Glenn Reynolds notes that in making the argument that newspapers matter, the Chicago Sun-Times asserts that the corruption in Chicago gets unearthed because of a vigorous local press. This is some truth to this, of course.

There is no doubt the Sun-Times and the Tribune have done some excellent reporting on the corruption in Chicago. However, the Sun-Times goes a step further, seeming to suggest that Chicago's reputation for corruption might be because other cities don't have the aggressive press corps that Chicago does.

The Chicago Sun-Times' editorial board writes:

Forgive us for sounding self-congratulatory, but we have a suspicion as to one reason Chicago and Illinois are reputed to be among the most corrupt cities and states in the nation -- a vigorously competitive press in this town likes to dig up the bodies.

Writes Reynolds:

You can look at this two ways. First, if Chicago — a two-newspaper town — is this corrupt, do newspapers really do that much good? On the other hand, is it just that the corruption in Chicago gets unearthed, while in towns with less coverage it just goes undiscovered?

We think the real reason Chicago papers unearth so much corruption is that it is just so easy -- like shooting fish in a barrel. As we have noted before:

If the number of convicted and jailed Chicago alderman since 1972 was extrapolated to the US House, it would be as if over 240 congressman had gone to jail in the same period, or about 6 to 7 every year for 37 years.

Since 1960, three of the last seven elected Illinois governors have gone to jail; the fourth, Rod Blagojevich, was impeached this year.

Every Democrat elected governor of Illinois since 1960 has either gone to jail or been impeached.

Is the Chicago Sun-Times really arguing that Chicago's level of political corruption exists to the same degree everywhere else, but we don't know about it because the newspapers in the rest of the country aren't as aggressive as the ones in Chicago?

Seriously?