance of hearing oral history from primary sources and much more.


Photography by Jason Schumer

[embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed]

Photography by Jason Schumer

[embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed]

Photography by Jason Schumer


Thanks to all who came! If you missed it, or want to revisit Timuel Black and Audrey Petty’s words, here’s an audio recording of the event:


Want to stay up to date on the #PublicNewsroom? Join our Facebook group.

Disruptors or Repairers? How City Bureau Fits in the Local Media Landscape

Creative disruption is a concept often used in business to describe companies that are uprooting and changing how we think, behave, do business, learn and go about our day-to-day.” The theory originated from Harvard business school professor Clayton Christensen’s analysis of how the Japanese auto companies “disrupted” the American industry. Other examples include how Airbnb or Uber have reimagined their respective industries to make them, some would argue, more efficient. In media, one recent example of a disruptor is Buzzfeed, whose listicles and savvy use of social media has reshaped the way we look at digital news. But what does it mean to disrupt local news? And how can this disruption make local journalism more of a public good?

Above: The above diagram is from a local media ecosystem design workshop I hosted as part of news consulting work I am doing for Democracy Fund. Photo Credit: Josh Stearns

The media industry has seen plenty of disruption. City Bureau wants to do more than just that.

Disruption can happen as a result of circumstance or of choice. For example, the shift from print to digital information-sharing, especially in the context of advertising, has disrupted the journalism industry by circumstance. This has forced most media companies to re-evaluate their revenue models, and has contributed (among many other factors) to the demise of countless news organizations.

Meanwhile, at City Bureau, we choose to disrupt processes within journalism that are barriers to inclusivity and accountability. In our endeavor to build strong relationships with our audience, we disrupt processes that perpetuate harmful reporting and create community distrust. Disruption does not mean destruction. For us, disruption is the first step on the way to repair.

Our mission is to bridge the ideals of civic journalism with the social and economic realities in which it exists. That means we wish to make journalism more democratic, more of a public good—an ideal that existed long before City Bureau joined that fray. So we want to be clear about our desire to repair (rather than solely disrupt) the media landscape, building healthy relationships for the long-term sustainability of the industry.

What does all of this mean in practice? City Bureau’s Documenters program is a prime example. We developed this program out of our April 2016 partnership with the Smart Chicago Collaborative. We recruit engaged residents of various skill sets who care about their communities and want to see better, more accurate public information. So far we have onboarded roughly 50 of our more than 200 applicants to officially become Documenters. These freelancers have attended dozens of public meetings and have helped with City Bureau’s community engagement events.

Above: City Bureau hosts an intergenerational Documenters training session at the Greater Grand Crossing Library. Photo Credit: Andrea Hart

What are the Documenters disrupting?

  • Single-note, often negative coverage of the South and West Sides. Documenters assignments span this area and cover a variety of public meetings about education, environment, criminal justice reform and much more. They are gathering and sharing more complete information about these neighborhoods than many citywide media outlets.
  • The high barrier of entry to becoming a journalist. We often speak with community members who find the journalism industry opaque and careers unattainable, since experience is typically gained through unpaid internships or expensive degrees. The Documenters program offers an alternate path.
  • Traditional information sharing systems. Documenters’ reports create a digital archive of public meetings that otherwise might go unnoticed.

What are Documenters repairing?

  • Community distrust of media. By inviting everyone into the process of information gathering, we engender more trust and understanding of how and why journalists do what they do.
  • The process through which community members can hold media accountable. The program gives people a direct line through which to ensure events are properly documented and can be used by anyone (journalist or otherwise) to pursue more in-depth research and stories.

This work will continue to be tested and refined because the issues we care about are not rigid; they are living.

We are curious about the work you are doing that is disruptive and/or reparative in media. What processes are you stopping in order to reflect and reimagine?

Podcasting a Public Figure

Real Chi Youth reporters talked to Father Michael Pfleger about the problem of violent crimes streamed on Facebook Live. The following is a conversation about what they learned about the successes and limits of this interview.

Real Chi Youth journalists Corli Tolliver and Jhordan Ruiz with City Bureau fellow Sarah Conway (Photo credit: Joshua Perez)

Real Chi Youth journalists Corli Tolliver and Jhordan Ruiz sat down with City Bureau fellow Sarah Conway to discuss their exclusive interview with local priest and activist Father Michael Pfleger.

The interview is now a Real Chi Youth podcast about how Chicago youth are affected by violent crimes streamed on Facebook Live. The episode explores whether Facebook has the responsibility to curb violence on its popular live streaming platform.


Corli and Jhordan developed the podcast during a City Bureau/Real Chi Youth mentorship meet-up every Wednesday at Free Spirit Media’s office in Homan Square this spring.

Corli Tolliver and Jhordan Ruiz secured are journalists with Real Chi Youth (Photo credit: Joshua Perez)

The trio met up for cold iced coffees at Dark Matter’s Star Lounge to reflect on the high and low points of their Father Pfleger interview at St. Sabina Church in Auburn Gresham early this month.

Sarah: Why did you choose Father Pfleger as your subject for a podcast on violent crimes caught on Facebook Live?

Corli: I saw that Father Pfleger had written about the negative effects of Facebook Live on his personal Facebook page so we felt ultimately this was a really timely interview for the subject at hand.

Jhordan: We also liked that Father Pfleger is a well-known Chicago activist and very active in the community.


Sarah: How did you approach Father Pfleger for the interview?

Corli: I asked Jeff McCarter [founder and executive director of Free Spirit Media] to connect us with Father Pfleger as we were really interested in interviewing him for our podcast. He reached out Father Pfleger by email. Jhordan and I were both really happy to hear that Father Pfleger was excited to interview with us.

Sarah: How did you prepare for the interview?

Jhordan: One of the first steps was to conduct a test run interview in our recording room [at Free Spirit Media]. But we really ended up doing the interview better live.

Corli: We also came up with questions for the interview during the City Bureau mentorship, and of course we did a pre-recording of our intro and outro.

Sarah: Looking back at the interview, what were some of the most important questions you asked Father Pfleger?

Corli: There were a few. I asked him about the first time he witnessed a crime on Facebook Live and his reaction to it — that was an important question for me. I also asked Father Pfleger if Facebook Live does more harm than good, and why people watch crimes and don’t do anything.


Sarah: Were these the most challenging moments during the interview?

Jhordan: Father Pfleger wasn’t well rounded on the topics that we brought to him, and he couldn’t provide an answer outside of what would be expected from someone of his stature as a public figure. One of the challenging moments for me was when I asked him to describe the mental state of a person committing these types of crimes on live streaming apps and he couldn’t really answer. It made me wish that we had some insight from a psychologist at that point.

Sarah: Do you feel this was a typical response that a public figure gives to a tough question?

Corli: Definitely. He’s both a public figure and an activist. You have public figures who try to save face so that they don’t get in too much trouble with public statements.

Jhordan: Yes, absolutely. I feel like for most public figures there is an image and standard that is held on them. Some of their followers might take a genuinely blunt answer and blow it out of proportion, which leads to this beating around the bush.

Sarah: In hindsight, would you have chosen someone else for your podcast?

Corli: No, I like that he is so well-known and it raises the profile of our podcast.

Jhordan: Same here. He is at the end of the day a strong public figure in this city and his voice matters to a lot to people.

What were the highlights of the interview?

Jhordan: I would have to say it was Father Pfleger’s ability to listen. I appreciated how he individualized us, and gave us his full, undivided attention to record the podcast in his church.

Corli: For me, I liked that he was invited by Facebook to attend a special panel on live streaming violence, which validates why we chose him as the focus of our podcast. It made me respect the fact that he was able to back up the level of activism connected to his name.

Sarah: What was the significance of recording in St. Sabina?

Corli: It made us feel special that he opened up this huge church just for our interview. St. Sabina is really a safe haven in my neighborhood.

Sarah: How would you improve the interview in hindsight?

Jhordan: I feel like maybe we should have had more open-ended questions. This could have made the podcast more conversational.

Corli: I agree. I don’t think I had enough time to ask all the questions that I wanted. I also think that we could have had a conversation with Father Pfleger ahead of the interview to smooth out the vision of the podcast.

Learn more about Free Spirit Media’s Real Chi Youth, a diverse newsroom where young adults develop community reporting and skills on the job.

“Who tells the story of Englewood?”

On May 11, we gathered at Build Coffee for Public Newsroom #17 to talk with Tonika Johnson, an Englewood-based photographer who captures images of Englewood and its residents that challenge typical media narratives about the neighborhood.

See social media posts from our audience below and weigh in here via comments or online using the #PublicNewsroom hashtag. Many thanks to everyone who attended and helped live-tweet from our South Side newsroom—your support helps us continue Public Newsroom conversations with new voices in Chicago.

[embed][/embed] [embed][/embed]

After doing full group introductions, we filled out worksheets to get us thinking about insider and outsider perceptions of our own communities.


Then we came up with a list of words usually associated with Englewood. Audience members talked about how perceptions and realities of Englewood compared with perceptions and realities of their own communities.

[embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed]

Then, Tonika showed some of her photography and talked about her work, especially about how it differed from the previously discussed outsider perspectives of Englewood.

[embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed]

Then, the audience asked Tonika questions about her photography and discussed strategies for making sure storytelling accurately captures communities. Here are some solutions from our audience:

[embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed] [embed][/embed]

Thanks to everyone who came! You can follow Tonika on instagram at @tonikaj or visit her website at Hope to see you soon at the #PublicNewsroom!


What Do We Know About the Northwest Incinerator, a Large, Mostly Empty Industrial Site on the West…

Join City Bureau reporters as we explore ideas of development, activism and safeguarding community knowledge. We’ll start with what we’ve learned so far

The chimneys are all that remain of the former Northwest Incinerator at 740 N. Kilbourn. (Photo: Martha Bayne)

Our team of four City Bureau reporters — Martha Bayne, LaCreshia Birts, Darien Boyd, and Amber Colon Nunez — is focusing this spring on the site of the former Northwest Incinerator and the neighborhoods surrounding it.

We are intrigued that, despite the great deal of attention focused on the incinerator while it was active between 1971 and 1996, and its proximity to residential neighborhoods, community knowledge about this industrial site on the border of West Humboldt Park and Austin is so fractured. What it was once, what it is now, and what it could be in the future is, to many we spoke with, a source of mystery, confusion, or simply ancient history.

This spring we’re meeting with local groups and other stakeholders to explore not just the site itself, but what it means to shape future development, who gets that access, and how it might be expanded. To start off we’ll share five things we’ve learned so far.

1. The incinerator was a big deal at the time.

Opened in 1971 at 740 N. Kilbourn, the Chicago Northwest Waste-to-Energy Facility, aka the Northwest Incinerator, only operated for 25 years, but was, for a time, the largest incinerator in North America, capable of burning 400,000 tons of garbage a year. It was shut down in 1996, thanks to both pressure from local environmental activists, who responded in force after the incinerator failed Environmental Protection Agency testing in 1993, and the repeal that year of the controversial Retail Rate Law, which had provided a financial incentive to private incinerator operators. With that incentive gone, the cost of upgrading the incinerator to meet Clean Air Act standards proved prohibitive, and the facility was closed by Mayor Richard M. Daley.

2. People lauded how environmentally friendly it would be.

When it opened, during the long tenure of Mayor Richard J. Daley, incineration of solid waste was believed to be an environmentally sound alternative to landfills, and the pollution-mitigating technology of the facility was state of the art for the time. But according to witness reports, the smoke from its chimneys often smelled extremely foul. Says Marie Henderson, longtime owner of Out of the Past Records at 4407 W. Madison, “I didn’t notice when it shut down, I just noticed that the air got better.” According to DePaul soil scientist James Montgomery, who visited the site in 1993, a visible layer of soot coated the ground and windows around the incinerator.

3. Lead contamination levels are extremely high in the neighborhood.

A study by the Center For Neighborhood Technology reports that in 1994 the facility’s smokestacks emitted 17 pounds of lead per hour, and a health screening in Austin at the time found that 1,638 children had elevated levels of lead in their blood. We are still seeking information about lead levels in the soil around the incinerator site, but soil testing in the neighborhood the early ’90s showed levels of lead high above EPA standards of contamination. Whether the lead came from the incinerator or from, say, lead paint chipping off nearby houses, is not known. We do know that lead levels in water fountains at nearby Orr Academy High School tested at 16 percent above EPA action levels last year; water at some area parks has tested as high as 100 percent above action levels.

4. The future of the site is in limbo.

Activists’ hopes for the creation of a comprehensive recycling or composting facility on the site never came to fruition, though for a time the site was used as a sorting facility for the short-lived Blue Bag recycling program. Today the site is owned by the city, and used as a waste transfer station contracted to Marina Cartage. As recently as 2016 proposals were reportedly circulating among West Side business owners for possible mixed-use redevelopment at the site; the status of those plans is to date unknown.


5. It’s sort of become a landmark.

The incinerator building itself was demolished in 2015 (see above video), but its towering twin 250-foot chimneys remain a striking local landmark. Said one area business owner we spoke with, “Those chimneys just say ‘West Side’.”

Intrigued? Get in touch.

What else should we know about the incinerator site? What would you like to know about it?

Share your memories of the Northwest Incinerator, and tell us what questions you want answered about its past, present and future: Text the word NORTHWEST to 312–697–1791. Or, you can leave a comment here or email us at

BLOG: City Bureau Hosts Community Workshops About Lead Contamination

By Mindy Dillon, City Bureau Documenter

On Monday, March 13, Nissa Rhee of City Bureau hosted the first in a series of events designed to engage and educate Chicago residents about the dangers of lead in their communities. These events follow the publication of “Living with Lead,” a special edition of the South Side Weekly produced by City Bureau and published on December 14, 2016.

Eric Potash, University of Chicago researcher, and Dr. Howard Ehrman, former primary care and assistant commissioner in the Chicago Department of Public Health, joined Rhee, head of the team of journalists that produced this special edition, at Legler Library, 115 S. Pulaski Rd.

The lead experts explained how the current model for addressing lead exposure and lead poisoning in Chicago is reactive as opposed to preventative, and palliative instead of curative.

Potash explained that, currently, once a child tests positive for elevated blood levels, the city is notified and a Lead Investigating Unit attempts to make contact with the family. In this model, the city reacts to an exposure that has taken place and attempts to rectify a situation that has already caused damage. This effort is often hampered by insufficient funds and staff and an inability to establish contact with the families due to unreliable addresses or lack of response to phone calls. In his research, Potash is developing a model that would allow the city to use funds in a more efficient and targeted way to predict where children are most at risk and prevent the exposure in the first place.

Exposure prevention, according to Ehrman, has to be the goal, since no amount of lead is safe in the human body. Ehrman explained that while officials took the right steps by decreasing so-called “normal” rates from 60 to 5 micrograms per deciliter, lead is a neurotoxin that destroys brain cells and anything above zero is not normal. To put the danger in perspective for children on the West and South sides of Chicago, Ehrman explained that children in these communities have two times the risk of children in Flint, Michigan, which has made national news for the severity of health issues caused by high lead levels in its water supply.

Ehrman offered suggestions for individual and immediate action as well as communal and political action. As individuals, immediate steps can be taken:

  1. Use cold water only.
  2. Place filters on every drinking faucet.
  3. Call 311 to request a free water test by Chicago’s Department of Water Management or, as Rhee explained, go to and request one online.
  4. Have soil tested.
  5. Children should always be tested via venipuncture and not by finger prick, which can give false positive and false negatives. Rhee elaborated that every child should be tested at one year of age and again at two.
  6. Be aware that plumbers often still use lead solder on copper pipes as it is easier to work with and they still have a large supply of it. This too can be a source of lead exposure.
  7. Rhee added that residents should text the word LEAD to 312–697–1791 to get data from lead tests in their neighborhood.

Politically, Ehrman suggested that concerned citizens should organize, advocate for stricter laws on landlords, and demand that city officials look to the example set by Massachusetts and Wisconsin and others that are providing grants to property owners to fix, rather than simply mitigate, the problem by replacing service lines.

To be effective, communities should organize by block particularly around areas where water mains are being replaced, Ehrman said. He warned that the sudden rush to replace water mainlines could set the stage for the privatization of Chicago’s water supply—a step that some believe played a role in Flint’s health disaster.

In addition, Chicago needs tougher laws regulating landlords and a grant system to help citizens replace service lines which connect properties to the main water lines, Ehrman said. He suggested that citizens need to advocate for laws, like those in New York City that require landlords of any three-flat or larger building to test for lead every year. Chicago should also follow the lead of Boston and Madison, Wisconsin, that provide grants to property owners to help replace service lines.

Rhee opened the panel to audience questions. Sheila Sutton of the Metropolitan Tenant Organization (MTO) said she has issues with housing vouchers, which in some cases have resulted in worse living conditions, including increased exposure to lead, due to the lack of affordable housing in Chicago and lack of landlord oversight. MTO is contracted by the city to help test homes for lead. Sutton explained that the city has limited resources and will usually only respond to households with elevated lead tests if they have children under two or pregnant women living there.

Troy Hernandez, a Pilsen resident, said he is worried that testing does not actually solve the problem. He added that flushing the water for five minutes anytime the water has been standing in the service lines for an extended period is an effective preventative measure. This means flushing upon waking or returning home at night.

The panel adjourned with the consensus that while paint and dilapidated buildings are still the primary source of lead exposure, the whole lead ecosystem should be looked at and addressed.

The final “Living with Lead” workshop will be Saturday March 25 at 10:30am
at the Thurgood Marshall library, 7506 S. Racine Ave.

How We Hire Our Reporters

Notes on process, inclusion and Chicago’s media ecosystem

For starters, we’d like to lay out our motivation for this post in three parts:

  1. You’ve asked us (thanks for your interest!)
    2) Rather than being a program or initiative; diversity, inclusion and transparency are at the heart of City Bureau’s mission
    3) We’re inspired by the amazing work of our partners and friends (please see “How We Hire Our Youth? An Expose” from the Mikva Challenge Blog and Hearken’s “More Than Fluff: Dismantling Journalism’s Hard News Bias” for some examples from our reading list.)

As we ramp up toward our fifth cycle…

We wanted to take some time and lay out our process when it comes to hiring our reporters as, in many ways, the direction of each “cycle” is defined by the people in our programs and the experiences they bring to the table. And if there’s one thing that’s become apparent since our launch in October 2015, it’s that hiring a diverse and, more importantly, inclusive set of journalists eager to do news differently doesn’t come without concerted effort (see our latest interview with Poynter for more on this point).

While we realize we won’t immediately reverse decades of marginalization and unequal hiring practices that have left most major newsrooms in the U.S. without a single reporter of color, we plan to make a dent in that sobering reality — not by counting heads, but by ensuring our newsroom feels, and is, open and inclusive for reporters of all ages, races and gender identities.

Below is a demographic breakdown of all City Bureau reporters since we began our programs last fall:

Here are race, age and gender identity demographics of City Bureau reporters from fall 2015 to summer 2016

The majority of City Bureau programming centers on our reporting fellowship program, where journalists work together on stories and investigations. This program involves three groups that make up the community-to-mainstream media pipeline we hope to bolster on Chicago’s South and West sides:

  • Our Team Leaders, i.e. our most experienced journalists
  • Our Reporters, i.e. those with some writing/reporting training but minimal professional experience
  • Young media-makers and policy analysts from our youth media partner organizations (this summer: high school-aged youths from Free Spirit Media, IMPACT Family Center and Mikva Challenge). These participants are not included in our demographics above because we do not directly hire them — more info on this below.

We’ve designed an intensive interviewing and application process for our Team Leaders and Reporters. Over the course of the last year it’s been refined to focus on outreach, framing and selection, with the recent addition of a writing test for Reporters and a rolling application process for Team Leaders to ensure our doors are open to great story pitches all year-round.

We look for candidates who are interested in shifting media narratives — by that we mean telling a diverse range of stories with and among communities that have been historically edged out of vital public discourse. We look for candidates with a considerable connection to the South and West sides of Chicago regardless of race/ethnicity. We look for candidates of color. We look for non-traditional journalists, i.e. those who may not have come through j-school. And we look for candidates who are explicitly interested in sharing their skills freely and openly with the public.

Since our October 2015 launch, applications to our program have risen steadily. That’s in large part due to our continual community outreach, through our town halls and regular “Reporting in the Open” events. By partnering with local groups, we’re constantly expanding our network and giving due credit to the hard-working organizations that have laid the foundation for civic media in Chicago. We promote our program application through this burgeoning City Bureau network, folks on our newsletter, former City Bureau reporters, Twitter and Facebook, among others. Our last cycle we received 45 applications for 9 openings — we expect more for the Spring cycle.

Beyond the baseline criteria listed above, we leave room for surprise and the unexpected application that makes us rethink our own approach. In our first cycle, former City Bureau reporter Jean Cochrane filed their application in the form of a truly insightful comic that you can read here.

Each week, our reporting teams mentor and work side-by-side with the young media-makers of our youth media partner organizations. As our Community Engagement Director, Andrea Hart puts it, our youth media partners may not be experienced in professional journalism but they’re often the most experienced in the themes and topics that we cover. We place a high value on mutual learning between our journalists and the youth we work with.

Like our Documenters program, City Bureau’s regular programming is intended to support civic engagement, in politics and everyday life. We want our newsroom to represent the wide variety of voices in Chicago — and to facilitate dialogue and shared experiences between the mainstream and the city’s most marginalized communities. It’s the same theory we bring to our reporting: supporting coverage and voices that otherwise might not get invited to the table.

Our reporters span a range of experiences, motivations and productions, from months-long investigations into police in schools to community-centered pieces from in our most under-reported neighborhoods to analysis of the policies that make up our way of life and multimedia storytelling on the everyday people who make up our city. Our reporters are committed to civic journalism from traditional text reporting to public events that showcase the latest skills, styles and ideologies that make up our local media landscape.

So, what’s next?

Applications for our Spring 2017 reporting cycle are open until March 1, and our next cycle starts March 29, in the meantime we’re shaping our paid Documenters program and our Public Newsroom, which offers professional development, workshops, event coverage and other opportunities during and between cycles in partnership with out friends at the South Side Weekly (see our #TaskForceTracker and #IPRAtracker projects for examples of how we plan to employ our Documenters — and see the full application here if you already know you’re interested).

For those not accepted to the program on any given cycle, we have some sage advice: please apply again! We’ve been fortunate to have more applicants than we could possibly accept for each cycle —and we love it when our repeat reporters stay on board to train newcomers to our program. We encourage all applicants to re-apply as many times as they’d like.

Are you interested in working with City Bureau? Or just interested in talking shop? We’re here to help. Hit us up at, fill out our Documenters application or find us online, on Facebook, on Twitter and, as always, here on Medium.

How Chicago Could Change the Way Police Use Force: 12 Responses from Our Readers

Here’s what you, through our Use of Force Tracker, told the Chicago Police Department about their drafted rules on when police can and cannot use force against civilians.

City Bureau/Invisible Institute

When the Chicago Police Department released a draft of revised Use of Force policies, City Bureau and the Invisible Institute decided to create a tool to make it easier for people to read the draft, understand the context and add their own feedback. In total, over 50 comments, upvotes and responses were logged via our interactive, annotated Use of Force Tracker tool by members of the public during the CPD’s public comment period. (See a full list of comments here.)

Below, we pulled out 12 of those suggestions. For more information, click the link in each comment and see the full annotation.

  1. On reasonable use of force: “The standard of reasonableness must be explicitly defined as reasonableness from the perspective of a citizen. There is a large—and growing — disconnect between what officers view as reasonable and what citizens view as reasonable. This is a concrete change that encourages empathy.”
  2. On choke holds: “A better definition of choke holds is needed. Also, chokes may be necessary to preserve life in the case of a subject who is under the influence of drugs and not responding to pain control. The choke, properly executed, can save the life of an officer and the subject is such a situation.”
  3. On medical attention for those injured by police: “This [directive] would seem to imply that the department will now be required to provide medical training to all officers, equip them with the necessary equipment, and ensure that all training and equipment will remain up-to-date.”
  4. On officer testimony: “There is quite a bit of research that shows that after a traumatic situation such as a deadly force encounter, full recall of an incident may not be possible immediately. The fight-or-flight response may include tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, and impairment of judgment, to name a few. Those who have experienced those symptoms may not be in a position to immediately provide complete details. This policy should be examined closely.”
  5. On holding techniques and passive resistance: Why are holding techniques permissible for a passive resister who is solely resisting verbally? Verbal resistance should not warrant use of force.”
  6. On the code of silence: “Given the gravity of a violation of use of force, I think it is necessary to identify the sworn member who is using force in violation of this directive as soon as possible.”
  7. On police officers identifying themselves as officers: “This [directive] is unacceptable. Officers should always have to identify themselves if they are on the job and being paid to do said job. Not identifying themselves at all times escalates situations further and jeopardizes the safety of both the community and officer. This must be changed.”
  8. On de-escalation training and techniques: “The de-escalation training for officers has not been effective thus far as Chicago is still paying out millions of dollars of tax payer money to settle cases of use of force. De-escalation is NOT shouting “put the gun down” three or four times before shooting. All CPD officers should be required to take de-escalation training form a licensed clinician (LPC, LCPC, LCSW etc) and NOT a higher ranking officer or employee employed by CPD. Consequently, conflict resolution training should also be included. Additionally, ALL officers should be mandated to spend time in the communities they serve — specifically on the south and west sides of Chicago — off duty and unarmed with the intention of interacting with the community in some form or fashion so they are able to understand how members of the community act, how conflict occurs and how conflict is resolved.”

9) On proportional response: “‘Proportional’ needs to be explicitly defined so that all officers are clear. Shooting to kill — which has been what has been occurring lately — is not proportional. The use of a Taser to incapacitate a suspect is proportional. Shooting a suspect in the leg is proportional. Emptying a clip on a suspect out of fear is not proportional.”

10. On race and ethnicity in use of force:

11. On use of force against pregnant women: “Based on policies in other jurisdictions, and a number of incidents involving use of force against pregnant women by Chicago police officers, the policy should expressly prohibit use of force on pregnant women and children, including, but not limited to, use of Tasers, take downs, use of force to the abdomen and rear handcuffing.”

12. On community/police relations: “‘Cooperation’ simply means bowing to the power and being acquiescent. “Collaboration” would be more appropriate, but of course that would require a balanced power level between police and community.”

10 Ways Chicago Might Change the Way Police Use Force: Shootings, Taser, Pepper Spray, and More

We collected feedback and submitted it directly to the Chicago Police Department on shootings, Tasers, pepper spray, and more.

(City Bureau)

Throughout October/November 2016, City Bureau and the Invisible Institute’s new interactive Use of Force Tracker tool gave the public an inside look at how the Chicago Police Department might change its Use of Force policy, or, rules on when police can inflict harm upon civilians.

This was the first time the CPD opened up a draft review process to public comment. Until then, our #UOFtracker is here to break down the legal—at times obscure—text to offer a view of how Use of Force Guidelines have affected the lives of Chicago residents in the past, and how you can impact the police department draft going forward.

As part of our civic journalism work—which includes a reporting fellowship, a #PublicNewsroom and our Documenters programwe use Genius to demystify some heavy material. The 10 annotations below were written and chosen by City Bureau Documenters to help the public understand what’s at stake.

Take a look—leave your own annotation. On November 19, we’ll submit all annotations left on the #UOFtracker to the CPD’s public comment system.

For a complete list of annotations, a side-by-side comparison of the old and new Use of Force guidelines and our source material, see the Use of Force Tracker here.

1. Sanctity of Human Life:

The directive: “The Department’s highest priority is the sanctity of human life. In all aspects of their conduct, Department members will act with the foremost regard for the preservation of human life and the safety of all persons involved.”

Our notes:

2. Deadly Force Investigations:

The directive: “Deadly force incidents involving a Department member that result in a member of the public sustaining fatal or life-threatening injuries will be investigated consistent with the Department directive entitled “Officer-Involved Death Investigations.”

Our notes:

3. Emergency Medical Services After the Use of Force:

The directive :“Consistent with the Department’s commitment to the sanctity of life, after any use of force incident involving injury to Department members, bystanders, or subjects, Department members will immediately: comport themselves in a manner that conveys the gravity of any use of force and the Department members’ concern for the sanctity of life of all persons injured or in need of EMS.”

Our notes:

4. Police Policing Themselves:

The directive :“Duty to Intervene and Report. All Department members are obligated to ensure compliance by themselves and other members with Department regulations, policies, and the law. …Any Department member observing the use of force in violation of this directive will be responsible for intervening on the subject’s behalf. Appropriate actions may include, but are not limited to, verbal or physical intervention, immediate notification to a supervisor, or a direct order by a supervisor to cease the use of excessive force.”

Our notes:

(William Camargo/City Bureau)

5. What is ‘Objectively Reasonable’ Force:

The directive: “This directive…continues the concept of Force Mitigation as a component of the Department’s response to all incidents.”

Our notes:

6. Role of Chicago Police Investigation Agency:

The directive: “IPRA will be responsible for the administrative investigation of firearm-discharge incidents involving sworn members.”

Our notes:

7. 30-day Administrative Leave Following Firearm Discharge:

The directive: “Department members who have discharged a firearm as described in Item V of this directive and have completed the Traumatic Incident Stress Management Program will be placed in a mandatory administrative duty assignment for a minimum period of thirty days within the Department member’s unit of assignment.”

Our notes:

8. Firearm Discharge Protocol:

The directive: “This directive outlines the protocol for maintaining, carrying, and discharging a member’s Taser device.”

Our notes:

9. Taser Discharge:

The directive: “Post Discharge. After an initial discharge of a Taser, Department members will: …reasonably justify each separate deployment of energy from a Taser as a separate use of force that officers will document.”

Our notes:

10. Taser Training:

The directive: “Tasers will be carried, handled, tested, and deployed only by members who have completed Department-conducted training on their safe handling and deployment.”

Our notes:

This is What You Get for Reporting in the Open

Examples of the photo essay created during our Open House — see full set below. (Photos: Maria Cardona)

Finding the unexpected at a City Bureau open house

What do you get on a warm summer night when 100+ civic-minded journalists, artists and community folks gather at Chicago’s Experimental Station?

Something unexpected.

Adeshina Emmanuel, Bea Malsky and Latricia Polk present their stories about Chatham.

We had a great night at our Summer Open House. (We had gold, limited-edition, variant logo City Bureau buttons at our Summer Open House!) But, more importantly, we saw our reporters step out of their journalistic comfort zones and explore new ways to interact with their audience — from giving presentations to collecting questions via our friends at Hearken to engaging in earnest conversations about issues of critical importance to the city. All in our South Side newsroom.

If you want to see more work like this, please support us on Kickstarter.

But one of my personal favorite parts of the night came in a series of 22 moments built around a single prompt—an idea generated and led by our reporters. I’ll let them explain:

Last Friday Aug. 19, City Bureau held its Summer 2016 Reporting Cycle culmination event at 6100 S. Blackstone where attendees visited various interactive booths to learn about the investigations we’ve been working on.

Our team has been researching a story about the promises and failures of community policing in Chicago, and as part of our project, we asked attendees to answer the prompt, “What Should Police Know About You?” People wrote their answers on a bright-colored Post-It, and some participated in our photo essay, writing their thoughts on black-and-white portraits that we printed during the event.

At the beginning, some people were nervous about who would see these answers and whether they’d be judged for them. However, by the time the photo booth closed, 22 black-and-white photos were collected with messages that went beyond “What Should Police Know About You?” People wanted to shatter misperceptions of how they may be perceived on the surface by police.

-Andrea Salcedo and Manny Ramos (City Bureau Summer ‘16 Reporters)

Andrea, Maria and Manny

The following series by photographer Maria Cardona is one of many special interactions we found at our Summer Open House—some were curated and most were unexpected, but they’re all helping to guide our approach to journalism, civic engagement and reporting in the open.

The news reports from our Summer reporting teams will be published in the coming days and weeks but I wanted to take a minute to consider the unfiltered words of the friends, family, partners and followers who stopped by our newsroom August 19 to celebrate the work of our current cohort and the future of our public newsroom.

If you want to see more work like this, please support us on Kickstarter.