It's probably folly to post anything about the Strib. But, what the heck.

The unions at the Strib need to do due diligence, and put the company to the test on the numbers. I have no idea how those come out exactly. But they will be, I think all agree, horrific.

Yet, maybe bankruptcy is not the worst outcome.

If the creditors want something out of their investment, they have to be willing to write off a lot to keep something that has potential to get back anything. What is there to liquidate or sell? The land? The "franchise?"

That's where the hope may lay...

The Pioneer Press cannot be in much better shape. It's got to be a cheap buy at this point.

So...maybe this is the time for a group of civic leaders who still have money, who believe that it's important to have the journalistic power of a major daily newspaper for Minnesota - one newspaper strong enough to be worthy of the name "newspaper" - swoop in and create a single, non-profit enterprise. (I can hear Bill Kling screaming "NO")

That newspaper may have to go to a radical formula. Maybe publish three - or less - times during the week with a hellaciously strong Sunday paper, and a daily website. And charge people for the website.

It's time for newspapers to start making people pay for news on the internet. It should have been done 10 years ago. But newspapers were too timid, even when they were still strong financially and saw the cliff looming.

Well, the advertising has gone south. Much of it - the classified ads at least - will never come back in print.

What's left? The best that newspapers deliver: comprehensive and depth reporting, and a great weekend ad delivery product.

At this time, it can only be one newspaper. And, probably - at least at first, non-profit. And there will be pain for all, especially for my good friends and former colleagues at the Strib and PP.

What's the alternative? No reasonable, knowledgable person thinks our two dailies are viable enterprises.

But having no daily news operation in Minnesota with the fire-power and independence of a daily newspaper puts us in a Third World category of civic information and dialogue.

With all due respect to my friends in TV and radio news, I covered too many news events in 27 years as a Strib reporter where I saw their reporters cribbing from copies of the Strib or PP to think that they can pick up the slack. And they are hurting. Without strong daily papers, they might as well have their eyes plucked out.

The loss of a strong, vibrant newspaper-type newsroom will surely damage our state even more than the demise of a Northwest Airlines or a 3M in the long-run.

Forget a new Vikings Stadium. A strong newspaper is clearly more important to the health of Minnesota. It's not even a close call.

Hey, Gov. Pawlenty. Where are you?

LAMBERT: I'm with you, point after point. But you pass over the Kling factor too quickly, I think. Because there (MPR), once the fires have burned is I think the final, surviving, mostly full-functioning news organization in town.

There have been attempts to make people pay for online access to newspapers...all of which have thus far ended in failure. I think that's because the audience of true news consumers who read is small...and also because what's in the newspapers is regularly aggregated, digitized, and bite-sized by a host of online sites. Why would I pay to read a story in the Washington Post (where in better times I used to write stories) when I can get the gist of it for free in a hundred other places?

LAMBERT: I hear you, and I don't have a ready answer. But the subscription model -- with readers getting "the paper" with some level of exclusivity -- whether the fat Thursday or Sunday version stuffed with display advertising -- seems to be the direction to follow. As significantly, a subscription service for, presumably, avid news consumers might encourage new school editors toward a quality of product beyond something bland an inoffensive enough for anyone who might scoop it off a bus stop bench.

If you're suggesting public money to save, merge and underwrite the two papers into one news operation, the union staffers at both will have to be honest about that. The goal of any such move would have to be preserving journalism in the Twin Cities, not preserving jobs or preserving salaries at their collectively bargained levels.

Considering the technology used in news gathering and distribution these days, and the abundant supply of young or displaced journalists, there is no defensible reason for continuing to pay 450 people (my bystander's estimate from combining the Strib and PiPress newsrooms)salaries of $75K each. Something more like 200 people making $50K each would still leave the merged Strib/PiPress with the best reporting and watchdog force in the state, at something more sustainable for a new owner or even the public coffers. Those who couldn't tolerate reapplying for their old jobs at reduced rates could be quickly replaced by a vast pool of talent from across the region and the country. (You all have seen the low-miles, "pre-owned" newspaper staffers left at the curb this week by the Gannett chain, right?)

No one likes to swallow a drastic job change or a pay cut, but when the next-best alternative is unemployment in a crippled economy with too many displaced news folks knocking on doors, those changes might go down a little easier. The newsroom union had better be quick about it too -- its members never seem bothered when truck drivers or other unions are asked to re-open deals, worrying about their own hides while claiming that the future of journalism is at stake. Well, yeah, it is.

LAMBERT: Believe me $75k in salary is far from an average at today's Strib and PiPress. Another 18 months of recession will make a $50k job (with minimal benefits) look like a gleaming jewel. But every facet of mass media runs on some semblance of "star power" -- the people who consumers follow to be reliably infuriated or amused. They have to have some incentive beyond an entry level paycheck.

Your Michael Lewis link is not pointing where you intend. I know him from Moneyball, which is a great book.

A state bailout of newspapers? No thanks. The result doesn't strike me an independantly thinking and acting news body.

LAMBERT: A "state structured" bankruptcy, with perhaps some kind of local wise-men (and women) constructed re-financing package -- not a hand-out. Preferably with a direct line to new, local owners willing to operate it in its transformed (i.e. reduced) state, most likely as a marginal profit. The non-profit model comes with too many restrictions on opinion to be viable for an aggressive news organization/community forum. But Avista has to go.

Regarding unions, the union personnel that were let go at CBS radio Monday left with both severance and health insurance for many months to come. I would much rather work union than not.

LAMBERT: Amen to that. But it is the rare union today who can achieve anything playing hardball with investor groups who have squandered staggering fortunes. Severance and a few weeks/months of health care benefits (likely heavily diminished) is putting lipstick on capitulation.

Personally, I blame all my friends who hoover up the local news online or in its regurgitated form on TV and can't be bothered to pay a paper boy to drop some newsprint on their driveway. And there are a lot of them -- smart engaging people really plugged in to the community, local progressive politics, the arts, whatever, but who just can't be bothered to connect their interests with the act of subscribing to an actual newspaper.

They are the grown-up version of those kids who long ago stopped paying for music. Although there are a lot of grown ups who won't pay for music, either, so go figure. I should probably also mention the many bankers who made a killing in the media consolidation merry go round. They are all going to become wealthy former newspaper readers. The day of reckoning for responsible news-gathering is at hand, and I imagine it will come along as swiftly as the implosion of the big finance houses, and then we will have only Gary Eichten and Don Shelby.

I like the model that Kurt Anderson spoke of a while back -- that print will always be here but it will become a costly niche product, a luxury for those wealthy enough to hold paper over their cereal or on a park bench, while the rest of us will have to stare at screens and click our way through the further ideological isolation of aggregators to keep on top of anything. There will be many truths.

LAMBERT: Of course I'm still intrigued with the personal gew-gaw notion of a flexible screen/scroll a news organization might give to subscribers (to keep at home or in a briefcase) with full-video access to news ... and display advertising. Like I or anyone needs another "portable device".

People won't pay for access to an online newspaper. Period.

However, I think there may be market in access to a premium section if the content is worth it...

LAMBERT: Isn't the issue somehow copyrighting material "premium" or otherwise and requiring pennies-per-hit from anyone trading in it? (Google, Yahoo, etc.)?

"Community service aspect of journalism" you say? That hasn't been in evidence since the Cowles owned the Strib. (The bona fides of all the good news people there notwithstanding.) The days of newspapers as mass media are over. The advertisers knew it long before the newspaper management (or I, for that matter) realized it. The only way papers come back is something akin to what Paul Gustafson suggests, a group of concerned (and very rich) citizens re-launch a product with much lower commercial aims (and much higher journalistic ones.)

LAMBERT: I'll put you down for a "Golden Benefactor" share, Tom.

(Tom Bartel created, owned and published City Pages before selling it several years ago. He and his wife, Kris Henning, currently operate the local website, www.secretsofthecity.com).

The only way papers come back is something akin to what Paul Gustafson suggests, a group of concerned (and very rich) citizens re-launch a product with much lower commercial aims (and much higher journalistic ones.)

MinnPost? Other than being a 501(c), that sounds like them in a nutshell.

I'm honestly saddened by the potential loss of the Strib. E&P posited todat that 'several cities' may not have a daily in two years. Even our old pro-jettison pals McClatchy may not survive (who's reporting has been top-notch since the acquisition of Knight Ridder).

Certainly, the Strib has qualified as a 'failing paper' for sometime now. Wouldn't it make sense to strike up some joint operating agreement w/ the PiPress? Sooner than later??

LAMBERT: It'd make sense if either of the had the resources to produce a credible product.

I see the Strib just laid off 25 more people and KSTP-TV is laying off 18 Friday.

The Strib really should be in bankruptcy. I'm guessing they are not because Avista is under the delusion that they can still get more than pennies on the dollar for their investment. I have no idea how they found more people to layoff, the product is thin as it is.

On a more global basis, we are now seeing how leveraged businesses really are. Did anyone owning media actually have any real cash invested?

LAMBERT: Does "other people's cash" qualify as cash?

As someone noted, the link for the Michael Lewis piece above seems to be pointing elsewhere. I think this link will work: http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom

LAMBERT: Thanks.

Forest, meet trees.

You have it all laid out before you Brian, but are still attached to a bias or three that hold you in a bit of denial.

Yes, Avista (and their leveraged debt) must go. The unions and all that journalistic newsmatic readership are wiggly red herrings; as is the references to the Klingon Empire and goverment/bankruptcy bailouts.

Once the dust bunnies (debt and legacy business model) have settled, what is left? People like you and I who want news...but, aren't willing to pay much for it because truly there are other options (web and not).

So, what is the answer--a product/service that people ARE actually willing to pay for. That is what has been missing at the Strib/PP franchises, thus their decline. So, just like the old Steak and Ale restaurants, people move on to other places and sometimes even make their own meals.

But, until a news organization creates a product/service worth paying for, damn right they are going to suffer...as the freepers and libertarians rightfully say their should.

Where are all those smart and savvy capitalist business folk the USA is supposed to be famous for? (Oh, sorry, they are in the capital begging for the latest bailout.)

Do I want my tax dollars going to (1) a consistently upright Lafayette Bridge or (2) the Strib...sorry, no Strib for me, any more than I want to be forced to pay for a USA crapmobile so Detroit doesn't become a ghosttown.

If Chrysler fails, so what?
So, if the Strib fails, so what?

It is only your bias that keeps you from seeing it for what it is...a business that stopped serving its customers well enough to survive.

It is only your attachment to the Strib that keeps you from seeing its demise as simply an Edmund Fitzgerald reaching its level given its leadership and ability in the market's sea.

Iron ore still needs to go to the mills; send us the next seaworthy vessel with a captain capable of steering it through a storm.

The king is dead, long live the king. So, is seems there soon will be a business opportunity, none of the above commentary seems likely to fill it...but, it is likely sitting in our community, right under our noses, right now. Care to venture any guesses?

LAMBERT: I concede my bias to people like myself keeping their jobs (feeding families, paying tuition), but you are of course correct about the relevancy of the product. What I'm trying to argue is that the rebuilding can't/won't begin until Avista concedes bankruptcy and they (I hope not) or someone else can reconstruct with a business plan that doesn't require servicing $480 million in debt and returning 29% profit to investors.

BL = "...argue is that the rebuilding can't/won't begin until Avista concedes..."

You are of course correct, but they have no incentive to do so until forced.

My point is that you are treating the demise of the Strib as the impending death of a beloved Pope...who just will not die and allow us to meet a new Pope. The Strib is more like an aging Twins ballplayer, whose skills are no longer entertaining us and yet some guaranteed contract keeps him in place.

Me, I'm at the Saints game, sure there are weaker players but the price is right and it is doing the job of entertaining me and serving my baseball joneses.

You are even part of that other media option, and the potential in the media market for replacing the Strib completely is so close...so close that Avista had better mind the timing of their game of chicken or there will be nothing left for them to salvage in bankruptcy.

LAMBERT: I won't disagree on that last point. Whatever Avista hopes to wring out of the Strib becomes less and less with each round of lay-offs, if for no other reason than it creates the perception that the paper is a doomed commodity and encourages news consumers to look elsewhere for news.

The obvious flaw in your baseball analogy is there is a profound difference in quality of performance between Joe Blow at first base for the Saints and Justin Morneau. My argument is that discriminating news consumers -- and there are a lot of them -- will pay for that difference. The discerning crowd knows the difference between competence and excellence. The question is, what mix of exclusive facets will it take to get them to pay for it?

The Strib's "product" became irrelevant when it's blatant PC / liberal bias got exposed.

Period.

Uh, truly remarkable:

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/35732404.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUsX

So, you sound like you actually believe there is something to save in the newspaper format from the corporatist blather that the Strib is known for. A paper that had the goods on Nasser K. and Coleman, did not print a word and endorsed Coleman.
A paper that has not seen a stadium that should not be supported by public taxes, especially when it owns the stadium land, and endless developer/sports boosterism. A paper...,
well you get the idea.

Who wants to pay $5/day/line for a classified advert when Craigs has shown how it must be done. Who believes that regurgitated garbage from the official news sources that the Strib just reprints
about how we are winning in Iraq?

Good bye to weak journalism.
Good riddance to the journalists that support it.

LAMBERT: I'm trying to make a distinction between talented (or "talented-enough') reporters and columnists and the business plan that mutes the occasional outrage they glean from the streets and insists on a misplaced sense of parity to every serious issue. I'd love a flushing of the Strib if for no other reason than the opportunity to print the writer's version of several recent stories.