Captain's Quarters -

If I was an investor in these papers I would not tolerate the kind of intellectual dishonesty these pretentious money squandering buffoons who call themselves editors dish out.
Their self-absorbed self-declared sense of importance and entitlement has left print media completely vulnerable to a bunch of amateurs and new technologies.

Nothing the Star Tribune could ever do would increase the average IQ of their editorial board faster then sending Jim Boyd on his merry way. Unless of course...they hired James Lileks to run the editorial board. But that would require commonsense. Never happen.

Boyd just wanted to make sure the full spectrum of opinions was covered; from left of center to far left. Anything right of center is obviously wrong and thus can be dismissed out of hand.

Sounds like Boyd has a misperception of the meaning of non-profit.

Clue:

It is not synonomous with non-revenue.

I suspect that under his tutelege, non-revenue would be what it would soon become.

Of course if he would forego his paycheck!!!

If I was an investor in these papers I would not tolerate the kind of intellectual dishonesty these pretentious money squandering buffoons who call themselves editors dish out.

If you insert the word "educator" in place of "editor" you would have an accurate description of 95% of faculty and administration in America's colleges, too. As taxpayers we *are* investors in institutes of higher education, which as far as I can see have been busily selling America down the river at least since 1970.

When is some really smart person going to figure out what the rest of us can do about our institutes of higher education, so we can start implementing course changes? I'm not as worried about newspapers because (1) no one reads them any more any way, and (2) they're already doing such a bang-up job of self destruction that they don't need my help.

(typo, "he was forced by Boyd to allow")

Rich people figured this out in the early 1800's. Owning newspappers gave ya a printing press that printed money.

So, now you see an idiot, in charge of a dying paper. And, just to be sure he got the ATTENTION his stupidity deserves, he fired Lileks.

Lileks who has an Inernet-man's reach to markets corss borders. Over hills and dales. And, all the rest. As if what get's written, even "professionally," doesn't have a market where people LOOK. And, read.

What doesn't fly? The ADS! Nobody liked them, when they were scattered about newspapers, from the inside. Starting at page two. But that was the bread and butter. The news? Was there to make sure you LOOKED.

While CEO's that run companies? Monkeys can do it at the successful ones. But suits like Jim Boyd? They're the stuff of "failure's legends." Just give this one time.

Lileks spells the sadness, out, too. Not to himself. Though he said he was like a deaf man standing next to a bell that just "gonged." He was surrounded, however, with the real terror of a losing industry's might to take away jobs. From people who dedicated their lives to them?

Will one day, ahead, we call newspapers the "horse whip industry" of the 20th Century? Strewn with dead tree product nobody buys.

In business. That's how you make SALES.

What Jim Boyd doesn't know? How fast he'll be abandoned by those who DO pay the bills! Because eventually the checks get to travel like kites.

While, ya know what?

People are still reading.

People are still tapping out speech.

People have discarded more than newsprint, too. Because the kakamamie crap that passes for "intelligence in Academia" is credentialed tripe.

How did the Trib miss the boat?

Well, ya know what? For all the immigration we got here, there's lots of folks who missed their boats. And, cried into their shoes.

I assume he means Mona Charen. Her book "Useful Idiots" was very well-written and researched. She's what Ann Coulter would be if Ann was more interested in substance.

"Do-Gooders" was also very persuasive.

Whenever I hear talk about the problem newspapers have in the States I just shake my head. When I was in England I loved being in a newspaper culture, and I'd buy 2 or 3 a day. It didn't really matter to me if they were left leaning or right leaning, there were plenty of voices and they were so up-front about their politics that you couldn't begrudge them eve when you thought they were wildly wrongheaded.

But here it is completely different. For starters, most newspapers attempt to engage in anti-competetive practices that drive viewpoints away from the marketplace, they attempt to pretend they are being even handed when they very clearly have an agenda, and they have the unmitigated gaul to bemoan the fact that no one wants to buy the crappy product they are offering. I don't care if the Strib wants to be a liberal paper. Hell, I dont care if they want to be a socialist paper...just be up front about it already.

That's the main problem with American newspapers. They insist they are "impartial", when any fool can see they're not.

Stop already! In the UK and France (the places I know best), newspapers and magazines are blatantly partisan! This is wonderful, because you know what you're getting when you buy the thing.

If you want a spectrum of opinion, it's easy to find; Le Monde, Figaro, Liberation, Soir, etc. You always know where they stand.

I HATE this "impartial" crap. Where I live, in the Bay Area, we have the SF Chronicle. It used to be an independent paper, but was sold to the Hearst people. That's fine, but over the last few years, it has become the most tiresome lefty rag in the state. I guess they think we'll buy the thing due to this.

Earth to Chronicle: when I want a lefty rag's opinion, I'll go online to the NY Times or the Guardian for the REAL stuff.

The big investors in newspapers aren't coming from the public. If the Trib is run like the New Yuk times, it's basically an "insider's" business. With no voting rights "out there" that can come in and skunk up their "works." So they hold the valuable parts.

As to the firing of Lileks, here's a thought!

Let's say, jim Boyd was gonna ivicorate the staff at the Trib? Let's say, even, that Lileks would be the least likely guy to fire.

Do you see the problem?

You fire everyone else; and you leave in place THE ONE MAN WHOSE READ ACROSS THE BOARD?

Hello.

No, you shoot the messenger. Instead.

And, old trick.

The new owneres? Some day they'll come in with towels wrapped around their heads. And, when you meet their many wives, you won't know how they tell the difference; because they're all under tablecloths. Kind of them, though, to provide eye holes, from which their goats can peer. To say nothing of being able to drop a fork full of food down, when they eat. But why go there?

I have to laugh when Ed on one hand criticizes the Fairness Doctrine and then complains about Boyd's take on the Star Tribune putting up with "codpiece" conservative columnists. You can disagree with Boyd if you like Ed, but the fact is that he IS right about how dreadful Goldberg, etc. are as columnists. Lileks also stinks when it comes to his political writing, which is all attitude and no serious thought. It's not coincidental that Lileks' Newhouse column is also biting the dust soon.

Real journalists, like Doug Grow, can do real reporting, rather than phone it in from their kitchen in the 'burbs.

Do you understand that the Fairness Doctrine involves government compulsion?

BTW, I like Grow -- he's a good writer (and a good sport), even when I disagree with him.

Ed, whether it's the government enforcing it on the airwaves (never to newspapers, I know) or McClatchy enforcing it on the Strib's op-ed pages, the result is the same with regard to "fairness". Cripes, the PiPress op-ed pages are nothing more than the sort of dreary Point/Counterpoint commentary that just puts me to sleep. Say what you will, but the Star Tribune under Boyd did stick its neck out by criticizing Bush on Iraq early on and took plenty of heat for it. If anything, it gives them a lot more credibility now given how events have unfolded there.

SFD,

You mean to say that you honestly can't tell the difference between the Government saying, "Thou shalt run conflicting viewpoints", at gunpoint and the co-owner of a paper saying, "We'll sell more copy if we aren't an echo-chamber"? Or even a customer saying, "I'd buy more copy if you weren't an echo-chamber"?

....Boyd did stick its neck out by criticizing Bush on Iraq early on and took plenty of heat for it. If anything, it gives them a lot more credibility now given how events have unfolded there.

Speaking of dreary: a liberal moonbat who is put to sleep by anything pro-Bush, and who will only credit anti-Iraq bullshit ... even if it is one-sided, unfactual, unresearched and biased.

But hey - either that's the "Starfleet Command" way of doing things, or anyone who names himself after a 1960's science fiction TV show has the mental and intellectual maturity of a 14-year old.

Dude.

....Boyd did stick its neck out by criticizing Bush on Iraq early on and took plenty of heat for it. If anything, it gives them a lot more credibility now given how events have unfolded there.

Speaking of dreary: a liberal moonbat who is put to sleep by anything pro-Bush, and who will only credit anti-Iraq bullshit ... even if it is one-sided, unfactual, unresearched and biased.

But hey - either that's the "Starfleet Command" way of doing things, or anyone who names himself after a 1960's science fiction TV show has the mental and intellectual maturity of a 14-year old.

Dude.

SFD,

You mean to say that you honestly can't tell the difference between the Government saying, "Thou shalt run conflicting viewpoints", at gunpoint and the co-owner of a paper saying, "We'll sell more copy if we aren't an echo-chamber"? Or even a customer saying, "I'd buy more copy if you weren't an echo-chamber"?

SFD,

You mean to say that you honestly can't tell the difference between the Government saying, "Thou shalt run conflicting viewpoints", at gunpoint and the co-owner of a paper saying, "We'll sell more copy if we aren't an echo-chamber"? Or even a customer saying, "I'd buy more copy if you weren't an echo-chamber"?

Speaking of echo-chambers, sorry for the multiple reposts. Something funky with the comments tonight.

Cap'n Ed - You, and Scott and John at Power Line have done a great job of chronicling the ineptitude of the Strib, but worst major metropolitan newspaper in America?

That honor can only be bestowed on the San Francisco Chronicle, losing readers at the fastest pace of all as it becomes Bigger and Smaller - bigger photos, smaller articles.

In addition, The Chronicle totally avoids reporting news that doesn't fit its world view, such as Diane Feinstein's conflict of interest while she chaired the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee (MILCON) and channeled contract awards to her husband's companies.

The Strib is a worthy contender, but The Chronicle has already become the first newsless newspaper in America, its motto: "All Nancy Pelosi, all the time."

"I HATE this "impartial" crap. Where I live, in the Bay Area, we have the SF Chronicle. It used to be an independent paper, but was sold to the Hearst people. That's fine, but over the last few years, it has become the most tiresome lefty rag in the state. I guess they think we'll buy the thing due to this. "

Scott - The SFC (like the Strib) figure you will buy it just because they ARE the paper of record in town and why wouldn't you buy the paper because all the intelligent people read the newspaper....

SFD - there is a huge difference between telecommuting and "just calling it in from your kitchen". After all - his "just calling it in from the 'burbs" kept another car off of the road easing congestion and saving Gaia and isn't that the end goal?????

Cindy

The McClatchey family has turned one of the most storied baseball franchises in history into a gloried AAA team. The Pittsburgh Pirates have had 14 consecutive losing seasons (soon to be 15).

Don't expect much out of them. They are "old" money in the oldest sense of the term. They promote their offspring, no matter how blindingly incompetent they are.

Let me see if I follow Boyd's thinking: the addition of a single conservative column to an otherwise 100 % liberal editorial page is considered being "driven by ideology", but the 100 % liberal editorial page itself is not ? Interesting and illuminating.