Strib-MinnPost Throw Down: Burcum v. Brauer
By Brian Lambert
There are moments when I envy my colleagues covering the restaurant industry. All that expense account chow is cool enough, but the occasional public hissy fits and feuds are often pretty damned entertaining. A foodie artiste whipped up like over-beaten meringue is always good copy.
Here on the media end of public life, you rarely see a lockup/throw down as good as this week's bout between Star Tribune editorial page writer Jill Burcum and MinnPost media writer David Brauer.
The background is this: On June 28, the Strib ran an unsigned editorial suggesting that there might be reasonable cause to take a new look at offshore drilling in Florida and California. Since the Strib doesn't exactly have a history of "hear-hearing" Bush administration proposals, this one caught Brauer's attention.
Said the editorial, "President Bush and other political leaders are right to weigh all options as potential solutions to what is clearly an energy crisis. Of all the proposed measures, none has sparked a more bitter and unproductive debate than tapping into the nation's vast oil reserves in areas currently off limits: offshore and in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)." Adding, "Though some environmental advocates dispute this, drilling technology has advanced over the past quarter-century. Oil companies can drill more efficiently in deeper water with significantly less risk to the environment."
(Full disclosure: David is an old friend of mine and has been camped -- doing a terrific job -- on all things Strib for months.)
On Tuesday, Brauer filed on MinnPost noting that the Strib's private-equity owners, Avista Capital Partners (cue snake rattle sound effect), have 20 percent of their portfolio invested in . . . offshore drilling operations. Brauer then suggested it might have been a good idea for the Strib to disclose as much somewhere on the Op-Ed page.
This did not sit well with Burcum, who moved over to the editorial department a few months ago and who, as it turns out, authored the piece.
Very, very much unlike standard Strib response to criticism, especially criticism from "bloggers" (Brauer qualifies as something more), Burcum fired off a comment to MinnPost accusing Brauer of just about everything short of necrophilia with Wisconsin roadkill.
Wrote Burcum:
"Letâs be clear. David Brauerâs employer has an economic interest every time he writes about the Star Tribune. MinnPost views itself as a Star Tribune competitor. It stands to benefit directly from a weakened Star Tribune, something that Brauer clearly has an interest in hastening. Does Brauer state his employerâs interest in each of his frequent, negative columns about the paper? No. Should he? By the standards he puts forth in his latest underreported broadside against the Star Tribune, yes.
"Not surprisingly, todayâs hypocritical piece begins with a cheap shot, that itâs hard to find a call to action in the editorial pages. David, I thought you read the paper every day for the pointless, commentless Daily Glean?"
She concluded by saying:
"As far as disclosure goes, David, heal thyself. By your own standards, your columns require a lot more of them than the meaningless Gray Plant disclosures you put in. Todayâs reality, which you should know as a critic, is that most media companies have owners with vast investment interests. Do these newspapers, TV stations and other outlets disclose this every single time they write about these topics? Has MinnPost ever disclosed its founders' and funders' vast investment interests when it writes about various topics? No.
"Your reporting was weak. Your motivation, suspect. Your conclusions, circumstantial. Were this an editorial, Iâd be forced to conclude with an uncomplimentary summary graf about your reporting integrity and trustworthiness."
Ouch.
Not exactly defenseless, Brauer responded pointing out the difficulty in getting current Strib management to respond . . . to anything.
To a Burcum complaint that he hadn't adequately pursued comment from someone in management, Brauer wrote:
"I always contact people I write about at 425 Portland. But they don't always get back to me. I know the poohbahs don't like me, but that's no excuse for not calling a reporter back - if so, the Strib's more aggressive reporters would never get a callback. Please communicate your feelings about callback decorum to Nancy Barnes (who has never returned a call or email, though Rene Sanchez does) and Ben Taylor, who has also stiffed me since November. I certainly hope the Strib's sources don't follow management's pattern."
As of yesterday, the boil was still on.
Brauer called back first.
I told him the scuffle over offshore drilling and even whether the Strib should have disclosed Avista's involvement in such interested me less than a newspaper's, dare I say, journalistic obligation to accountability and transparency, which, as I see it, requires . . . returning an occasional phone call from a reporter.
Brauer, as I say, is covering the Strib's reporting and business operations as a reporter. Other than Paul Schmelzer over at the Minnesota Independent and City Pages, and me, intermittently, that's it in terms of who Strib management might have to deal with here in town. But in my experience, the courtesy of a call back or response to an e-mail ended when "St. Paul Pioneer Press" stopped being my last name.
"In fairness," says Brauer, "this was the first time Scott [Gillespie, now head of the Strib's editorial page] took an absolute pass on a question. [Gillespie responded to a Brauer e-mail declining comment on the offshore drilling piece]. The way it has been working, [deputy managing editor] Rene Sanchez has been designated as the talk-to-Brauer guy, and he's been both cordial and professional. Nancy Barnes has never responded to anything."
Brauer beat me to the punch by noting that the advantage to the Strib in having Sanchez play designated commenter is that Sanchez is too low in the food chain to know much about anything beyond the newsroom. Sanchez can honestly say, "I don't know," something people like Barnes and publisher Chris Harte have a harder time doing. My point is that the designation of a credible denier is a drearily familiar corporate crisis management techniqueâi.e. something beneath an organization allegedly committed to public accountability and transparency.
I know, I know. It's really so quaint, isn't it? Expecting a group of managers employed by a panicked private investment group to behave like public, journalism figures of old. Similarly, I suppose I have to concede it is disingenuous, therefore, of people like Brauer and I to continue expecting current Star Tribune management to behave according to rules of journalistic comportment we both know they long ago set aside in the interest of avoiding conflict with their bosses who have no accountability to anyone other than their undisclosed investors.
Cracked Brauer, "At least with Anders [Gyllenhaal, Nancy Barnes's imperious predecessor], he took your call even as he let you know you were wasting his time."
I'm perilously close to whining here. You know, " . . . waaah . . . the big meanies won't play fair because I'm just a blogger." But the question is still fair. What is the criteria for credibility sufficient enough for an upper-level Star Tribune manager to return a journalist's phone call or e-mail? Is it a certain level of circulation? If so, how much? Will they take a call from The Highland Villager? Is it the presence of editing by someone they respect? In Brauer's case, MinnPost has a table full of editors from both the Star Tribune and Pioneer Press. Or is it, as I suspect, simply that they believe they can ignore any and everything online without peril?
Point being that in a journalism world evolving as fast as ours is today, with journalistic standards flexing to gain and sustain a toehold, the online world is sprinkled with professionals who, though their dental plans might not be as good as they once were, are still asking fair and valid questions . . . and whose work is still being read by people interested in the topic. Questions (a bit like termites gnawing at footings) are something big, teetering newspapers ignore at their own peril.
As one Strib reporter I spoke with put it, "If they don't believe bloggers have credibility, how come they are paying [Katherine] Kersten to blog?"
Jill Burcum called back a couple hours after Brauer. She didn't want to wade into the criteria-for-credibility business or why her superiors over the Strib habitually stiff scurrilous bastards such as Brauer and myself. She was still steamed over what she regarded as Brauer's insinuation that she and the rest of the editorial department, "Were bought off on that piece or are dictated to by Avista. Who is he to impugn our integrity like that?"
I've only interacted with Burcum a couple of times, and, like most Strib reporters/writers, she has been professional about it, calling back and answering questions. (The cone of silence really only applies to editors and up.) She calmed down a bit when I told her that all things considered, Brauer had complimented her on at least (wo)manning-up and giving him a piece of her mind . . . in public and on the record. That much he found refreshing.
"Well, I appreciate that," she said. "But I'm still mad. He says he has all these sources over here. If that's true, he could have called around and found out who wrote the offshore drilling edit. I would have called him back."
(Your ball, David.)
© 2008 MSP Communications, Inc. All rights reserved
I read it when it came out and thought the editorial was pretty level headed. Thus I was fairly shocked to see it on the Strib’s opinion page. But that’s where reasonable people are, what with $4 gas.
Worthy of critique is Brauer’s initial reaction. Don’t engage the argument, look to see if someone is being bought off by the energy industry. And if there is no explicit evidence, suggest it anyway. Pretty standard fare among the luddite, eco-alarmists.
Just curious, what’s the environmental reason for not drilling in North Dakota going to be? Do we have a working group putting that one together yet?
LAMBERT: My interest, as I say, is the Strib's accountability/transparency policies. On the actual issue of off-shore drilling, I'm under the distinct impression that the oil industry has plenty of leases on which it has not even yet attempted to drill. If the mere appearance of drilling can drive down the price of gas, start there.
Posted by: 108 on July 10, 2008 at 1:54 PM
They’re not drilling on the undrilled leases because they’res no oil there Brian. Buying the lease at the outset of exploration is a cheap hedge against the possibility there is oil, but if there’s not, there’s no reason to drill.
This has been purposefully misconstrued – I hope you don’t actually believe this.
LAMBERT: Too much Hannity, dude.
updated 2:57 p.m. CT, Tues., June. 1, 2004
WASHINGTON - Nearly three-fourths of the 40 million acres of public land currently leased for oil and gas development in the continental United States outside Alaska isn’t producing any oil or gas, federal records show, even as the Bush administration pushes to open more environmentally sensitive public lands for oil and gas development.
An Associated Press computer analysis of Bureau of Land Management records found that 80 percent of federal lands leased for oil and gas production in Wyoming are producing no oil or gas. Neither are 83 percent of the leased acres in Montana, 77 percent in Utah, 71 percent in Colorado, 36 percent in New Mexico and 99 percent in Nevada.
How much exploration has occurred on the nearly 30 million acres of non-producing public land leases is difficult to say. BLM officials could provide no details on the number of exploratory wells drilled on those leases, despite repeated requests for that information over the past two months.
But with so much public land already available for exploration, environmental groups and local landowners are questioning why the Bush administration is pushing to lease still more federal land to the oil and gas industry, particularly in areas that the groups and some lawmakers want protected as federal wilderness areas.
$3 an acre annual rent
“The aggressive leasing of public land pushed by the Bush administration is a land grab, pure and simple, giving industry more and more control over public land while costing taxpayers millions of dollars,” said Peter Morton, a resource economist with the Wilderness Society.
Morton said the leases, which companies can lock up for 10 years with annual rents of only $2 to $3 an acre, are an economic boon to some companies because they count as assets that can make debt refinancing easier while also attracting potential investors.
The Energy Task Force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney asked the BLM three years ago to find ways to open new federal lands to oil and gas leasing and to speed up the approval of drilling permits. To meet increased demand for natural gas, the task force said drilling on federal land will have to double by 2020.
Posted by: 108 on July 10, 2008 at 2:14 PM
108 - the point wasn't really the editorial's point. I disagree with it, but as I noted, it's a valid opinion. I'm no expert on offshore drilling.
What's more important to me is that a journalism org be as transparent as possible. Ownership sits on the Strib editorial board. Thus, a significant ownership interest - and I think Avista's offshore interests are significant - is worth telling readers. Then they can make up their own minds.
Brian - as far as not talking to Jill, as I've said elsewhere, editorial board members in the past do not speak about the collective process and I'm OK with that. Not knowing who wrote it, I went to Scott, the boss. He declined to comment, which I took as a pass on discussing the editorial's evolution. I suppose I could've hunted through the edit board to find out the person who wrote it, but really, I gave Scott the entire day to respond and hit deadline.
I will certainly call - not email Jill the next time I need ed-board insight. Nice to know she's willing to talk.
LAMBERT: I take the attitude that part of any manager/editor's job description is answering questions related to their staff. Gillespie should not have "taken a pass".
Posted by: David Brauer on July 10, 2008 at 2:20 PM
I think the issue here should be that the editorial in question was so off-the-mark that somebody like 108 would consider it "levelheaded." If you start drilling today, the effect won't be felt at the pump for 10 or 12 years. Not exactly a solution to today's energy crisis, is it? Why aren't more people mentioning this fact to the likes of John McCain (who, by the way, admitted that such polices would have more of a "psychological" effect than anything)? The media is supposed to point out these little inconvenient facts, not gloss them over.
LAMBERT: Well, I' m trying to build a discussion around something other than off-shore drilling. But as an opinion piece Ms. Burcum or whoever is free to say whatever they want. And David Brauer has relevant reason to ask the question he did. .... and Burcum's boss should have answered it. I mean, by NOT saying something like, "David, that's just plain silly. Avista doesn't tell us what to write, so there's no reason for us to disclose what they own", it encourages skeptical readers to suspect that what Brauer is wondering is true.
Posted by: Andre on July 10, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Brian I dont listen to Hannity. I hear you on the radio more often than I hear Hannity. Mrs. 108 loves chick talk 107.
Your article buttresses my point if anything. These domestic leases are being used as a balance sheet item (thats a problem...). But if they had oil on them, they'd be getting drilled.
LAMBERT" "Buttresses your point"? Pretty obviously there is so much land under lease no one knows what's really down there. If it has all been surveyed then give it back. But by any "metric" we can achieve energy balance quicker through conservation. Which, you know, shares a root with "conservative". Let's see the federal government flog THAT notion for a few years before tapping Santa Barbara and Ft. Meyers.
Posted by: 108 on July 10, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Far be it from me to drag this post off topic with a couple gratuitous asides.
I found Brauer's article insightful insofar as they detail the changes that would make this sort of piece possible as an editorial at the Strib. The presence of some different editorial writers, perhaps some less hooked into mainstream media groupthink.
Posted by: 108 on July 10, 2008 at 3:39 PM
OK, not 'metric'. How about "measurements" (noun)
Ok, not 'buttresses'. How about "gussets". (a timely verb)
LAMBERT: You amuse yourself, don't you?
Posted by: 108 on July 10, 2008 at 3:51 PM
I'm just a stupid blogger, but it seems like the professional thing would be for the Strib to post a note on their editorial page explaining the conflict, and stating that the editorial writer did not know of the conflict, and that she was not directed as to which side of the argument to take.
I think I've been monitoring blogs and major print media even longer than you have Brian, and newspapers have consistently been real asses to blogger-journalists (of which I am NOT one, belonging as I do to the Tourette's wing of blogdom).
LAMBERT: For a long time Mark wrote the blog, "Norwegianity". Here is a sample ... “I know what conservatism is, and it ain’t got a goddamned thing to do with Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, George Bush or Mitt f**king Romney. I respect Scientologists more than I respect Republicans. At least they had the gonads to join a real cult, and not some faux, whatever-Karl Rove-decided-to-call-it-this-week, fundraising apparatus.”
Posted by: Mark Gisleson on July 10, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Whoa now...hang on a sec here. Lemme understand this. The original criticism was aimed at a Star Tribune editorial for taking a position in support of something that might be in its owner's economic interest while at the same time failing to disclose said interest? And that's notable why, exactly?
Or, let's put it this way: How about those Twins?
LAMBERT: I win! I had money in the pool saying you'd make this point by closing time. What's it like to be so predictable? Do chicks dig it?
Posted by: Frogman of Grant on July 10, 2008 at 4:32 PM
108 I'm not with you on this one. While I don't always agree Brauer, he is a solid writer/reporter and very right in this case.
I don't see this as an issue about whether to drill offshore or not. The core issue is the Strib wrote an editorial and Brauer reported on potential bias in that editorial. Brauer did exactly what he should have done and backed it up with research.
If Avista has business interests in things they comment on in their editorial page, they should disclose it. A simple disclosure noting the conflict would have been fine. If Burcum has a problem with that she should seek a different career path.
Regardless, the media as a watchdog for itself is fair game.
Posted by: Dave on July 10, 2008 at 7:49 PM
Where's Frogman o' Grant on this whole Strib editorial page and business conflicts of interest question? This longstanding issue vis a vis publicly-subsidized pro sports stadia is square in his wheelhouse.
LAMBERT: Frogman checked in hours ago. I took me until now to post him. The man never fails.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on July 10, 2008 at 9:19 PM
Classic. I know and respect Brauer given his years of good journalistic work in the community...but who is Burcum, what local story has she authored that has advanced the community? And yet I should respect her over the other guy because he is a *gasp* blogger...sorry, even though no MN fish is edible anymore, the Strib has never been more the fishwrap. Reputation and access only gets you so far, and then it comes down to 'what have you done lately'...so, Strib, what have you done lately to advance our community?
Poorly thought out off-shore drilling op-eds? Is that all you got?
Guess I'll keep reading Brauer and my guess his reputation and access will grow enough in the coming years while Burcum will be where in 5 years?
Posted by: The Other Mike on July 10, 2008 at 11:50 PM
Given that Strib publisher Chris Harte has aggressively pushed his and Avista's agenda onto the editorial pages (edicts to the Editorial Board to avoid national and international politics and issues, for one thing), I think it's quite fair to question whether he directed the substance or tone of the editorial page's about-face on off-shore drilling. And I notice that Ms. Burcum's over-reaction to Brauer's critique didn't mention whether Harte may have suggested that oil and gas drilling, which doesn't take place in Minnesota, would be a worthy exception to that rule.
LAMBERT: It was a fair question. But let's keep in mind that it wasn't Burcum who declined to answer it. It was her boss, Scott Gillespie, which as I say, leads anybody following the Avista saga here in the Twin Cities to suspect that Brauer was on to something.
Posted by: sailor on July 11, 2008 at 12:45 AM
The Frogman is gratified that his consistency is so widely recognized. However, it's possible we've all missed the real point here. If Avista is invested in offshore drilling then it is almost certainly a dumb idea.
Meanwhile, speaking of the Twins...a nod to Mr. Morneau for one helluva game yesterday.
LAMBERT: He's hitting .324. Not bad for a Canuckistanian. But I suspect Avista's partners know a thing or two more about oil than they do about journalism.
Posted by: Frogman of Grant on July 11, 2008 at 8:12 AM
How many mistakes can the Strib make? They think it's wrong to suggest they have an ulterior motive to promote drilling? When their owners are so opaque? How much lower can the public estimation of the paper go?
LAMBERT: A response to Brauer's question from Gillespie, or Chris Harte if Gillespie had to pass it up the chain of command, could not damage the Strib's reputation any more than this tussle has -- even as this is confined to the "blogosphere" (which includes Jim Romenesko). The fact that Gillespie either couldn't think of anything to say or didn't dare say anything doesn't exactly represent the paper or his editorial page very well. I mean, the head of the editorial page, for chrissakes, either doesn't know or doesn't dare to speak. Jesus.
Posted by: Rob Levine on July 11, 2008 at 8:13 AM
There is an interesting new book I would like to recommend at this point in the conversation called Flat Earth News, by UK journalist Nick Davies. In it he writes about "churnalism" a word he uses to describe the fact that today's newspapers are more understaffed and overworked than at any other time, due to the takeover of their product by the business side, all very familiar to readers of this site I imagine, and as a result, the overwhleming majority of stories in today's newspapers and wire services are the regurgitation of press releases with a contrary quote tacked onto the end. Most writers are new and for that reason cheap and up to their ears trying to produce copy on the fly and never have time to leave the computer to talk to actual people, let alone return calls from bloggers, one would presume. He credits churnalism with the strange unexamined phenomenon of two years of Y2K hype and no global technological meltdown, even in countries that did not prepare, and no follow up examination of what the hell just happened. Brian you especially would enjoy this book. But you have to order it from Amazon UK -- presumably guaranteeing that your order will become the property of Homeland Security!
LAMBERT: Here's a link: http://www.flatearthnews.net/.
I've come across this guy in recent months. His primary focus is the British press. But he's highly relevant to what's going even here in Minnesota.
Posted by: Paul Scott on July 11, 2008 at 9:12 AM
Gentlemen:
In the 'olden days", the owner of a paprer might have also owned a saloon, or had an interest in the railroad. He would freely use the paper to promote these interests.
Your continued haranguing over "journalistic comportment, standards, etc." is , well, laughable.
Both you and The Brau are bloggers with a decidedly leftist, AND anti-Strib, POV, the latter likely driven by personal animosity related to employment issues.
So what if Avista invests in oil drilling?
Their "paper" that you so righteously attack for "comportment", publishes a weekly racist gossip columnist AND a veritable weekly how-to manual for gays!
I'd say under those rather peculiar "journalistic" circumstances, Burcum deserves a dozen roses and a date with The Brau at Red Stag Supper Club.
LAMBERT: Did you audition for "Mad Men"?
Posted by: bertram jr on July 11, 2008 at 9:12 AM
Two things:
1. I respect Burcum as a reporter; she did a ton of substantive work. I'm not putting myself above her that way.
2. The MinnPost poohbahs really, really want the name fixed. Apparently MnPost makes their hair stand on end. (The old spell-our-name right thing; mnpost.com goes somewhere else.)
LAMBERT: Where is an editor when you need one?
Posted by: David Brauer on July 11, 2008 at 9:13 AM
So, let me summarize - is ANYTHING the Strib prints THAT influential?
I mean, does The Brau really expect the needle to move based on a Jill Burcum bauble about CONSIDERING drilling as an option?
(It's G-D obvious to me and any other patriot that we should have been drilling years ago, but Willie C. poopoo'd it as I recall.
You guys remind me of the old bearded knight in Star Wars, hopelessly dated but still defending the
"colony".
See ya'll at the Hamel Rodeo!
LAMBERT: Who'll be riding you?
Posted by: bertram jr on July 11, 2008 at 9:21 AM
The continued coddling of Dean Zimmerman says more about the Strib that this conflict of interest. Its completely ridiculous, and a real result of left wing group think among the reporting staff.
Posted by: 108 on July 11, 2008 at 10:45 AM
108=Bingo!
LAMBERT: Two words for you, 108. Reverse barometer.
Posted by: bertram jr on July 11, 2008 at 11:26 AM
I AM a Mad Men.
LAMBERT: Well, "mad" certainly.
Posted by: bertram jr on July 11, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Did I read correctly up a coupla' posts in this thread dedicated to the piety of full disclosure, BERTRAM, JR. is accusing one person of being a "racist" and criticizing two others of leading immoral lifestyles?
If I ran a blog, I reckon I'd require a bomb-thrower the likes of Bertram, Jr., who feel the need to throw around charges like those to man up and post under his real name. The people he's attacking sign THEIR work.
That way folks could look at Bertram, Jr's biography and draw the laughable comparisons vis a vis indicting others with racism and immoral lifestyles.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on July 11, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Eh, that should be "hear-hearing," as is done in the Houses of Parliament:
> "Hear, hear!" (1689) was originally imperative, used as an exclamation to call attention to a speaker's words; now a general cheer of approval. Originally it was "hear him!"
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hear
LAMBERT: You are correct. I am making the change. Three days in stocks for the error.
Posted by: Gaius Valerius C. on July 11, 2008 at 12:45 PM
It was your paraphrase of Burcum's rant (Who is Brauer to question our integrity?), but I'll assume you captured the essence and attitude of it. Fact is, what Brauer asked was a legitimate question coming from the lowliest reader in the Strib's audience. If you give off the whiff of a conflict of interest to even one reader, you have undercut your entire mission. That is basic stuff.
While Gillespie -- in refusing to answer Brauer's question -- comes off as gelded and shunted aside as he is over there (the Barnes' leapfrog maneuver, vaulting him into the top editor's chair, was the most energy displayed at the Strib in years), Burcum surely understands that she comes off as a bought-and-paid-for Avista yip dog. Any journalist who claims not to see the value of transparency and accountability -- since they all demand it of other institutions -- is really no journalist at all.
Burcum is supposed to feel more kinship with Brauer, you and any blogger who happens to read their lousy fishwrap than with the money boys who own (along with the lien holders) that dump. But no, she goes on the attack for the stiffs who sign her paycheck, like any other predictable cog in any other boring old wheel.
Game over at 425 Portland. Dean Singleton, they're ready for your close-up!
LAMBERT: Yeah, and Singleton is in the news today. Legal action against him for moving on employees who defied is thinking on unions out in the Bay Area. I still think he's the logical next act for the Strib, but he isn't coming in to save what's good about the place.
Posted by: Ethics 101 on July 11, 2008 at 1:15 PM
I have an idea, Brian. Why don't you require people to sign their names in the spirit of taking responsibility? You're dealing with serious ethical issues concerning the media. Serious issues require serious accountability for those who want to talk about them, I think. Why not?
LAMBERT: That too is a fair question. Obviously every site like this has trolls who only post under the cloak of anonymity. I tolerate what I do -- and maybe more than I should - because I find some of it comical, some of it relevant -- at least to the point of furthering a conversation. I do delete, though. The very basic rule is that you have to use your real name if you're going to take a bona fide shot -- beyond a catty nickname -- at someone else. That isn't much of a standard, I admit. But this is the wild and wooly internet and I am still enjoying the freedom from staid, timid institutional fetters. But if I get the feeling that the trolls are all drag and no lift, I'll cut those lines.
Posted by: Paul Gustafson on July 11, 2008 at 1:17 PM
BL: "The very basic rule is that you have to use your real name if you're going to take a bona fide shot -- beyond a catty nickname -- at someone else."
BJr: Their "paper" that you so righteously attack for "comportment", publishes a weekly racist gossip columnist AND a veritable weekly how-to manual for gays!
LAMBERT: I may have a higher threshold for bertram's inanity than you, but by "bona fide shot at someone else", I'm referring other commenters, not the Star Tribune.
Posted by: JIm Leinfelder on July 11, 2008 at 2:00 PM
If Frogman of Grant wasn't my real name, I think I'd be insulted.
LAMBERT: Oh, come on. You can be insulted. What if said you reminded me of Hillary Clinton?
Posted by: Frogman of Grant on July 11, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Allow me to second Paul Gustafson's motion. I don't think for a minute that Bertram Jr.'s non-sensical and dependably juvenile posts would suddenly start making sense if he attached his real name to them, but what's the harm in holding people accountable for what they write? Frankly, I have a hard time believing that he'd post very often (if at all) if he had to use his real name.
Sometimes, Brian, it seems like you just post his comments so you can say snarky things in reply. Aside from the shooting-fish-in-a-barrel aspect of that, it hardly seems fair just to hoist his comments up the flagpole so you can blow holes in them. I think a fair number of us would rather not have to wade through his sad, angry and frightened posts in the first place.
LAMBERT: I think I've said before that I run about 80% of bertram's stuff just for the Foil Factor. As in, people like him are all over the place and he's useful as a reminder that not everyone has a well-informed, well-considered argument ... and that's a major part of our problem right now, in terms of both the media and national affairs.
I may prune more heavily.
Posted by: David Hanners on July 11, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Apologies for belaboring the point, but BJr's "shot" wasn't at the Strib in general, but at specific people who work there. And not at their work, but, either explicitly or implicitly, at the indivduals themselves.
Inane private logic is one thing and worthy of reminding us of just how low public discourse has fallen. But BJr's remarks about CJ and Claude and Rick rises no higher than garden-variety hate speech flung from behind the safetly of a blogonym.
Let BJr anonymously spread that sort of gutless calumny alongside his peers in the nearest isolated public restroom stall.
LAMBERT: Mmmmmm ....
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on July 11, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Not in a position to know anything about oil drilling or journalistic ethics (my take is that the Chinese drilling in Cuba would be a GOOD thing - it would mean that they'd import less and world prices would drop), but on the name thing; "BJ" (I just smile when I type that) is transparent enough and juvenile enough so that I don't worry about anyone taking him serious; There is an element of (unintentional) comedy -- not harmless, but not wicked in a Falwell/Hannity manner. And he writes short sentences.
LAMBERT: Well, that's pretty close to my take. Who could read his stuff and not be struck by the contorted logic, false sense of victimhood, fear of everything and everyone outside the most hidebound notions of "patriotism" and "fairness"? In other words, a cartoon.
Posted by: Pierce County Politician on July 11, 2008 at 3:56 PM
This obsession with the Star Tribune is getting to feel like Lou Dobbs obsession with illegal immigration.
Every journalist wannabe who was turned down for a job by the Strib over the last twenty years has some obsession to put them out of business. Davey Brauer is leading the pack.
The Pioneer Press owner MediaNews MISSED a debt payment, yet he claims it is 'old news'. Yet he is trying to leave the impression the Strib is on the verge of bankruptcy (they have not missed any payments to anyones knowledge). Radio, broadcast TV and yes - magazine - advertising revenue are all WAY down. Yet we hear every flipping day about the Strib. ALL OLD MEDIA IS SCREWED!
I like MINNPOST. Eric Black and Doug Grow are brilliant. But Brauer needs to change his tune.
So the Strib turned you down for a job 20 years ago.
GET OVER IT AND WRITE ABOUT SOMETHING NEWSWORTHY!
LAMBERT: The deterioration of the Star Tribune, at the hands of a chaotic news market AND a group of owners lacking any long term interest in the business is a very big story. I don't have the time to camp out on this story, but I'm pleased someone is. And frankly, knowing David as I do, if there was ever any animosity towards the Strib for not hiring him, those days are long gone. A lot of us hope to continue to make a living off writing and some form of journalism in this town, but neither paper holds much appeal any more, for reasons relating to more honest personal expression and the Damoclean sword.
Posted by: Ish Kabible on July 11, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Bloggers remind me of two guys I knew in High School who sat in the cafeteria eating tator tots and making wise cracks about people as they came through the door.
Bloggers think they are big shots, but they do little actual news reporting. They make comments about people who do the hard work.
Show the Strib, Pioneer Press, City Pages and even MSP Magazine some respect. Once they are gone, we will get our news from a bunch of gossiping tator tot mongerers....
LAMBERT: Is that a shot and an "attaboy" in the same breath?
"Dude, like something is wrong with Iran. Like they don't let people play video games with hot chicks in them. Like something is wrong with them. We should just like, flipping Nuke them Dude. Signed, News Reporter Narly Man
Posted by: Ish Kabible on July 11, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Don't "prune," Brian. Don't let the mainstream media types, the ones who have so much personally invested in slowing the big boys' inexorable trudge toward the cliff, pester you into giving up one of the Internet's main advantages, that is, interactivity without retribution.
This notion that interested consumers of Twin Cities media need to be held "accountable" for their spare-time blatherings, while the legitimate pros (at least in terms of cashing a paycheck for their words, quality not withstanding) cut and run a la Gillespie or go nuclear-defensive like Burcum.
They really, truly ought to worry less about the names of the average schmoes who have their number, who can see behind the curtains of the Strib and the PiPress without actually holding down jobs there, and more about the fact that their number has been had.
I know that not having individuals' names gets in the way of those good old ad-hominem attacks to which thin-skinned current and former MSM types too often resort. But guys like Gustafson and Hanners ought to just assume that every comment is coming from "A.Reader" and deal with the subject matter. Hell, they ought to be glad that so many people, nom de plumed or not, still give a rat's ass about what the newspapers print.
LAMBERT: The "rat's ass" part speaks to my beef with Strib editors and managers. These piddling bloggers they ignore are at least interested in the process of journalism and the mortality of their publication. If the city fathers and mothers cared as much there might be a hint of light at the end of the tunnel.
Posted by: Ethics 101 on July 11, 2008 at 6:59 PM
I'm don't think that more pruning by you, Brian, is the remedy. Accountability is. Having names attached to postings is.
A case in point. One contributor to this discussion took some awfully nasty shots at Burcum and her ethics, including a derogatory comment about her lack of "accountability", while remaining anonymous. That person should look in a mirror.
LAMBERT: Jill's an adult. She knew what to expect when she took off on Brauer. What bores me is just adolescent name-calling.
Posted by: Paul Gustafson on July 12, 2008 at 11:38 AM
If bertram jr used his real name his own people would have terminated him by now.
LAMBERT: Okay, you got me. One of my cynical motives for keeping bertram around is the manner in which he represents modern conservatism.
Posted by: JC on July 12, 2008 at 2:06 PM
For the record, never applied for a job at the Strib. Was asked to apply at the PiPress, but it wasn't right because I like mixing opinions with reporting. I assume same was true for Strib - never lusted after the velvet handcuffs.
Just to keep the record accurate.
LAMBERT: I had the patience for maybe 10 minutes of a PiPress A&E staff meeting. You, being marginally more tolerant, might have lasted 15.
Posted by: David Brauer on July 14, 2008 at 9:40 AM
Mr. Lambert,
It is hard to take your criticism of the Star Tribune seriously if you refuse to address what is happening with traditional media.
Say what you will about Avista, they happen to be holding the reigns on a company that would be struggling regardless. Obviously their debt made matters worse, but McClatchy would still have difficulty regardless if they had held ownership.
The future for all traditional media is clouded - that includes your publication. Your circulation dropped 7% last year, and with the economy being what it is I would expect further declines. How long can you remain viable?
I fear for the decline of mass media. It brought us together as a community. I trust the objectiveness of the Strib, Pioneer Press, WCCO-TV, NPR, etc. Now we have millions of websites each speaking to those who share their views. Why would a conservative bother to read a liberal blog? They 'know' what the 'truth' is? It is nonsense that millions of blogs will guarantee the truth will come out. Just a bunch of idiots looking for someone who shares their views.
LAMBERT: I think you are seriously underestimating the truth-setting and self-policing power of the web. While there are all sorts of dingbats spinning BS frappes. Anyone who purports to have respect for facts will not last long, at least with any standing, if all they do is trade in reckless demagoguery. (They may have a standing with the trolls. But that is a completely different genre.) In my experience people let me know pretty damned fast when I'm wrong. I will argue anytime that a key factor in the disinterest "younger readers" have in newspapers, and the appeal well-written blogs have for avid news consumers, is the sense that papers are TOO moderated while bloggers are essentially filter-free, i.e. candid.
Posted by: Jill P. on July 14, 2008 at 9:46 AM
One other thing for the not-so-accurate Ish -
Your wrong about the MediaNews "missed" debt payment thing. They didn't miss a debt payment.
Standard & Poors has reported - as far back as March - that they'll be out of compliance with debt/cashflow ratios in their borrowing agreements. Bloomberg merely repackaged that info for a June report. While other local media outlets hyped the June report, I wanted to tell my readers - who knew about the original S&P analysis - that there was no new news here.
The Strib/Avista is actually in a worse position - at the moment, anyway. They, too have or soon will violate debt/earnings ratios. But they have stopped paying interest to secondary lenders ... to my knowledge, that's a step beyond what MediaNews has done.
So, to criticize, you need to understand the story & details. As Brian notes, newspapers finances are THE big media stories of the moment. That's why I'm trying to keep the numbers straight for folks.
LAMBERT: The link again to David is: www.minnpost.com/davidbrauer
Posted by: David Brauer on July 14, 2008 at 9:50 AM
And the band played on.
No one wants to make the tough calls.
It's all so.....pathetic.
Posted by: bertram jr on July 14, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Yo Lambert,
The lady Jill brings up a good point.
Is you magazine losing circulation, and how do you expect to keep your job if it goes belly up?
I am not paying $5 for a magazine I can read for free on the internet.
Sorry, you need to come clean yourself.
LAMBERT: "Come clean" with what? It's ot a good advertising market. But in stark contrast to most newspapers, the the Star Tribune in particular, this company is not burdened with Ponzi-style debt, and he people who own it live here, work the town constantly and give every indication of intending to keep it going for years to come. Then there's the matter of magazine readers (and advertisers) using magazines for different reasons than newspapers.
Posted by: Chipolte Man on July 14, 2008 at 4:17 PM
David Bauer and Mr. Lambert:
Thanks for defending us bloggers, but....
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/material_disclosures/archives/2008/04/medianews_goes.html
So your argument is things are better with the Pioneer Press because they cover up the information? How do you know that the Star Tribune is in worse shape? Face it Bauer, they turned you down for a job and you are PO'd. Ha ha!
I checked Alexa.com for traffic totals between mspmag, star tribune and minnpost. MinnPost has less than 50,000 'viewers'. StarTribune.com had 5.9 million. Mspmag doesn't even register.
Posted by: David Chen on July 14, 2008 at 4:27 PM
"Jill's an adult" dodges the point, Brian. The point is taking accountability. And yes, Ethics 101, I mean you. I don't care if you are or were a professional journalist. Doesn't matter. Your postings stand for themselves. But when you chide Burcun for lack of accountability and don't post your name, you cheapen your own comments. And we don't know who you are. Maybe you're some plant for an org that wants to take cheap shots for who knows what reasons. You want to engage in serious comments about ethics? Transparency is a gateway ethic. Show yourself.
Posted by: Paul Gustafson on July 14, 2008 at 4:58 PM
OK, Gustafson, I'm Ethics 101. What in the name of all that's holy does attaching my name have to do with anything I have posted?
Would you now like to address the points in my posts, or do you want to continue as a protective yip dog of your own regarding your pals in the mainstream media, as opposed to me or any of several hundred thousand (but dwindling by the day) readers?
Knowing my name shouldn't make one bit of difference if you trade publicly in information and claim that a general circulation platform like a metro newspaper is intended for each and every citizen in its audience. I am affiliated with no "org" other than my own personal history, background and values. Yet you continue to be more interested in dissecting my character than in addressing the issues I raise.
I'll repeat: An editorial page editor (slash-journalist) who won't respond to another working journalist is a fraud. An editorial board member who vehemently attacks a working journalist on behalf of businessmen bosses is a bootlicker. An editor-in-chief who snubs reporters while expecting her own reporters to get answers and access is a failure.
Does it really make any difference who I am to hold that opinion, as long as you know I'm a subscriber who is disgusted at the Star Tribune's nosedive in quality and integrity?
LAMBERT: Well ...
Posted by: Craig Plumfagen on July 15, 2008 at 12:15 AM
Mr. Lambert,
Now I KNOW you have gone corporate!
Your magazines circulation fall began before this years economic meltdown.
Magazine paper is glossy and expensive, and declining in readership. You think you have a long-term future vs. the Internet?
I bet there are a few Stribbies and PeePees that are keeping your copies of your blogs to send you when the MspMag closes it's doors in the not-too-distant-future.
Good luck! Love your website though....
LAMBERT: Ah, the sweet, sweet smell of schadenfreude. As objective as I can be about this, I'll still take this publication's chances against it's competition. Don't underestimate the value of local, rooted ownership in a bad economy. Everybody loves fat profits, but relationships -- which Avista hasn't exactly worked to build -- are worth something.
Posted by: Farnsworth on July 15, 2008 at 9:16 AM
Mr. Bauer and Mr. Lambert,
How do you know the Star Tribune is in worse shape if the Pioneer Press refuses to release it's information?
I smell an agenda gentlemen.....
LAMBERT: I at least intuit as much from Avista's decison to "decline" making interest payments to lesser creditors. MediaNews is in rough shape. But it hasn't stooped to that as yet.
Posted by: David Chen on July 15, 2008 at 9:19 AM
Bravo, Craig.
Paul Gustafson (generic Minnesota anyone?)could write under the name of Mother Teresa and it wouldn't make his case any more credible.
It's the standard PC/lib playbook - you can't argue the facts so you attack the messenger.
Posted by: bertram jr on July 15, 2008 at 9:27 AM
Hi Craig,
Nice to know you.
LAMBERT: What was it that Rodney King said?
Posted by: Paul Gustafson on July 15, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Plumfagen:
Welcome to the adult table.
Transparency is as good for any one of us as it is for the Strib. Bertram, Jr., on the other hand, remains a mere scared troll, a person without the courage of his own convictions. But apparently a still useful idiot for Lambert's use.
It's been my experience over the years that all media enterprises behave no better than the businesses they cover when it comes to openness.
Must have to do with the fact that they're comprised of human beings. Not excuswing it. But it has always been thus.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on July 15, 2008 at 12:06 PM
My name is liguistically similar to Mr. Gustafsons, if not even more generically Scandinavian. I'm not in the media biz.
I just started reading MSP in hardback. My mother in law gets it.
I like it.
Posted by: 108 on July 15, 2008 at 12:29 PM