But the thing that provoked me into doing it was seeing things with my own eyes and ears in the newspaper that were contrary with what I knew to be the case.
That and downplaying its role as a magnet for immigrants from other states to Minneapolis. I would get and read the reports that the Star Tribune was purportedly reporting on and see that if you got past the executive summary it contradicted what was in the newspaper. And I have to say the guy who provoked me into spending a year of my life doing that, researching it and writing about it, at the end of the day said I had done a good job.
But he went on to be a spokesman for Amy Klobuchar. But he was really a gentleman. He went out of his way to say I had done a good job. But I was not persuaded by his argument. I think I have an open mind, and treat the subjects fairly. I remember talking with her at the time and experiencing great frustration with the limits of her reportage on Ellison.
I thought the reportage obscured more than it revealed. Prominent Democrats who did not want Ellison to be the face of the Democratic Party. But have you talked to her about the frustrations she had dealing with the mainstream and the Star Tribune? On the editorial board or as some kind of regular contributor?
SJ: Sure. I was a huge fan of Kathy when she was the metro columnist for the Star Tribune. But my impression is that she was treated like a foreign body that needed to be expelled. But she always struck me as an odd response to a perceived problem. The paper knew it needed a conservative voice, and they could see where this under-served demographic was, in the exurbs and out-state, where they needed additional readership.
What she was doing though was infuriating liberals, daily. Which I thought was a good thing. If you actually want a robust discussion, with lots of comments and interaction, there she was, along with Nick Coleman.
SJ: The thing about Kathy is that she was breaking news stories that were otherwise ignored by the Star Tribune.
I just admired her work greatly. I think they really lost something important when they let her and Nick go. He devoted an entire column to trying to get me fired from my job at TCF. I thought it was a low, dishonest, very nasty piece of work. But back to the point about Kersten or someone like her, someone who applies to the paper with clear conservative sensibilities.
Do you really think they are weeded out, on that basis, by the people making the hiring decisions? SJ: It seems like an interest in the media is an adjunct of people who are interested in liberal politics. Reporters and editors at the papers tend to be liberal. I think a conservative record makes it harder for a person to be hired. I pursued this as an avocation on the side of an active law practice for the past twenty years. I was doing it with John for fun.
But I always thought there was an opportunity there because of the lack of opportunity for folks like us on the inside at papers like the Star Tribune. But I think the people who go into it tend to be liberal. But do you think the media model is breaking down? We now have Breitbart as the most famous or most notorious of the new breed. But I have a daughter who is a professional journalist and her work is not opinion-based, but she specializes in reporting on Republicans, the Republican Party and the conservative movement.
And I would say the quality of her work has opened doors for her. I think The New York Times has the fort secured pretty tightly. SJ: Of having reportage that is pretty reliably liberal, by reporters who are certifiably liberal. As you can tell from the copy. SJ: I look at the reporters. But they have standards. They run corrections. The only problem with the corrections is that they imply everything else they got right. But they do hold themselves to reporting facts they hold out to a standard of truthfulness.
That is not necessarily the case around the web. SJ: Yes, and they set the table for the rest of the media, just as the Star Tribune does in Minnesota, and roughly from the same political perspective as the Star Tribune, which I also read. And I check your column out every morning. Do you think they have a conservative undertone in their reporting? SJ: No. They may utilize strong loaded words wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes , publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes.
Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources. Power Line is an American conservative political blog, founded in May Hinderaker, Scott W.
Johnson, Paul Mirengoff, and Steven Hayward, all of which are attorneys. The publisher and founder is Joe Malchow. Read our profile on United States government and media. Power Line does not specifically state ownership of the blog and revenue appears to be derived from online advertising. In review, Power Line often vigorously criticizes Democrats and liberals for dishonesty, lack of morals, bad judgment, and disloyalty to the United States.
Both of these stories are properly sourced.
0コメント