Star Tribune

No one's been a tougher critic than me when it comes to lamenting the dramatic decline in the public affairs news coverage of our state's largest newspaper, the Star Tribune. 
Perhaps that's what makes this photo of the Star Tribune's work space almost show-stopping:

A fascinating exchange between MinnPost's media writer David Brauer and Star Tribune editorial board writer Jill Burcum flagged an important milestone in Minnesota public affairs. We passed it years ago but I have not yet written about it because, quite frankly, it's painful. I've long respected many of the fine journalists involved, even the ones I have ideologically disagreed with most of the time. [Hello, Susan Albright.]

To be blunt, the milestone is that the unsigned editorials --  the institutional voices of our state's two largest newspapers, the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press -- have become irrelevant in Minnesota politics.

To summarize the Brauer (here's his piece ) / Burcum (her piece is in the Comments section) exchange:  Brauer wrote that the Star Tribune "has shucked its rep as a lefty lightning rod." Further, he noted that the paper has moved away from its "reliably pro-environment rhetoric." But his specific gripe (a legitimate one) is that a Sunday pro-offshore oil drilling editorial should have noted Star Tribune owner Avista Capital Partners' significant economic interest in offshore oil drilling. According to Brauer, Avista has more investments in energy (seven) than its other sectors, health care (six) and media (five), to the tune of at least $338 million, and probably much, much more. 

Recall that Avista bought the Star Tribune for $530 million in 2006. The on-the-street, gossipy -- and generous -- valuation of the Star Tribune today is between $100-200 million. That means that Avista has a much greater stake in oil than it does in the Strib. [And for the record, I'm in favor of offshore oil drilling.] 

Should the paper have disclosed its owners' substantial oil investment interests? 

You bet.

I've written before how vested the Star Tribune has become in trying to win a Pulitzer or two from the paper's coverage of the I-35W bridge collapse. To summarize, bridge collapse coverage is perhaps the only shot the current generation of editors and reporters at the paper will have at vying for a Pulitzer. It's unlikely (God willing) that our state will ever again suffer such a freak tragedy in public infrastructure where 13 lives were lost. The paper, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the collapse, did extraordinary work under the leadership of then-managing editor Scott Gillespie, who directed the Star Tribune to "flood the zone" in its coverage.

At first blush, winning a Pulitzer would seem to be good not only for Minnesota's largest newspaper (and thus our state's de facto paper of record) but also for Minnesotans' collective civic pride. But not for Minnesota Republicans, particularly those serving in Gov. Tim Pawlenty's Administration, like MnDOT Commissioner Carol Molnau and her top staff. As I've also written before, some reporters at the paper have crossed civil lines in trying to find what is tried-and-true Pulitzer Prize clinching material: Government malfeasance or neglect. To date, Star Tribune reporters have yet to find a MnDOT Deep Throat or damning conduct in the gazillion documents they've acquired in dozens of Minnesota Data Practices Act requests.

But harassing MnDOT employees is not the only objection MnDOT has to the Star Tribune's bridge collapse coverage. The Department maintains that the Star Tribune has been playing fast and loose with lots of facts in many of its stories. So, MnDOT has been keeping a file documenting every fact that it deems the Star Tribune has gotten wrong. My sources tell me the file has become inches high...and that MnDOT plans to make sure the Pulitzer Prize Board receives it.

I asked PIM staffer Dan Feidt to call the Pulitzer Prize office at Columbia University. He was told that there isn't any formal mechanism for challenges against a Pulitzer candidate submission, but the Pulitzer committee asks the newspapers to include challenges and complaints about their coverage with the exhibits they submit to be considered for prizes. The unidentified Pulitzer staffer said, "That's part of our rules, and challenges are intended to be presented to the judges alongside the offered articles."

The operative language in the Pulitzer Prize submission forms reads: "Any significant challenge to the honesty, accuracy or fairness of an entry, such as published letters, corrections, retractions, as well as responses by the newspaper, should be included in the submission." [Emphasis mine.]

One reasonable interpretation of this requirement would seem to preclude the Star Tribune from having to submit the MnDOT "error" file. We trust MnDOT will send that file directly to the Pulitzer Board, the members of which determine the recipients of the prizes.

Since I first wrote this story for last week's PIM Weekly Report, MnDOT apparently has decided to make sure the Star Tribune Pulitzer prize submission includes the Department's objections. Yesterday, the Star Tribune published a commentary piece by MnDOT Assistant Commissioner Bob McFarlin, the "Star Tribune served readers poorly with MnDOT series," in which McFarlin writes that the paper has been "parsimonious with the complete facts."

There's another interesting wrinkle for the Star Tribune in next year's Pulitzer awards. Former Star Tribune editor, now Miami Herald executive editor Anders Gyllenhaal, still sits on the Pulitzer Board, and will be voting on the prizes. Current Star Tribune editor Nancy Barnes was first hired for a lesser job at the paper by Gyllenhaal when he was editor.

[Note on the Pulitzer links: There is only one link for the whole site.]

"Lobbying" campaigns against Pulitzer Prize awards, by the way, are not unprecedented. A few examples are here, here and here.

In this issue: MnDOT Under Siege: The Star Tribune's Agenda; The DFL's Agenda; The GOP's Agenda; Referendum Tipping Point?; Who Are These Guys?; Did Partisan Tactics Defeat R'Dale Referendum?; Bad Timing: Senator Coleman's Vets Vote; MinnPost Launches And Matters; Can't See The Forest For The Trees; Bits & Pieces; Lobbyist Watch; Setting The Record Straight.

MnDOT Under Siege: The Star Tribune's Agenda

Why the I-35 Bridge fell has become a war game in both the journalism and political worlds. The specific combatants are Gov. Tim Pawlenty's administration, Democrats who disagree with the transportation policies of that Administration and the Star Tribune. What most people don't understand is that the soldiers on the field bearing the brunt of the battle are not the decision makers. Rather, the soldiers are the career civil servants at MnDOT.

Take an anti-MnDOT story that ran in the Strib this week, "MnDOT parsimonious with bridge-collapse info," written by Mike Kaszuba. The subheading of the story was, "Lawyers, legislators -- even a judge are annoyed by MnDOT's tight control of inspectors and others who have details on the 35W bridge;" below that, the text is divided by headers, "Put it in writing," "Keeping information secret" and "'Cloaked in secrecy.'"

Readers are left with the impression that the bridge collapse and what MnDOT is doing in the aftermath are some horrible hybrid of Watergate and the government response to Katrina. While the political (GOP) appointees in Pawlenty's administration are just plain ticked off, the rank-and-file classified employees -- the ones who actually do the work dictated by both the political people and the Star Tribune -- are nothing short of shell-shocked.

Not so much by the volume of the requests (there have been 76 formal document requests from various media). Or that many of the requests are overly broad, like "All inspection correspondence, electronic or otherwise, concerning Interstate 35W." As far as the MnDOT employees are concerned, that's fine, the First Amendment, the public's right to know and all that. But the way they are being treated by some media...strike that....the Star Tribune...strike that...certain Star Tribune reporters has them all floored.

The Audit Bureau of Circulations just released numbers for the last six-month reporting period. The Star Tribune continues to lose subscribers, and big-time by industry standards.

Of the nation's top 25 newspapers, the Star Tribune ranks fifth -- at 6.53% -- in decreased paid circulation, Monday through Friday. The four papers that lost more readers are the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Boston Globe, the Dallas Morning News and the San Diego Union-Tribune.

The Star Tribune fared better on Sundays, losing only 4.34% of its paid circulation.

Here's more from Editor & Publisher.

The Star Tribune launched "Politically Connected," its new political web site last week with a bang, publishing poll numbers online the day before they appeared in the print-published version. Kudos to everyone involved, but in particular, to Dennis McGrath, the guy in charge of the site and the state politics and government editor. Long-time Capitol habitués will recognize that name. McGrath has covered Minnesota politics for more than 20 years (he co-wrote the book, "Professor Wellstone Goes to Washington" with former Strib reporter Dane Smith) and has also been the national and international news editor at the paper.

My first impression, after using the site for a week, is that it's extremely ambitious. For example, for each presidential candidate, the site provides campaign finance information, a biography, links to stories from other news sources, links to recent blog posts, links to candidate-generated material, "what he's said," "how he's voted," and "prominent Minnesota supporters." The last item is the kind of information that gives me great pause...for many of the candidates, there isn't a list, for some candidates, some names are listed and others are not. On the U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) page we learn that auto dealer Denny Hecker supports Obama, as do "Members of the Dayton, Pohlad and Cowles families." Hmmm. The point is that the lists are incomplete, and there's something weird about the Star Tribune "officially" naming some names and not others.

In my mind, this flags a larger issue and a massive problem that Politics In Minnesota is glad it doesn't have: Once you've made the decision to build a Cadillac political site, how far can you and should you go? As anyone who's done it knows, building a web site is a monumental task and always a work in progress. In an era of so many media choices, it will be fascinating to see if "Politically Connected" becomes a one-stop everything reliable shop. It could well be that such a thing can no longer be done. We'd love to know what our readers think, so please send your thoughts to staff@politicsinminnesota.com.

Finally, I've done more than my share of Star Tribune owner Avista Capital bashing. "Politically Connected" was and will continue to be an enormous investment of people and resources (including the building of a new soundproof booth for podcasts). Several months ago, we lamented the demise of the Minnesota Poll, and look what the paper delivered this week: Tons of numbers to crunch and chew on. All of this bodes extremely well for the state of Minnesota public affairs. Way to go, Avista.

For help in how best to use "Politically Connected," check out "McMemo," McGrath's blog.

Meanwhile, what do readers think about the site?

In this issue: Mandernach's Morass: Don't Shoot The Messenger; Parsing Par; Cohen Has The Last Laugh; Sayonara, Steve Sviggum; Sviggum's Seat; Who's On First?; Moonlighter Madness; Bits & Pieces; Setting the Record Straight; Lobbyist Watch.