R.I.P.: The Political Impact of the Newspaper Institutional Editorial
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.
To the Star Tribune's Burcum's credit, she bylined her comments in response. However, her comments were an over-the-top, bizarre compilation of ad hominem attacks on Brauer's work as a defense to the Star Tribune's nondisclosure of Avista interests. [Brian Lambert, my former radio colleague in crime, adds the human journo drama here.]
What's worse, Burcum wrote, "Our editorials on [Minnesota DFL Attorney General] Lori Swanson played a key role in triggering the legislative auditor's investigation and calls for reform at the office."
That's not only wrong, it's patently absurd.
The Star Tribune editorial calling for an investigation of AG office employees' efforts to unionize was dated March 23. Sure, the Legislative Audit Commission officially called for the investigation March 28, but here's one of a number of meetings the Legislative Audit Commission held to discuss audit evaluation topics, including investigating Lori Swanson's office, before the editorial ran.
The call for an investigation was first made by Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Delano) March 12 (albeit an investigation to be conducted by a different unit of government, arguably more favorable to Republicans, the Bureau of Mediation Services). And perhaps most significantly, employee issues in the AG's office were all over the blogosphere for months (just a few examples here, here (the specific link to Steve Perry's The Daily Mole web site is now defunct and he currently writes at the Minnesota Independent ), here and here.
Never mind the months of speculation at the Capitol that Swanson's internal union woes would have to be investigated. Speculation which never included, "the Star Tribune editorial page called for one."
Because no one at the Capitol ever talks about what the Star Tribune is calling for. Or the cries (have there been any the last few years?) of the St. Paul Pioneer Press.
In the 20th century pre-Internet world of Minnesota politics, what the major papers wrote as unsigned institutional editorials mattered. Copies of editorials were distributed in committees and on the House and Senate floors. Interest groups begged editorial boards for meetings to pitch their pet legislation so that, they, too, could distribute copies of editorials. Political candidates and their campaigns would drive downtown to get the early runs of the papers to check editorial endorsements.
I have racked my brain for years trying to recall the moment in our state's political history when the two papers' institutional voices, along with the op ed submissions printed on adjacent pages, failed to matter in our political discourse.
The only Oprah A Ha Moment I can recall was in early 2005. The DFL was still in the minority, and Rep. Ann Lenczewski (DFL-Bloomington) had just been appointed to an important minority post, the lead DFLer on the House Taxes Committee. Lenczewski was on MPR's Midday program discussing the tax bill du jour with Gary Eichten, who asked her what she thought about a Taxpayers League opinion piece written by then-League President David Strom. The piece had appeared in the St. Paul Pioneer Press that morning.
Right there on the air Lenczewski said she hadn't read the piece. That's not to discredit the highly respected Lenczewski. But it was a pivotal moment in our politics. The lead House DFLer hadn't read the St. Paul Pioneer Press' editorial pages on a day she was going to spend an hour on the air with the always-tough Eichten. There was no shame in Lenczeski's admission, and no rebuke by any one on the program at the time or in ensuing Capitol conversations after about the fact that Lenczewski hadn't read the paper that day.
A Ha, indeed.
[To our faithful PIM readers, please challenge me if you think I'm wrong. But do ask yourselves, when was the last time a Star Tribune editorial had an impact on Minnesota public affairs? Reply to sarah@politicsinminnesota.com]
By far the most popular section in our free, online PIM Morning Reports is our "Best of the Blogs and Think Tank Thoughts" section. That means there's no less interest in strong opinion writing, but that readers are finding it outside the major dailies. And, Morning Report readers will note that we still include the institutional voices of the major papers (and many of Minnesota's other fine daily newspapers) in their own special section.
Bloggers take note. In case you haven't figured it out yet, here are the rules for what gets linked to in our blog section: The content has to include new news or new insightful analysis that we haven't yet read elsewhere; blog posts have to be easily traced to writers who identify who they are; content has to be well-written; and, we're still old-fashioned about swear words (we may use them in conversation but find them offensive in print). Pretty simple. Makes for salience in our Minnesota political conversation.
Finally, the newly-minted irrelevance of newspaper institutional voices does not apply to the bylined, well-researched weekly columns by Star Tribune long-time political columnist Lori Sturdevant. "Did you see what Lori wrote about ____?" is still a common preface in Capitol conversations.
Maybe that's the point. The Internet has given us instant (and free) access to a plethora of new news and really good, engaging political opinion. Unsigned institutional editorials, perhaps dictated by New York capital venture firm owners, perhaps not...written by unidentified ghosts (who may or may not include Scott Gillespie, the highly respected Star Tribune editorial pages editor, or long-time and also highly respected editorial writer Eric Ringham, both of whom have deep roots and strong commitments to Minnesota's civic life)...don't add anything salient to the political conversation.
That's my A Ha summation.
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.
To the Star Tribune's Burcum's credit, she bylined her comments in response. However, her comments were an over-the-top, bizarre compilation of ad hominem attacks on Brauer's work as a defense to the Star Tribune's nondisclosure of Avista interests. [Brian Lambert, my former radio colleague in crime, adds the human journo drama here.]
What's worse, Burcum wrote, "Our editorials on [Minnesota DFL Attorney General] Lori Swanson played a key role in triggering the legislative auditor's investigation and calls for reform at the office."
That's not only wrong, it's patently absurd.
The Star Tribune editorial calling for an investigation of AG office employees' efforts to unionize was dated March 23. Sure, the Legislative Audit Commission officially called for the investigation March 28, but here's one of a number of meetings the Legislative Audit Commission held to discuss audit evaluation topics, including investigating Lori Swanson's office, before the editorial ran.
The call for an investigation was first made by Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Delano) March 12 (albeit an investigation to be conducted by a different unit of government, arguably more favorable to Republicans, the Bureau of Mediation Services). And perhaps most significantly, employee issues in the AG's office were all over the blogosphere for months (just a few examples here, here (the specific link to Steve Perry's The Daily Mole web site is now defunct and he currently writes at the Minnesota Independent ), here and here.
Never mind the months of speculation at the Capitol that Swanson's internal union woes would have to be investigated. Speculation which never included, "the Star Tribune editorial page called for one."
Because no one at the Capitol ever talks about what the Star Tribune is calling for. Or the cries (have there been any the last few years?) of the St. Paul Pioneer Press.
In the 20th century pre-Internet world of Minnesota politics, what the major papers wrote as unsigned institutional editorials mattered. Copies of editorials were distributed in committees and on the House and Senate floors. Interest groups begged editorial boards for meetings to pitch their pet legislation so that, they, too, could distribute copies of editorials. Political candidates and their campaigns would drive downtown to get the early runs of the papers to check editorial endorsements.
I have racked my brain for years trying to recall the moment in our state's political history when the two papers' institutional voices, along with the op ed submissions printed on adjacent pages, failed to matter in our political discourse.
The only Oprah A Ha Moment I can recall was in early 2005. The DFL was still in the minority, and Rep. Ann Lenczewski (DFL-Bloomington) had just been appointed to an important minority post, the lead DFLer on the House Taxes Committee. Lenczewski was on MPR's Midday program discussing the tax bill du jour with Gary Eichten, who asked her what she thought about a Taxpayers League opinion piece written by then-League President David Strom. The piece had appeared in the St. Paul Pioneer Press that morning.
Right there on the air Lenczewski said she hadn't read the piece. That's not to discredit the highly respected Lenczewski. But it was a pivotal moment in our politics. The lead House DFLer hadn't read the St. Paul Pioneer Press' editorial pages on a day she was going to spend an hour on the air with the always-tough Eichten. There was no shame in Lenczeski's admission, and no rebuke by any one on the program at the time or in ensuing Capitol conversations after about the fact that Lenczewski hadn't read the paper that day.
A Ha, indeed.
[To our faithful PIM readers, please challenge me if you think I'm wrong. But do ask yourselves, when was the last time a Star Tribune editorial had an impact on Minnesota public affairs? Reply to sarah@politicsinminnesota.com]
By far the most popular section in our free, online PIM Morning Reports is our "Best of the Blogs and Think Tank Thoughts" section. That means there's no less interest in strong opinion writing, but that readers are finding it outside the major dailies. And, Morning Report readers will note that we still include the institutional voices of the major papers (and many of Minnesota's other fine daily newspapers) in their own special section.
Bloggers take note. In case you haven't figured it out yet, here are the rules for what gets linked to in our blog section: The content has to include new news or new insightful analysis that we haven't yet read elsewhere; blog posts have to be easily traced to writers who identify who they are; content has to be well-written; and, we're still old-fashioned about swear words (we may use them in conversation but find them offensive in print). Pretty simple. Makes for salience in our Minnesota political conversation.
Finally, the newly-minted irrelevance of newspaper institutional voices does not apply to the bylined, well-researched weekly columns by Star Tribune long-time political columnist Lori Sturdevant. "Did you see what Lori wrote about ____?" is still a common preface in Capitol conversations.
Maybe that's the point. The Internet has given us instant (and free) access to a plethora of new news and really good, engaging political opinion. Unsigned institutional editorials, perhaps dictated by New York capital venture firm owners, perhaps not...written by unidentified ghosts (who may or may not include Scott Gillespie, the highly respected Star Tribune editorial pages editor, or long-time and also highly respected editorial writer Eric Ringham, both of whom have deep roots and strong commitments to Minnesota's civic life)...don't add anything salient to the political conversation.
That's my A Ha summation.
Morning Reports
Impact of the Death on the Political Process
Cummins "can't disagree" with the death of the impact of the institutional editorial. But he takes it smartly further: What impact does the death have on the political process?
"While it might require a PhD thesis to adequately gauge the impact, the atomization of opinions in the blogosphere does nothing to build political consensus, as strong Strib or PP (or [the now-defunct] Star and Dispatch) editorial positions used to occasionally do. And in fact, the blogospheric cacophony of opinions by the variously informed and ignorant actually impede the development of consensus by simply reinforcing the divided philosophical opinions of decision-makers. The more the bloggers blast away, the less likely people are likely to be willing to compromise, and the less likely we are to find big solutions to complex problems like healthcare, transportation, education, etc."
That's a good line of thinking. The unsigned editorial does offer a place where informed opinion can lead in consensus-building and actual political decision-making. But unfortunately, as noted in my A Ha moment, that's not much help when the decision makers aren't reading the editorials.