"Cut throat"?

I think Singleton's words are spot-on.

Why not recognize / applaud his ability to meet the challenges facing his chosen industry?

Why paint a businessman trying to make a profit as "cut-throat"?

Faced with $4.40 for premium for the high-end German sedan, I'm stepping down from Michelob to Busch.

Am I "cut throat", too?

You bet.

LAMBERT: I doubt either Singleton or Murdoch will be down-grading their lifestyles any time soon.

Newspaper blogs are way better than newspaper articles, I agree, and not just in the sports world.

I'm a big fan of the Pioneer Press's (and MPR's) political blog coverage (Political Animal and City Hall Scoop). Would that there was more of that in the real paper.

LAMBERT: When the "real paper" goes away, maybe it'll happen.

You're right about the layers of fat in the middle, Brian. Newspapers traditionally have paid more money to, and taken more seriously, the people who are around the office and sit in all the meetings together. That, along with the wringing of personality and edge out of stories, is how you get an editor-driven paper. Which, by any other word, is boring and a sitting duck for the Murdochs and Singletons.

Where the PiPress and the Strib delude themselves is thinking that thinning the herd leaves them with the right people to tackle the future. Most of the folks who let buyouts pass them by weren't necessarily the most innovative or talented or even young (as if that in itself sells anything) -- they were, by and large, folks who still needed the paycheck most or most doubted their ability to switch jobs/careers. Besides, if those joints really were going to build up the online product while making over the print version, they would need more people, not fewer.

Now journalism is going to re-invent itself, with the Murdochs, Singletons, Zells and Avista Partners leading the way, with management-heavy staffs and with many worker bees who are neither the best nor the brightest but simply the most desperate? Fat effin' chance.

Say, what's the latest on the Strib Guild's pathetic contract talks? Don't mean to be harsh, but when a union begs management not to fill current openings as its only leverage to maintain a comfy status quo for current workers, it isn't dealing from a position of strength.

LAMBERT: Your point about those who chose to stay including people who doubted they could make the transition to something new is, I think, sadly valid. I was told this afternoon that the Strib is unveiling a new, "hip" website video component. I can only wonder what level of management mediation is going to go into the staff interviewing itself. As for the negotiations, along with (or because of) little-to-no leverage, the Guild is honoring a "no leaks" agreement. But there's always someone ...

So THAT'S what's killing daily newspapers...overediting! Who knew? You are, of course, completely correct that "veteran reporters/columnists" who get "hip to the digital age" and become unencumbered by "monumentally counterproductive" oversight are the future of news. I believe a case in point you yourself noted recently was Doug Grow's prescient advance piece for MinnPost on Al Franken's slim chances at last weekend's DFL convention. Right on the money, was it not?

LAMBERT: Ironically, I suspect Doug's piece WAS examined by at least a couple editors over at MinnPost. Unlike this loose cannon operation here, Mr. Kramer's venture is abiding by established dead tree journalism principles. But off-the-mark though Doug's piece was, the probability of being wrong -- about something as speculative as who will win an endorsement -- is part of the appeal of less-mediated journalism. It is one thing for some kid to be wildly off the mark, but something else when a guy like Grow, who like any pro, is conscientious and right far more often than he's wrong blows one. Hell, give him some space to explain why. I can only imagine the unhinged crackpots writing in to tell him he screwed one up.

Jeez, Brian, not only does the ironically named "Ethics 101" dis those of us still toiling at the Pioneer Press and the Star Tribune, but you have to egg him on by saying he has a valid point, and that those who didn't take a buyout included "people who doubted they could make the transition to something new."

Did you guys ever consider the fact that maybe those of us still at the papers are there because we earnestly and honestly believe there is still a need for good and professional print journalism (whether it be on newsprint or online) and that it is what we like to do and it is what we're good at?

Conversely, while both papers lost many talented people in the rounds of buyouts -- I know because I worked with many of them -- it is ludicrous to paint them all as visionaries who were somehow smarter or more forward-looking than those of us who didn't take a buyout. For every person taking a buyout, there was a different reason, a personal rationale. It may have had little to do with where they felt the industry was headed.

It is insulting to claim those of us who didn't take buyouts were too dumb or too old or too slow to test the job market. Maybe we didn't take the buyouts because we still love the business and there's still a need for what we do.

LAMBERT: My inner sixth-level copy editor required me to qualify my reply with the line "including people who ... " But I've talked to too many, generally older, reporters closing in the retirement they've planned for, who feared starting over outside the building. I applaud anyone who stayed and can continue to do work they're proud of. Personally, I thought it had been dumbed down so badly five years ago it was a lost cause -- at least up in the Toy Department.

In 1989 Dave Hanners and two colleagues won a Pulitzer at the Dallas Morning News. He writes today for the Pioneer Press.

For once, I was on Grow's side with his dim view of The Porn Chuckler's (tm) chances.

Say, care to comment on the liberal media's insistently attaching the term "satirist" to the Chuckler (tm)?

Last I looked, people with his job were called "comedian".

Does using "satirist" intend to imply some higher level of buffoonery? One that may make it seem that his quest to be a US Senator is ever so slightly less ridiculous?

LAMBERT: "Satire" suggests the comedian is playing with elements of reality in an ironic way to make something like a cultural critique -- as opposed, you know, to just screaming, "Libtard towel-head lover!".

So can you tell me how raping Leslie Stahl, getting a lap dance from Janet Reno, and writing detailed descriptions of getting oral sex from robots is "satire".

Still hoping you'll match some of Coleman's accomplishments to those of The Porn Chuckler (tm).

LAMBERT: A good satirist has a feel for his audience. For some crowds, it's better sticking to "knock-knock" jokes.

Frogman of Grant, thank you for putting it so well. Indeed, some of us still come to our newsroom jobs every day still hoping to make a difference in what people find out about the world - by boiling down a complex story into something still meaningful, and with a snappy, terse headline to boot, by crafting a page with elements that will make the reader pause and say, Hey, who knew this nugget of information? and by figuring out wht the reader might want to know first and foremost by putting it on top of the front page.

Yeah, crazy, I know, but true for many of us whose skin is bleached white from underexposure to the sun. Did you ever stop to think maybe we would love to learn more about the things going down in online but we're not being offered the opportunity to learn them? Because some of us might be too ... (old, stupid, stodgy -- you fill in the misperception) ... to be trained in video, sound, etc? or there's no time because we're still working on the print product?

Also, in response to your plea that editors, and I assume you mean copy editors as well as any other kind of editors, let reporters and columnists decide what runs under their bylines. If I had a nickel for every error of fact, misspelled word, convoluted sentence, grammatical gaffe that I find on a regular basis -- I could take early retirement. In fact, right after you make that statement, Brian, you make several punctuation errors. (Maybe you did that on purpose so you could raise the dander of a few copy editors; it worked!)

I know a lot of people pooh-pooh punctuation, but I still think accuracy in punctuation (among other things) is a good indicator of accuracy in the rest of the writer's work.

I almost always agree with what you say, but -- sorry, you made some generalizations this time that were unfair and unfounded.

LAMBERT: Judging by the mail -- on and off record -- I've touched a nerve, or a wound. As I said to Dave Hanners, I used the phrase "including those ... " in my response to Ethics 101's line about reporters/editors who stayed because they feared they couldn't make another transition. That was a little weaselly on my part, I suppose. But I have had looong talks with precisely that kind of person. The sort who seriously doubts he/she could start over again in PR or working on some obscure blog. But obviously that isn't everyone. As I've been chastised, some choose to stay because they flat-out like the work, others because they're close enough to retirement they believe they can make it to the finish line before the big company lays them off or closes the doors. I know those people, too. And yes, others are fervent about the value of what they do.

As for the editing business, everyone -- especially someone with my kind of Martian syntax and Cro-Magnon punctuation skills -- can use a good editor. But Murdoch's complaint about "8.3 editors per story" has some basis in reality. Again, neither the Strib or the PiPress has the resources to devote that kind of manpower to anything but their biggest stories. But after a certain point in any journalist's career they either have a pretty good understanding of what is fair and what isn't, or they don't. Those that do should be trusted AND encouraged to be more expressive and idiosyncratic, which I firmly believe is something papers lose as stories go through three, four or five levels of second-guessing. PR after all is journalism by committee.

Finally, on that lack of sunlight business, I will happily debate anyone on the topic of newsroom insularity.

Oh my word! I misread the posters' signatures. It was actually Hanners with whom I agreed, not the Frogman. (I would be one of those still toiling at the PP and the Strib.)

And, Ethics101, where do you get off saying this: "Most of the folks who let buyouts pass them by weren't necessarily the most innovative or talented or even young (as if that in itself sells anything) -- they were, by and large, folks who still needed the paycheck most or most doubted their ability to switch jobs/careers."

Ugh. Don't dis what you don't know.

You're dodging the question: What is "satirical" about Franken's pornographic predilections?

"Borat" is satirical.

Mad Magazine is satirical

I suppose Colbert is satire, of a sort.

The Porn Chuckler (tm) is no "satirist".

He's simply a hate-filled "comedian", with some rather twisted views of women and sex.

Yet, the libs will do contortions to give him a pass, while whispering about Coleman's rumoured roving eye, right?

LAMBERT: Are all your myriad adversaries "hate-filled"? Or do they just tell jokes you don't get?

Boy that was a beauty of a column today by the Stribs senior metro columnist. I don’t suspect that was scrutinized very heavily by the Stribs 8.3 copy editors.

First, he calls Dennis Kucinich a populist. Kucinich is not a populist, even using very inclusive definitions maybe used in the common vernacular. He’s ‘left leaning’, ‘liberal’, ‘progressive’, or even ‘leftist’ or ‘eccentric’. That shouldn’t have passed copy editing. But Kucinich is Coleman’s kind of pol, and Coleman thinks he’s a populist himself – so we know where that comes from.

Second, he interviews a mime as his authority to buttress an argument that impeachment is seriously possible. I suppose that’s character rich and idiosyncratic, but it’s completely unconvincing and stupid.

By the way, when I allude to the ridiculousness of the urban performance art crowd, this is what I’m talking about. I think the dominant paradigm is working families. If you want to find a voice that speaks to your readers, write about them, interview them.

LAMBERT: The one thing you may share with Strib management is a belief that metro columnists are nothing more than beat reporters with pictures next to their names. A major part of their job is being themselves, expressing what they think and, yeah, annoying the bejeezus out of guys like you -- who obviously read them religiously. Nick could have called Kucinich a "UFO-spotting whack job", but that's more Kersten's view. As for a mime who leads the local chapter of a national group pushing to impeach two characters abundantly vulnerable to charges of "high crimes" -- see last week's Senate Intelligence Committee report (also ignored by the major TV networks) -- I find that kind of amusing. Obviously Nick isn't screaming "terrorists" at religious schools, but he's playing the provocateur, which fits with my description of his job.

I do read him, you got me there. I’m not a subscriber though, but that’s a practical matter and not ideological.

A reasonable person, and not just Kersten (lol), would know Kucinich IS a UFO spotting whack job. Coleman’s doing a sleight of hand by attaching ‘populist’ to Kucinich and not ‘liberal’ or something else. One has more favorable connotations than the other, and implies some sort of impartiality. He’s intentionally distorting reality to present this as a credible effort.

Then he’s asking us to treat the mime as a credible political operator, some indicator of a broader cultural phenomenon, when in fact this guy is part of a fringe, urban political demographic.

In so much as this is an example of what we’re talking about, the problem is the folks who get it largely live in uptown. In terms of reader engaging content, Kersten is consistently more honed in to populist inclinations of the broader metro.

Provocative, but short of amusing and in need of copy editing. You’re right though, he produces, he gets read by people who like him and people like me.

LAMBERT: What isn't credible about the mime activist? That he's a mime? Do you need a party title to be "credible". Nick says at the top this impeachment move isn't going anywhere. The point of the story seems to be, "Look who these serious and valid charges are being left to."

As we assess Mr. Murdoch's skills as a futurist, let's factor in his prediction that the invasion of Iraq would yield $20/barrel oil.

LAMBERT: His predictions, like his business strategies, are entirely self-serving. I'm guessing he's played the oil market quite well.

"I suppose Colbert is satire, of a sort."

Too precious. Yes, remove the comma, BJr. Colbert is satire of your sort. I love it. It's guys like you who make Colbert's job SUCH a challenge. After all, how DOES one parody the self-parodying? Keep 'em coming.

Your "guessing", Bri, tends towards the elitist, with severe anti-business, anti-capitalism overtones.

BTW, 108's callling out of Coleman is an exact parallel to my calling out the lib-media on using the term "satirist" to describe the noxious emissions of The Porn Chuckler (tm).

LAMBERT: While you're at it why don't you "call out" some coherence, or logic?

Boy there’s quite a bit here actually.

Brian asks: “what isn’t credible about the mime activist?” Google him, he’s a fairly prominent local 9/11 truther.

Coleman’s piece uses language to try and mainstream this fellow. Coleman’s piece is fundamentally dishonest – it does not explain the nature of this fellows political leanings. Nick calls the mime an ‘evangelical Christian’ at one point, which is another misdirection play. Make us think this fellows sitting in the pew next to Tim Pawlenty down in Eden Prairie. What is more accurate to say is, the mime is probably a believer in whats broadly known as Christian liberation theology. He’s probably actually a member of one of the Unitarian congregations in Minneapolis.

Which is all fine, by the way – but Nick doesn’t explain any of this, and it’s hugely relevant to understanding the story.

108: Let me get this straight, this mime guy's "probably" a believer in Christian liberation theology and he's "probably" a member of a Unitarian congregation.

So this makes him "probably" not mainstream enough for you, "108"? THIS you call solid reporting that counters Coleman's.

What in the name of I.F. Stone does this have to do with Coleman's piece about how the Dems in Congress seem none too interested in seeing if Bush should be impeached? Whether you characterize Kucinich as a progressive populist or the more generic label, "liberal," does not in anyway impugn the fact that he's the only Democrat in Congress actually drawing up any paperwork to look into a case for impeachment against Bush. People know who Kucinich is and they know the man's politics. He just got done running for President for the second time in as many election cycles.

As for this guy's credibility because he's a mime, well, I took your advice and did Google him and it would appear that he is quite an accomplished mime with excellent reviews and recommendations.

Who's ever heard of you?

I would like to state emphatically that assigning terrorist prisoners (enemy combatants) U.S. Constitutional rights is the most ridiculous decision ever by the fools that Clinton put on the Supreme Court.

I fear for this country. Clearly, there is an enemy within.

LAMBERT: Yeah, that damned Constitution and all that silly, what is it?, "hapless corpses" stuff. Who needs it?

That’s not quite what I’m trying to explain Jim.

Him being a mime is fine, of course. Easy target, and I couldn’t help but indulge. I am actually continually impressed with the way people use their imaginations to make a living.

Him being a 9/11 truther is not. If you believe the Pentagon wasn’t hit, or the planes going into WTC were directed by remote control - that impugns your credibility. It gives you an instant nutjob label right on your forehead. A columnist who profiles a person like this as ‘just’ some earnest citizen is obfuscating. The mime is a fully tenured member of the lunatic fringe, but that’s not acknowledged. Reality, while relevant, doesn’t flatter the subject – so Coleman omits.

I didn’t write the stylebook, I just know how its used to portray archetypes. I am well versed with left wing Christians, but reporters don’t use the term ‘evangelical Christian’ very often to describe them. “Evangelical Christian’ as a term has a fairly charged association to conservative denominations. The field of journalism made that association, not the public at large. While calling this fellow an evangelical is literally accurate, it’s a practical deception. The mime is being associated with a group of people who might be more approving of Bush and thereby being credited with a perhaps unique insight. Like, he’s an evangelical, but thinks Bush is a whatever… This is not the case. I would say his actual denomination becomes relevant at this point, that’s all I’m saying. Journalism has had a pretty tin ear when it comes to left wing religiosity, by the way.

When you represent a borough in Cleveland, I don’t think by definition you can be a populist. You almost need to be a Governor, or Senator. Populism represents a broader set of political ideals that includes ones that appeal to voters in conservative districts. Wrong word, inaccurate word. I think it’s the first time I’ve seen it used on Kucinich, and its an intentional substitution for a word less flattering in the practical political vocabulary.

Not a good column. How many words were wasted on that flying animal metaphor?

CopyMaven, you're right on two points.

First, I should have used the word "Many" rather than "Most." I cannot claim to have polled a vast majority of those who stayed in the Strib and PiPress newsrooms. So "Most" is wrong. But I have talked to plenty, which is why "Many" works. Dave Hanners obviously doesn't count himself among that "Many." Bully for him, hope this strategy works out for him and his.

Second, I was wrong to limit my definition of those who stayed as either needing the paycheck or fearing the job market. There are some who obviously drank the Kool Aid and believe that the new way is the right way, just because some suits say it is. There also are some newsroom folks who have Stockholm syndrome and are siding with those who have taken daily journalism hostage. There are those, too, who don't give a damn any more about what they do for a living, as long as the pay shows up via direct deposit. They can't be bothered to fight anymore.

LAMBERT: I can't tell you the number of times The Stockholm Syndrome has crossed my mind with regard to the zeitgeist of the two newsrooms here in town since the dot.com bubble burst. Those of who regarded ourselves as "cranks" -- although I had a lot of "bootlicker" and "dimwit" going for me -- would watch colleagues lapping up the most ludicrous new line of company verbiage and wonder who had gone insane, us or them. On a purely psychological level I understand the importance of telling yourself that you're still doing the same quantity and quality of "great journalism" as before the pirates arrived. But do you really expect people outside the newsroom to believe it?

Maybe it's their union-busting, minority-firing, tycoon-ass-kissing ways that are putting their papers under.

LAMBERT: It isn't helping.