Star Tribune Editorial Page Editor (and Reader Rep) Out

I couldn't agree more with Lisa about the lack of acuity in analysis of local
issues shown by the editorial page staff. For state issues, Jim Boyd, Lori
Sturdevant and Dave Hage could supply some top-notch analysis that had
intellectual rigor and independent thinking even if you disagreed with the
conclusion. Unfortunately, that independent voice has largely been missing
from editorial analysis of Minneapolis and Hennepin County. It's as if the
editorialist listened only to the public official who came over to blow in his
or her ear. I think that over the years local public officials have come to
rely on that intellectual laziness.

I couldn't disagree more with Lisa about the percentage of Times content in the
newspaper, unless she never reads past the A section. As for the A section,
neither this nor any other regional paper without national pretensions is going
to cover national or international affairs with its own staff, except for
covering its own congressional delegation. Yes, there's lots of Times content
in the A section, but would you prefer the AP? I'm glad that Lisa enjoys the
Times, as do I when I have the time, but our paper is edited for the majority
of readers who don't access the Times.

Times content is virtually absent from the B section, except for the odd
national obit brief. For some reason, the Times was absent from today's
hearing on our city's police budget.

Steve Brandt
Star Tribune

The part I think is pretty funny is Harte saying that"there are very few places
they can go for an expert opinion on local issues" This is true and the Strib
is not one of those places!!! As they continue to cut staff and folks who have
some history about local issues (and of course I'm speaking Minneapolis here)
they sure aren't going to be able to present anything that is expert and
relevant about this city on the opinion page.
Even before the recent sale of the paper, the opinion page writers (with the
exception of Steve Berg and Lori Sturdevant) rarely left the building and never
talked to beat reporters about local issues. The so called "expert coverage"
has gone from mediocore to bad. The Strib management wants to keep business and
advertisers happy because they pay the bills. The opinion page will always
reflect that everything is hunky dorey here in Minneapolis.
We continue to get the Strib because of three things - local news (which isn't
great) the crossword and the comics. Since some days the Strib is 60-70 percent
hashed over NY Times articles (a paper I get and love to read) it is becoming
less relevant in our household every day.
Lisa McDonald
East Harriet

What I've noticed about the Strib is their penchant
for cute headlinespunny headlines that are
inappropriate or that sacrifice clarity for the sake
of cleverness. Stories involving wildlife especially
seem to bring out this trait. A moose loose in
Minnetonka, I can understand the urge to be cute. But
a crime most fowl, about the St. Paul hotel guest
who ripped the head off a live duck, was
inappropriately flip.

Susan Maricle
Bruno MN

Rest of post

From someone who has had editorial page editor relationships over I
don't know - 15 years - I definitely have had my ups and downs with
the staff. But intellectual laziness is not one of the observations I
would include in either the ups or the downs.As a one time columnist
(it ended because of my fault, not theirs), staff curiosity, smart
questions, and sharpening skills were quite evident.

I do honestly question the Kersten column, but that is not part of
the op ed pages. So okay - its more like Louella Parsons than Jimmy
Breslin. I figure it is in the business plan.

But my hat is off to the editorial staff. The current opera going on
isn't a case of brains for national and the region but no brains for
the local. It really is a case of the paper's owners and their
penchant to fulfill a business plan. If it doesn't work, that will
not be the fault of the present or future editorial page editor and
her/his editors.

Up close in meetings where I was part of some group, on mostly local
issues, they were tough. I also got no slack when I ran for the
Minneapolis Library Board and took the invitation to meet with the
editorial page staff. Being on a first name basis with them made no
difference in the questions (of which had I been on the other side of
the table I would have been proud of) and the intensity of the session.

I'm not sanguine about this because I think the owners are people who
have no history in the business so the issue is not the quality of
the editorial staff. I am pissed at what I will miss.

Laura
Southeast/Como

On Oct 2, 2007, at 6:22 PM, Steve Brandt wrote:

> I couldn't agree more with Lisa about the lack of acuity in
> analysis of local issues shown by the editorial page staff. For
> state issues, Jim Boyd, Lori Sturdevant and Dave Hage could supply
> some top-notch analysis that had intellectual rigor and independent
> thinking even if you disagreed with the conclusion. Unfortunately,
> that independent voice has largely been missing from editorial
> analysis of Minneapolis and Hennepin County. It's as if the
> editorialist listened only to the public official who came over to
> blow in his or her ear. I think that over the years local public
> officials have come to rely on that intellectual laziness.

Laura Waterman Wittstock
President and CEO
Wittstock & Associates
913 19th Ave SE
Minneapolis, MN 55414
612-387-4915
www.laurawatermanwittstock.com

Rest of post

Isn't it obvious that the powers-that-be are trying to reduce the sources of
reporting and opinions concerning national and international events?
Knight-Ridder was the only national news chain that challenged the rationale of
the buildup to Iraq. Soon a big Texas investor managed to force them to be
sold on the market. In the end the Pioneer Press ended up in the hands of a
friend of George Bush. And the Star Tribune is now in the hands of an
investment firm with little-known objectives. But we do know that they have
told the Strib managment to keep their nose out of the big picture and just
rely on reporting and opinions from other sources. For example, one news story
today has as its source "News Services". I wonder what that is.

Gary Farland wrote:
> Isn't it obvious that the powers-that-be are trying to reduce the
> sources of reporting and opinions concerning national and
> international events?

No.

What's more, it's "obvious" that the Internet has made information
and opinion about pretty much everything, including excellent
reporting on national and international news, much more readily
available to nearly everyone.

In the last couple of days, we have learned about secret government
legal justifications for torture. And we learned about this because
of three months of good, old-fashioned reporting by the traditional
media. This information didn't come from the blogosphere. It
didn't come from the alternative media. It came from the New
York Times, the bastion of the traditional media. What's more,
you don't even have to subscribe to the New York Times to
read the article; it's available online:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134143/

The list of things (which the Administration doesn't want us to
know) that we learned from the traditional media goes on and
on: secret CIA prisons, domestic surveillance programs,
warrantless wiretapping, and so forth. Moreover, this information
is available to everyone, immediately, via the Internet.

Perhaps, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the
rest of the traditional media missed the memo telling them
that they were part of a broad conspiracy to keep the public
ignorant.

You are, however hinting at some important questions:

o How should (or must) our expectations for newspaper such as
the Strib change as the sources of news multiply?

o Can we reasonably, expect the Strib to be a national
newspaper, or should (or must) it focus on being an
excellent regional newspaper?

o If we expect to be well-informed about national and
international events, can we rely on the Strib? Or, must we
read national newspapers such as the New York Times and the
Washington Post?

o As the Internet commoditizes news, how is investigative
journalism going to be funded? If the New York Times is
available for free online, who pays for the three months
of work that lead to the article referenced above?

I won't even try to argue that you don't truly believe that there
is a vast conspiracy that is trying to staunch the flow of national
and international news. I will, however, argue that such a
conspiracy theory simply isn't consistent with even the most
readily available facts.

> Knight-Ridder was the only national news chain that challenged
> the rationale of the buildup to Iraq. ...

Not true. In the run-up to the Iraq war, the New York Times
published articles about evidence that contradicted the
Administration's line about WMD in Iraq. True, it wasn't
in Judy Miller's front-page articles. And, true, it was
buried on the inside pages. But, it _was_ there.

A more interesting question is:

o Should we expect our elected officials to be familiar with the
news that appears in the New York Times?

o Should we expect that our elected officials should have known
that there were dissenting opinions about the alleged evidence
of WMD in Iraq, because it was printed in the newspaper for
anyone to see?

I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories. But if I was, I would
worry about the vast conspiracy by some evil force to value
belief over evidence. What's more, this conspiracy seems to
be having an effect. Look at the number of people who believe
that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Or, the number of people
who believe that Dick Chaney was responsible. Or, during
the run-up to the war, the number of people that believed that
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Or, the people who
believe in creationism or intelligent design or whatever.
Why, some people even believe that the media are part of a
vast conspiracy to keep us ignorant about national and
international events (http://www.nytimes.com/ notwithstanding).

-tjs

Gary Farland is absolutely right. The ownership of the corporate media have
become the enemy of an informed public and by extention democracy itself.

Mr Salo, where is the extensive investigative reporting on the biggest issue
facing our nation?

That issue is not Depleted Uranium weaponry, produced right here in Minnesota,
it is not the epidemic of police brutality, it is not even the critical issue
of a need for Impeachment. None of these issues are ever covered by a corporate
media which was and is itself complicit in promoting the war on Iraq,
squelching voices of dissent.

The issue I am talking about, which has never been covered in "mainstream" AKA
corporate corrupted media is,

ELECTION FRAUD. There was 9 people who went from Minnesota to aid in the Ohio
re-count of 2004. The evidence that was uncovered has been chilling, to say the
least. Those nine people who went, including myself held a Press Conference on
the steps of the capitol, in St Paul. Not one "mainstream" corporate media
outlet showed up and in fact refused to talk to any of us. That has been
mirrored all over the country. Try reading Representative John Conyers book
"What Went Wrong In Ohio."

The media is absolutely complicit and in large part responsible for the mess we
find ourselves in today.

The corporate media is the enemy of democracy. The Star Tribune and other
corporate media outlets are too busy covering critical issues such as
"sidewalks v's no sidewalks in the suburbs." Or is it Brittany Spears or
Michael Jackson or.........

Michael Cavlan
Powderhorn

Rest of post

-----Original Message-----
>From: "Timothy J. Salo" <<email obscured>>
>Sent: Oct 4, 2007 6:46 PM
>To:
>Cc: Minneapolis Issues Forum <mpls@forums.e-democracy.org>
>Subject: Re: [Mpls] Star Tribune Editorial Page Editor (and Reader Rep) Out
>
>Gary Farland wrote:
>> Isn't it obvious that the powers-that-be are trying to reduce the
>> sources of reporting and opinions concerning national and
>> international events?
>
>No.
>
>What's more, it's "obvious" that the Internet has made information
>and opinion about pretty much everything, including excellent
>reporting on national and international news, much more readily
>available to nearly everyone.
>
>In the last couple of days, we have learned about secret government
>legal justifications for torture. And we learned about this because
>of three months of good, old-fashioned reporting by the traditional
>media. This information didn't come from the blogosphere. It
>didn't come from the alternative media. It came from the New
>York Times, the bastion of the traditional media. What's more,
>you don't even have to subscribe to the New York Times to
>read the article; it's available online:
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134143/
>
>The list of things (which the Administration doesn't want us to
>know) that we learned from the traditional media goes on and
>on: secret CIA prisons, domestic surveillance programs,
>warrantless wiretapping, and so forth. Moreover, this information
>is available to everyone, immediately, via the Internet.
>
>Perhaps, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the
>rest of the traditional media missed the memo telling them
>that they were part of a broad conspiracy to keep the public
>ignorant.
>
>You are, however hinting at some important questions:
>
>o How should (or must) our expectations for newspaper such as
> the Strib change as the sources of news multiply?
>
>o Can we reasonably, expect the Strib to be a national
> newspaper, or should (or must) it focus on being an
> excellent regional newspaper?
>
>o If we expect to be well-informed about national and
> international events, can we rely on the Strib? Or, must we
> read national newspapers such as the New York Times and the
> Washington Post?
>
>o As the Internet commoditizes news, how is investigative
> journalism going to be funded? If the New York Times is
> available for free online, who pays for the three months
> of work that lead to the article referenced above?
>
>I won't even try to argue that you don't truly believe that there
>is a vast conspiracy that is trying to staunch the flow of national
>and international news. I will, however, argue that such a
>conspiracy theory simply isn't consistent with even the most
>readily available facts.
>
>> Knight-Ridder was the only national news chain that challenged
>> the rationale of the buildup to Iraq. ...
>
>Not true. In the run-up to the Iraq war, the New York Times
>published articles about evidence that contradicted the
>Administration's line about WMD in Iraq. True, it wasn't
>in Judy Miller's front-page articles. And, true, it was
>buried on the inside pages. But, it _was_ there.
>
>A more interesting question is:
>
>o Should we expect our elected officials to be familiar with the
> news that appears in the New York Times?
>
>o Should we expect that our elected officials should have known
> that there were dissenting opinions about the alleged evidence
> of WMD in Iraq, because it was printed in the newspaper for
> anyone to see?
>
>I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories. But if I was, I would
>worry about the vast conspiracy by some evil force to value
>belief over evidence. What's more, this conspiracy seems to
>be having an effect. Look at the number of people who believe
>that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Or, the number of people
>who believe that Dick Chaney was responsible. Or, during
>the run-up to the war, the number of people that believed that
>Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Or, the people who
>believe in creationism or intelligent design or whatever.
>Why, some people even believe that the media are part of a
>vast conspiracy to keep us ignorant about national and
>international events (http://www.nytimes.com/ notwithstanding).
>
>-tjs
>
>
>Tim Salo
>Macalester-Groveland/Dinkytown
>Info about Tim Salo: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/timsalo
>
>This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/mAeOWOLwQhPSovaAiG8GS
>-----------------------------------------
> To post, send your message to: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> in subject line and send to: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
>
> More info about Minneapolis Issues Forum:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls
>
> E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
>-----------------------------------------
>Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
> 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>
>2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.

The silence on this is deafening and telling.

Corporate Media
Corporate Lies
With The Wars You Sanitize.

This is the perspective of many of us in the peace and justice communities.

With the notable exception of (ironically) Fox News Channel 9/29. Journalistic
and Editorial integrity is not yet dead. I have met the news editor of Channel
9, as a media activist. He is a good man.

Michael Cavlan
Powderhorn

Rest of post

-----Original Message-----
>From: greenpartymike <<email obscured>>
>Sent: Oct 4, 2007 7:09 PM
>To: "Timothy J. Salo" <<email obscured>>
>Cc: Minneapolis Issues Forum <mpls@forums.e-democracy.org>
>Subject: Re: [Mpls] Star Tribune Editorial Page Editor (and Reader Rep) Out
>
>Gary Farland is absolutely right. The ownership of the corporate media have
become the enemy of an informed public and by extention democracy itself.
>
>Mr Salo, where is the extensive investigative reporting on the biggest issue
facing our nation?
>
>That issue is not Depleted Uranium weaponry, produced right here in Minnesota,
it is not the epidemic of police brutality, it is not even the critical issue
of a need for Impeachment. None of these issues are ever covered by a corporate
media which was and is itself complicit in promoting the war on Iraq,
squelching voices of dissent.
>
>The issue I am talking about, which has never been covered in "mainstream" AKA
corporate corrupted media is,
>
>ELECTION FRAUD. There was 9 people who went from Minnesota to aid in the Ohio
re-count of 2004. The evidence that was uncovered has been chilling, to say the
least. Those nine people who went, including myself held a Press Conference on
the steps of the capitol, in St Paul. Not one "mainstream" corporate media
outlet showed up and in fact refused to talk to any of us. That has been
mirrored all over the country. Try reading Representative John Conyers book
"What Went Wrong In Ohio."
>
>The media is absolutely complicit and in large part responsible for the mess
we find ourselves in today.
>
>The corporate media is the enemy of democracy. The Star Tribune and other
corporate media outlets are too busy covering critical issues such as
"sidewalks v's no sidewalks in the suburbs." Or is it Brittany Spears or
Michael Jackson or.........
>
>Michael Cavlan
>Powderhorn
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: "Timothy J. Salo" <<email obscured>>
>>Sent: Oct 4, 2007 6:46 PM
>>To:
>>Cc: Minneapolis Issues Forum <mpls@forums.e-democracy.org>
>>Subject: Re: [Mpls] Star Tribune Editorial Page Editor (and Reader Rep) Out
>>
>>Gary Farland wrote:
>>> Isn't it obvious that the powers-that-be are trying to reduce the
>>> sources of reporting and opinions concerning national and
>>> international events?
>>
>>No.
>>
>>What's more, it's "obvious" that the Internet has made information
>>and opinion about pretty much everything, including excellent
>>reporting on national and international news, much more readily
>>available to nearly everyone.
>>
>>In the last couple of days, we have learned about secret government
>>legal justifications for torture. And we learned about this because
>>of three months of good, old-fashioned reporting by the traditional
>>media. This information didn't come from the blogosphere. It
>>didn't come from the alternative media. It came from the New
>>York Times, the bastion of the traditional media. What's more,
>>you don't even have to subscribe to the New York Times to
>>read the article; it's available online:
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134143/
>>
>>The list of things (which the Administration doesn't want us to
>>know) that we learned from the traditional media goes on and
>>on: secret CIA prisons, domestic surveillance programs,
>>warrantless wiretapping, and so forth. Moreover, this information
>>is available to everyone, immediately, via the Internet.
>>
>>Perhaps, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the
>>rest of the traditional media missed the memo telling them
>>that they were part of a broad conspiracy to keep the public
>>ignorant.
>>
>>You are, however hinting at some important questions:
>>
>>o How should (or must) our expectations for newspaper such as
>> the Strib change as the sources of news multiply?
>>
>>o Can we reasonably, expect the Strib to be a national
>> newspaper, or should (or must) it focus on being an
>> excellent regional newspaper?
>>
>>o If we expect to be well-informed about national and
>> international events, can we rely on the Strib? Or, must we
>> read national newspapers such as the New York Times and the
>> Washington Post?
>>
>>o As the Internet commoditizes news, how is investigative
>> journalism going to be funded? If the New York Times is
>> available for free online, who pays for the three months
>> of work that lead to the article referenced above?
>>
>>I won't even try to argue that you don't truly believe that there
>>is a vast conspiracy that is trying to staunch the flow of national
>>and international news. I will, however, argue that such a
>>conspiracy theory simply isn't consistent with even the most
>>readily available facts.
>>
>>> Knight-Ridder was the only national news chain that challenged
>>> the rationale of the buildup to Iraq. ...
>>
>>Not true. In the run-up to the Iraq war, the New York Times
>>published articles about evidence that contradicted the
>>Administration's line about WMD in Iraq. True, it wasn't
>>in Judy Miller's front-page articles. And, true, it was
>>buried on the inside pages. But, it _was_ there.
>>
>>A more interesting question is:
>>
>>o Should we expect our elected officials to be familiar with the
>> news that appears in the New York Times?
>>
>>o Should we expect that our elected officials should have known
>> that there were dissenting opinions about the alleged evidence
>> of WMD in Iraq, because it was printed in the newspaper for
>> anyone to see?
>>
>>I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories. But if I was, I would
>>worry about the vast conspiracy by some evil force to value
>>belief over evidence. What's more, this conspiracy seems to
>>be having an effect. Look at the number of people who believe
>>that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Or, the number of people
>>who believe that Dick Chaney was responsible. Or, during
>>the run-up to the war, the number of people that believed that
>>Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Or, the people who
>>believe in creationism or intelligent design or whatever.
>>Why, some people even believe that the media are part of a
>>vast conspiracy to keep us ignorant about national and
>>international events (http://www.nytimes.com/ notwithstanding).
>>
>>-tjs
>>
>>
>>Tim Salo
>>Macalester-Groveland/Dinkytown
>>Info about Tim Salo: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/timsalo
>>
>>This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/mAeOWOLwQhPSovaAiG8GS
>>-----------------------------------------
>> To post, send your message to: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
>> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>> in subject line and send to: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
>>
>> More info about Minneapolis Issues Forum:
>> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls
>>
>> E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
>>-----------------------------------------
>>Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>>
>> 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
>> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
>> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>>
>>2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>
>
>Michael Cavlan
>
>Info about Michael Cavlan:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/michaelcavlan
>
>This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/iCeUMy6Z9SPURzgVxQFrN
>-----------------------------------------
> To post, send your message to: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> in subject line and send to: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
>
> More info about Minneapolis Issues Forum:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls
>
> E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
>-----------------------------------------
>Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
> 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>
>2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.

It may be because your post was not Minneapolis-specific on a Minneapolis
Issues list.

FYI, the Star Tribune ran several contemporaneous article on the Ohio
imbroglio.

Of course, they were reported from Ohio, the center of the issue. In light of
that, not focusing on a few visitors who went from Minnesota to Ohio makes
perfect sense to me. To complain because your press conference went uncovered
under those circumstances sounds infantile to me.

To answer the question posed back a while in this string, the Star Tribune used
to strive to be an excellent regional paper. That means doing good work on
stories within your defined coverage area. I think it falls short these days
because the owners are starving it of resources. But it never pretended to be
a national paper, and didn't expect that its readers would rely on it
exclusively for national and international news. I get much of that content
from public broadcasting, and in an Internet age, it makes sense to focus
locally because so much of the broader coverage is available for free
elsewhere. In other words, concentrate most on what you do best.

Steve Brandt
Star Tribune

>>> greenpartymike <<email obscured>> 10/7/2007 3:06:04 PM >>>
The silence on this is deafening and telling.

Corporate Media
Corporate Lies
With The Wars You Sanitize.

This is the perspective of many of us in the peace and justice communities.

With the notable exception of (ironically) Fox News Channel 9/29. Journalistic
and Editorial integrity is not yet dead. I have met the news editor of Channel
9, as a media activist. He is a good man.

Michael Cavlan
Powderhorn

Rest of post

You cannot post because you are not logged in.

Star Tribune Editorial Page Editor (and Reader Rep) Out

Already a member?

Not a member?

E-Democracy is 100% Donation Supported Contribute Today!