I called the Houston Chronicle a whore.
Santiago, my AI research mule, objected.
Naturally.
I wasn’t accusing anyone at the newspaper of taking an envelope of cash and changing an endorsement. I was making an observation about an institution that makes money selling advertising, lives in a city dominated by an extraordinarily powerful business community, and then tells the rest of us which politicians we ought to elect.
Santiago wanted evidence.
So I gave him some names.
Thirty Minutes and We Have a Winner
This started with a column by Chronicle opinion editor Evan Mintz explaining how the editorial board makes endorsements. Candidates generally get somewhere between 30 minutes and an hour before the board. They give their pitch, answer questions about policy and controversies, and explain why voters should choose them. The board also does research and consults other people.
Thirty minutes to an hour?
Nah.
I’ve interviewed people. I’ve practiced law. I’ve watched politicians for decades. In 45 minutes, you can discover whether somebody is prepared, articulate, and capable of answering questions.
You cannot know the person.
More importantly, you cannot possibly become an expert on approximately 125 different races simply by interviewing the candidates.
So where does the rest of the judgment come from?
I have an opinion.
And opinions are like anal openings. Everybody is entitled to one.
My opinion is that the Chronicle sometimes listens to Houston’s business establishment and that the people the establishment considers acceptable have an awfully good chance of becoming the people the Chronicle considers acceptable.
Santiago immediately wanted to tell me that I couldn’t prove that.
I never said I could.
I said I had reasons for thinking it.
So I sent the mule digging.
Ed Emmett or Lina Hidalgo?
Start with 2018.
Lina Hidalgo was a young political unknown challenging Republican Harris County Judge Ed Emmett. Emmett was experienced, respected, and comfortable in Houston’s civic establishment.
The Chronicle endorsed Emmett.
Hidalgo won.
Four years later, Hidalgo was the incumbent and the Republican challenger was Alexandra Mealer.
The Chronicle endorsed Mealer. It explicitly said it was choosing the Republican challenger rather than Hidalgo.
Hidalgo won again.
That got my attention.
Parker or Plummer?
Then came the 2026 Democratic primary for Harris County judge.
Annise Parker was almost the definition of a Houston establishment candidate: former council member, controller, mayor, nonprofit executive and a politician with decades of relationships throughout the city.
Letitia Plummer was the progressive.
The Chronicle chose Parker.
Its endorsement praised Parker’s pragmatism, fiscal responsibility, ability to work across political divisions, and extensive government experience. It questioned whether Plummer could build consensus and turn her progressive proposals into policy.
The voters chose Plummer.
But something else bothered me.
The Chronicle repeatedly reminded readers that Plummer was the first Muslim woman elected to Houston City Council.
Why?
As far as I can determine, Plummer hasn’t built her political career around her religion.
That becomes particularly interesting in 2026, when Republicans in Texas have deliberately made Muslims, Sharia law, and the supposed “Islamification” of Texas political issues.
The Chronicle’s editors aren’t stupid. These are educated, sophisticated people who understand political language.
So why keep telling voters that Plummer is Muslim?
That doesn’t prove malicious intent.
But I am entitled to ask the question.
Turner or Menefee?
I gave Santiago another example.
When Sylvester Turner and Christian Menefee were alternatives for the 18th Congressional District, the Chronicle preferred Turner—the former Houston mayor, former state legislator, and one of the most thoroughly established political figures in the city.
After Turner died and Menefee became the established officeholder, the Chronicle eventually backed Menefee, including over longtime Congressman Al Green in this year’s primary runoff.
Again, the pattern wasn’t Republican versus Democrat.
It was something else.
Then There Is Whitmire
In the 2023 Houston mayoral election, the Chronicle endorsed John Whitmire.
Whitmire was hardly an outsider storming City Hall. He had spent decades in the Texas Legislature and possessed relationships across Houston’s political, law-enforcement, civic and business worlds.
Interestingly, the Chronicle recently explained why it had endorsed Whitmire: his ability to reach across the aisle and champion what the board considers commonsense policy. In the same editorial, it urged him to enlist Houston’s powerful business leaders in opposing abusive ICE tactics.
There they are.
The powerful business leaders.
The Chronicle itself recognizes them as people capable of moving Houston politics.
So do I.
Orlando Sanchez Will Be the Test
Now Plummer faces Republican Orlando Sanchez for Harris County judge.
I already have a prediction.
The Chronicle will endorse Sanchez.
Maybe I’ll be wrong.
But Sanchez is exactly the kind of candidate the Chronicle traditionally seems comfortable with: experienced, fiscally conservative, institutionally connected and familiar to Houston’s business and political establishment.
Plummer is exactly the kind who seems to make it nervous: progressive, willing to fight and less interested in reassuring the people who have traditionally exercised power in Harris County.
If the Chronicle endorses Plummer, I’ll say I was wrong. Actually, I will assume they had a Jesus moment and saw the light.
If it endorses Sanchez, I’m going to add another name to the list.
Santiago Finally Put Down the Red Pencil
None of this proves that a businessman calls the Chronicle and says, “Endorse my candidate.”
I don’t think it works that way.
Influence rarely needs to be that crude.
Newspapers talk to people they trust. Editors have sources. They have experts. They have civic leaders whose judgment they respect. They attend meetings, eat lunches, answer telephone calls, and spend careers learning which people in a city are considered serious.
Eventually an institution develops its own definition of what a “serious” candidate looks like.
And perhaps, in Houston, that candidate tends to look remarkably similar to the candidate the business establishment considers serious.
Santiago started this discussion defending the Chronicle from my instincts.
Then we looked.
Emmett.
Mealer.
Parker.
Turner.
Whitmire.
Menefee.
And now perhaps Sanchez.
Finally, the mule stopped telling me why I couldn’t have my opinion and started asking whether there might actually be something behind it.
There was.
The Overpriced Whore
I subscribe to the Chronicle.
In fact, I pay roughly eight dollars more every month for it than I pay for The New York Times.
The Texas Tribune does excellent state reporting. Houston Public Media does good local journalism. And every once in a while the Chronicle produces genuinely excellent investigative reporting that reminds me why local newspapers matter.
Which brings me back to my original description.
Santiago objected when I called the Chronicle a whore.
After examining the evidence, we reached a compromise.
I shouldn’t call it a cheap whore.
At the price I’m paying, that would be demonstrably unfair.
It’s an overpriced whore.
