So where’s the Strib bailout?
posted at 8:51 am on January 16, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Apparently the Minneapolis Star-Tribune failed to call Operator #5 at Treasury yesterday and didn’t get the fabulous bailout package that comes complete with the ShamWow towels. Instead, they had to declare bankruptcy and force creditors and labor into negotiations in order to rescue the failing newspaper. Falling revenues has left Avista, which purchased the Strib in 2007, with little choice:
The Star Tribune, saddled with high debt and a sharp decline in print advertising, filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition Thursday night.
Minnesota’s largest newspaper will try to use bankruptcy to restructure its debt and lower its labor costs.
Chris Harte, the paper’s publisher, said the filing would have no impact on home delivery, advertising, newsgathering or any other aspects of the paper’s operations. …
Like most newspapers, the Star Tribune has experienced a sharp decline in print advertising. Its earnings before interest, taxes and debt payments were about $26 million in 2008, down from about $59 million in 2007 and $115 million in 2004.
The irony here is a little delicious. It’s hard to imagine an editorial board as much in love with government intervention than the Strib’s. Unfortunately, government intervention into the housing market busted the economy, and their advertising dried up.
Looks like Avista has done a bang-up job in running this newspaper. The unions agree (via Mitch):
In response to the filing, the guild representing the paper’s newsroom employees issued a statement in which it criticized Avista for its management of the paper in the wake of a series of concessions by the union.
“It’s unfortunate that a New York-based private equity company has put the Twin Cities largest source of news and information at risk,” said Graydon Royce, co-chair of the Star Tribune unit of the guild.
They will be hearing from Avista during Chapter 11. Normally that would mean renegotiating union contracts, but the guild has a point here in that they’ve already given concessions to management to help pull the Strib out of its spiral. Clearly the labor cost isn’t the primary driver of this collapse, and it would take a hell of a lot of concessions to make up for $89 million in lost revenues.
This reflects what has happened to the entire newspaper industry. Although the Strib’s numbers may be extreme — an 80% loss of revenue is on the outer edge of the industry standard for the last two-year period — the Strib itself is a leading broadsheet in the US. Their Sunday edition ranks tenth in the nation for circulation, and the daily is 15th. It’s no small-town publication dying on the vine.
Avista needs to take the paper in a new direction. They have lost the faith of advertisers, and it’s not hard to see why. They’ve managed to rid themselves of most of their best assets, with the exception of James Lileks, while keeping the worst of their lineup: Nick Coleman, Lori Sturdevant, and the entire editorial board. The reporting work they do is fine, but the editorial direction is somewhat to the left of Lenin most days, and it’s become a joke. Who wants to advertise in such a newspaper? Apparently, a lot fewer people than ever before.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I love the smell of burning newspaper in the morning.
Coronagold on January 16, 2009 at 8:55 AM
Buh Bye, Red Star Tribune!
drjohn on January 16, 2009 at 8:58 AM
That’s what they deserve for backing Franken. On the other hand I do a little DTP on the side. Do you suppose I should drive up there this weekend to see if I can get some equipment cheap?
Tommy_G on January 16, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Love it.
artist on January 16, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Too bad I’m not a multi-billionaire like so many liberals.
I’d buy all of the failing liberal news rags, convert them to conservative voices, but have the token liberal for ‘balance’.
madmonkphotog on January 16, 2009 at 9:03 AM
That’s what they deserve for backing Franken.
Actually, they endorsed Coleman … which tells you what a horrible candidate Franken is.
Ed Morrissey on January 16, 2009 at 9:06 AM
A point I’ve made elsewhere: competition for advertising dollars may account for declining profits, but lost circulation reflects dissatisfaction with the product.
PersonFromPorlock on January 16, 2009 at 9:07 AM
If the Trib goes under, most of it’s market will go to other papers. Papers that are healthier, with a better chance of surviving.
That’s the way the market works. And the sooner the better.
The bankruptcy judge allowed Eastern airlines to fly for more than a year after it declared bankruptcy. Hemmoraging money the whole time. During that year, Eastern completely burned through it’s remaining capital, so there was nothing left to distribute to shareholders, and it forced the other airlines to operate in the red for a year, in order to compete with Eastern’s rock bottom and unsustainable fare’s.
In the end, Eastern’s employees still lost their jobs. Eastern’s shareholders lost almost everything. Eastern competitors were significantly weakened.
All because the bankruptcy judge wanted to be known as the man who saved Eastern.
MarkTheGreat on January 16, 2009 at 9:07 AM
Best of luck to James, though I imagine he’ll land on his feet somewhere. He’s too good of a writer.
rbj on January 16, 2009 at 9:12 AM
I can’t say that I’m sad to see any of these papers go, but the situation as a whole is kind of sad. I’d love to pay for a daily paper that I could trust to remain objective. It’s a convenient format that allows the reader to keep track of what’s happening locally (I rarely get to watch the local news).
But why pay for opinion journalism when I can get it online for free?
BadgerHawk on January 16, 2009 at 9:15 AM
I wonder if that was a conscious decision not to advertise or did people write/call advertisers to advise of their dissatisfaction? It would be nice to know that having a voice helps get a point across once in a while.
tru2tx on January 16, 2009 at 9:19 AM
Holy cow! I knew print media were circling the bowl, but 115m down to 26m in four years is a power flush. I don’t see a restructuring helping a business that is tanking at that rate.
forest on January 16, 2009 at 9:19 AM
BadgerHawk on January 16, 2009 at 9:15 AM
I love reading newspapers, and when I visit my family in Arizona I get the opportunity to read one that doesn’t resemble the North Korean People’s Daily, sadly I had to give up on the Strib years ago because of that resemblance.
Perhaps if their editorial cartoons didn’t often portray our soldiers as drooling morons, or their editorial board declaring leaders like Petraeus to be goose-stepping fascists, they might have had better luck.
Bishop on January 16, 2009 at 9:25 AM
Avista needs to take the paper in a new direction. They have lost the faith of advertisers, and it’s not hard to see why. They’ve managed to rid themselves of most of their best assets, with the exception of James Lileks, while keeping the worst of their lineup: Nick Coleman, Lori Sturdevant, and the entire editorial board.
Ed, this is just a ridiculous statement. Can you honestly say you have ANY evidence that ad revenue has dropped so dramatically because of the editorial direction of the paper aside from your own biased opinion?
I mean, the reasons newspaper ad revenue has dropped because of A) a loss of classified ad revenue (the likes of craiglist provide for free what you have to pay for in newspapers) and B) drop in circulation, due in large part to people getting news stories off the Internet.
Also, as I’m sure you know, Minneapolis is a pretty liberal town. I doubt that liberal-leaning columnists would be a reason for people to be turned off by the paper.
I just don’t see any reason to believe the editorial direction of the paper being a valid reason to claim they had to file for bankruptcy.
This is like a guy being shot while he’s smoking a cigarette and some anti-smoking crusader claiming that the cigarette killed him.
Tom_Shipley on January 16, 2009 at 9:25 AM
Let’s see now . . . The Star –Tribune, The Seattle Post Intelligencer and The New York Times, all plummeting into the same garbage heap. Let’s hope we’re on a roll.
rplat on January 16, 2009 at 9:28 AM
Good Riddance, I say.
Just as the WaPo cheered at the arrival of the messiah, so shall I the day they close their doors. And I will travel to DC, hold a large sign in front of their building while I do it!
rightside on January 16, 2009 at 9:35 AM
How is the WSJ doing?
lando034 on January 16, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Tom_Shipley on January 16, 2009 at 9:25 AM
Trouble accepting it, huh? Your A and B examples are valid, but if you don’t believe that bias in the reporting of news and editorial pages didn’t have something to do with it also, you’re a fool.
Minneapolis may be a liberal town, but Minnesota is more evenly split, and the Strib was circulated across the state as the paper of choice; our smaller city papers just don’t get beyond their immediate environs.
Bishop on January 16, 2009 at 9:42 AM
I imagine the Strip would like to sell some papers in the suburbs, which aren’t that liberal. And the complaint is more about keeping the editorial opinions out of the news sections, not so much that the editorial section is liberal.
I, for one, like to see an editorial section where oposing viewpoints are presented side-by-side, liberal vs. conservative. I don’t read the Strib so I’m not sure if they do that, but at this point it couldn’t hurt.
BadgerHawk on January 16, 2009 at 9:43 AM
See, this is a huge opportunity for conservatism to take back the newsroom. The old guard of the MSM is dying. Broadcast news is hemorrhaging viewers. The exception is MSNBC, which grows stronger by the day, but even MSNBC’s growth appears to come at the expense of the “main” NBC news division.
Meanwhile, Fox News is doing well, I think the Wall Street Journal is doing ok, talk radio is doing great, and I am hopeful that we will grow our internet presence. The Democrats have an advantage over us right now in “cyberspace,” with both the Daily Kos and HuffPo now employing full-time staffs and expanding their operations. We can’t match that yet. And, until Roger Simon quits dicking around with having “Joe The Plumber” do war reporting in Israel, we won’t. But I digress.
Outlander on January 16, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Trouble accepting it, huh? Your A and B examples are valid, but if you don’t believe that bias in the reporting of news and editorial pages didn’t have something to do with it also, you’re a fool.
Why? What proof do you have that advertising revenues dropped at the Strib because of its editorial direction?
Tom_Shipley on January 16, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Wethal on January 16, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Liberals in academia have dumbed down the curriculum for years to the point where the masses graduating from schools in the last 10 years or so have no intellectual curiosity for the most part.
To the point where reading is no longer fundamental.
The newspaper alienates roughly half of their audience with their bias, and any of the new subscribers they hope to find and keep do not want to read..
Good business plan.
DaveC on January 16, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Where’s the bailout for buggy whip manufacturers?
Vashta.Nerada on January 16, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Yeah, but they changed Lileks job awhile back and made him less relevant. This is where most papers are headed anyway. My Colorado Springs Gazette subscription ends 1/31, and I’m not renewing.
kirkill on January 16, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Do you have any proof to the contrary?
C’mon, loudmouth. Put up. Show us the facts and figures.
__________
RJGatorEsq. on January 16, 2009 at 10:00 AM
We are about to see that same scenario played out on a much larger scale.
Vashta.Nerada on January 16, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Revenues drop either because the company doesn’t have the money to spend on the ads (which is true for most companies these days) or because the company decides it isn’t cost effective to advertise in the paper. If the paper’s ad rates haven’t gone up drastically than the lack of cost effectiveness comes from decreasing readership.
Even a paper like the Strib, running in a place that’s more liberal than not, is still cutting maybe 40% of their potential subscribers by not having ANY non-liberal presence in the editorial section. It’s terrible management, so on those facts I’d say Ed is correct.
BadgerHawk on January 16, 2009 at 10:08 AM
I see your point, Tom, but I disagree. Look at the polls taken and where newspapers are scoring in terms of our trust of content. Way, way down.
So, while there may in fact be some generational movement to the internet for all sources of news irrespective of political viewpoint, there is undeniably an increasing distrust of newspapers as a news source, based on content and editorial slant.
The Chicago Tribune – subsequent to their campaign for and endorsement of Obama – has experienced a huge number of subscription cancellations, such that they sent me an offer to re-subscribe just yesterday for $1.03 to deliver 4 newspapers a week to me, including Sunday.
The Sunday Trib costs $2.50 by itself.
No, I believe Ed’s point is in large part true – the reason many people have abandoned newspapers is because they don’t trust them as legitimate news sources, just as we don’t trust network news (and if you don’t believe that, review Drudge’s weekly numbers for cable news viewers.).
Jaibones on January 16, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Be honest, Tom; that’s not what he said. Ad revenues are down because circulation is down, dramatically. Stick to the “why is circulation down” meme that you had. You liberals need to keep burying your heads in the sand about the effect of your disastrous policies on our culture and country.
Jaibones on January 16, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Why? What proof do you have that advertising revenues dropped at the Strib because of its editorial direction?
Tom_Shipley on January 16, 2009 at 9:49 AM
A family member who works for this very paper, someone who witnessed the deluge of emails and letters flowing-in from outraged subscribers over their attitude towards our troops and their leaders.
Much of this occurred right after Abu Ghraib started becoming front-page news for months on end, a long series of cartoons and editorials which portrayed our soldiers, all of them, as no different than the dumbshats who ran the prison.
Bishop on January 16, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Yet it won’t change their so-called thought process one iota because, like all lefties in journalism, they dwell in that big river in Egypt.
whitetop on January 16, 2009 at 10:14 AM
We’ll always have THE PIONEER PRESS.
tomswid on January 16, 2009 at 10:19 AM
And I would like to add that Minnesotans are no less patriotic and care no less for our soldiers than any other state.
When the Strib made it very clear that they considered the military to be filled with people not much better than criminals and retards, they pissed off a huge swath of Minnesotans, liberals and conservatives alike.
Dredge up some of those old papers and you will find scathing letters from readers. But you won’t, Tom, because you’re convinced that “Craigslist” doomed the strib. Lots of old folks regularly use CL to sell their stuff and advertise, sure they do.
Bishop on January 16, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Oh, I almost forgot this: The NYT sent me a subcription letter with a ‘no postage neccessary’ return envelopes. I sent the letter back with a note that just said “No Thanks.”.
BadgerHawk on January 16, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Do you have any proof to the contrary?
C’mon, loudmouth. Put up. Show us the facts and figures.
Um, well, yeah!
The newspaper industry is in an overall slump because of loss ad revenue (most specifically, classified ad revenue).
In 2007, newspaper classified ad revenue dropped 16.4% to $3.4 billion. Overall, print advertising is not quite as bad, but still very bad.
The reason for this is two-fold A) sites like craiglist have largely replaced newspapers the place where people look for classified ads (in no small part because craigslist is free).
Newspapers have also seen a decline in circulation, about 5% last year. this also contributes to a loss of print ad revenue. Why is circulation dropping?
Because more people are getting their news from the Web:
Now, you may say this is because the Web has less “liberal” news sources. Well, when it comes to online newspapers
Now, look at newspaper site with the most clicks for Oct. 2008 – the NYTimes BLOWS everyone away.
http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2008/12/latcom_trails_boston_and.php
The Times also ranks 7th in most visited news sites, which is dominated by what some perceive as the “liberal” MSM.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/11/05/hitwise-ranks-election-traffic-to-news-sites/
So it does not seem that people are going online to find more “conservative” news, but mainly because it’s A) free and B) more up-to-date that print.
It’s also notable that online ad revenues for newspapers have risen while print has dropped.
Again, ALL the evidence shows that newspapers are filing for bankruptcy (The Chicago Tribune recently did, a traditionally “conservative” paper who only last year endorsed a democrat for the presidency for the first time in their existence) because of the effect the Internet has had on how people A) advertise and B) receive their news.
There’s no evidence to show newspaper ad revenues have dropped because a perceived “liberal bias.”
Tom_Shipley on January 16, 2009 at 10:38 AM
I mean, when the front page stories in the local CS Gazette are always retreads from LATimes, or NYTimes, how can you trust them? Sure the editorial page is fairly conservative, actually libertarian, but I’d rather spend that time reading elsewhere.
kirkill on January 16, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Be honest, Tom; that’s not what he said. Ad revenues are down because circulation is down, dramatically. Stick to the “why is circulation down” meme that you had. You liberals need to keep burying your heads in the sand about the effect of your disastrous policies on our culture and country.
It’s exactly what he said. Read again:
Avista needs to take the paper in a new direction. They have lost the faith of advertisers, and it’s not hard to see why. They’ve managed to rid themselves of most of their best assets, with the exception of James Lileks, while keeping the worst of their lineup: Nick Coleman, Lori Sturdevant, and the entire editorial board. The reporting work they do is fine, but the editorial direction is somewhat to the left of Lenin most days, and it’s become a joke. Who wants to advertise in such a newspaper? Apparently, a lot fewer people than ever before.
Tom_Shipley on January 16, 2009 at 10:45 AM
I felt this was a teachable moment so enclosed about 8 pages worth of copies of information from the Limbaugh letter.
AZfederalist on January 16, 2009 at 10:46 AM
While anecdotal at best, I know that we canceled the Star and Sickle because of it’s editorial content and I can count in my neighborhood alone( decidedly liberal with many crumb crunchers running around) the canceling of the Strib due to it’s incredibly one sided approach to stories to a number of 20 just in my area. Frankly, even if advertising is going by the way side, it’s slant doomed it even with some liberals who actually want to read balanced reports and editorials.
MNDavenotPC on January 16, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Heh. I just wanted to make them pay the postage, but your way is funny too.
BadgerHawk on January 16, 2009 at 10:59 AM
BadgerHawk, you missed a great opportunity: next time paste it to a cinder block, then return postage paid by sender.
pain train on January 16, 2009 at 11:02 AM
I don’t think that works anymore. OTOH, a little over an ounce will.
AZfederalist on January 16, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Yessssss.
I’m glad I only read ag newspapers. The news they report pisses me off enough without having an editorial staff to get me even more worked up.
Badger40 on January 16, 2009 at 11:07 AM
I’m going to let my subscription to Aviation Week lapse when it comes up for renewal. Since before 2006, it also has become a house organ for the Democrat party. During the 2006 election, if you read many of the reports, you would have thought the Dems were already in charge — the reports would quote from xxx, the ranking Democrat on the yyy committee. Or, “leading Democrat xxxx was quoted as saying …”. It’s gotten worse since then.
Funny thing was, I expected Av Week to print state secrets (from all sides) — it’s been known as “Aviation Leak” for decades. However, taking a partisan side and picking the side MOST likely to damage the aerospace (both civilian and military) industry — not so much.
AZfederalist on January 16, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Newspapers that went “Air America” are going the route of, well, Air America.
Truth sells.
Let’s roll.
ex-Democrat on January 16, 2009 at 11:18 AM
So what’s Air America’s excuse?
ROFL.
ex-Democrat on January 16, 2009 at 11:21 AM
I get the Sacramento Bee. I was trying to cancel in all honesty, but as I told Lileks, there is just something about holding the paper in your hands that makes you feel like you “own” the news. Irrational I know. Despite the Bee’s opinion pages, it fosters a sense of community. Since California really only dates back 150 years or so, it’s one of the historic touchstones for our area.
At any rate, I asked for a Fri – Sun subscription. A month later, the Bee notifies me that I will be getting Thur – Sun for the same rate. Two months after that, I get the entire week for the same Fri – Sun rate. Way to inflate those circulation numbers!
The Paper is a shell of itself. Although they have put in good work on the sacbee.com website (just like the startribune.com site)I suspect that McClatcy, and eventually the Bee itself, will be one of the many victims in the newspaper shakeout. The Bee website is able to give you what you want in this immediate, now, now, now, digital age. Baby Steps, but I suspect that the future of the newspaper business is the news website business. As soon as the demographics are right on broadband, the switch will come. Heck, maybe it will help drive it a little bit.
juanito on January 16, 2009 at 11:22 AM
Now, you may say this is because the Web has less “liberal” news sources.
Well, when it comes to online newspapersBut, look at the newspaper site with the most clicks for Oct. 2008 – the NYTimes BLOWS everyone away.
http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2008/12/latcom_trails_boston_and.php
The Times also ranks
7th5th in most visited news sites, which is dominated by what some perceive as the “liberal” MSM.http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/11/05/hitwise-ranks-election-traffic-to-news-sites/
Fixed
Tom_Shipley on January 16, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Newspapers (except WSJ & USA Today, that I know of) have lost gazillions of dollars in ad revenue because of people just like me. I’m in the real estate biz and advertise a hell of a lot, even (especially) in a down market. However, I will not advertise in my local rag, or the two daily regionals in my area because they are AP shills and “re-printers” on general news, and left leaning in their editorial stance. These morons (newspapers nationwide) somehow forgot that half of this country has views that differ from Che Guevara, and we all buy and spend like the half that does agree with them editorially.
When you (newspapers) blatantly, repeatedly, with glee, bash the bejesus out of HALF of your revenue stream, don’t be surprised when you have half the revenue you once did.
Frickin’ idiots get what they deserve.
Tim Zank on January 16, 2009 at 11:59 AM
I am curious. Granted, when a newspaper that has a liberal bent is losing money, it seems rather delicious. But if they are losing money because of liberal ideas and liberal positions, wouldn’t it indicate newspapers with a conservative philosophy are profitable? Is there any data on that?
duggersd on January 16, 2009 at 11:59 AM
It smells like Victory. Minnesota deserves whatever it gets after electing that clown Frankin.
saiga on January 16, 2009 at 12:05 PM
I thought the times was 5th. I didn’t click on your link but I think it got about 55 million unique visits in November.
BadgerHawk on January 16, 2009 at 12:06 PM
saiga on January 16, 2009 at 12:09 PM
With a growing number of US citizens unable to read, the liberal agenda will continue to promote more illiteracy and and victimhood and eventually seal the fate of the print media.
saiga on January 16, 2009 at 12:14 PM
But if they are losing money because of liberal ideas and liberal positions, wouldn’t it indicate newspapers with a conservative philosophy are profitable? Is there any data on that?
Well, according to this story, the WaTimes lost a higher percentage of their readership in 2007 than the WaPo.
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2007/11/05/daily9.html
Tom_Shipley on January 16, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Good news on a -22 degree morning here in the Twin Cities.
Watching this putrid rag tank is the kind of change I can believe in.
I feel bad that the industrious Somali carriers who schlep the Strib around town will be out of jobs, (and of course for Lileks, who labors over there, God knows he keeps sane), but as for the worst editorial and reporting staff in the country, bar none, (LAT, NYT, SPI,and on and on…), good riddance.
Bruno Strozek on January 16, 2009 at 1:13 PM
No liberal bias at the Star-Tribune, right? PLEASE! In the sports section they do not print the team nicknames in the linescores. Why you may ask? Because there are references to Native Americans (Indians). You know, like the Cleveland Indians. Atlanta Braves. Washington Redskins, etc., etc. Some smart aleck sports editor decided that is “offensive” to Native Americans (Indians). Another good point is that many newspapers carry AP stories and or stories from larger papers like-surprise-The New York Times. Or in the Star-Tribune’s case the Left Angeles Times. The newspaper industry contracted to the point that they have narrowed the scope of who reads their papers. And, they believe that it is only liberal, educated people. And, that is not going to pay the bills if newspapers practically have to give away subscriptions.
righty64 on January 16, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Looks like the business strategy of relying on strip club ads in the sports section for 100% of the revenue, has failed again.
NoDonkey on January 16, 2009 at 2:32 PM
One small step for mankind! Now, if we can dispense with the Des Moines Register, the Baltimore Sun, the Tulsa World, etc., etc., etc. ….
Christian Conservative on January 16, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Now that the Strib is gone, what am I supposed to do for my incontinent old dog?
chsw
chsw on January 16, 2009 at 5:48 PM
This comment is dead on. That’s how I feel about all the fashion magazines that I use to enjoy reading. Throughout the election and continuing through today, they were/are constantly running pro over the top Obama articles/photo spreads. I cancelled my subscriptions and told them that 1/2 of the population doesn’t share the same Manhattan elitist point of view as they do.
Callie C. on January 16, 2009 at 5:49 PM
Exactly. Also did this with a home decorating magazine that espoused Al Gore’s junk science as fact. Why don’t they wise up and appeal to all their customers?
Christian Conservative on January 16, 2009 at 5:54 PM
Bruno Strozek on January 16, 2009 at 1:13 PM:
Oh, Lileks has been insane for years. But very well organized, of course.
PersonFromPorlock on January 16, 2009 at 7:03 PM
Used to get the Strib seven days a week, then just on the weekends, and then just on Sundays, so the wife could get the coupons, now not at all. Tired of the liberal focus and all the pontificating. Now we get the WSJ.
Trainwreck on January 16, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Not one friggin’ penny for those elitist, lying libtards at the Star Trib.
Can’t find a tear. Not one.
Some pundit mentioned that it’s possible that former paper boy, now 85? year old sports columnist and “close personal friend” Sid Hartman may outlive the Star Tribune.
I refuse to buy the Star Tribune under any circumstance – I’d rather skip reading the morning paper if the Strib is the only choice – better to be uninformed than misinformed.
Dr. Bob on January 17, 2009 at 12:15 AM
I had a paper route in the late 60′s and early 70′s for the Minneapolis Tribune(morning paper). I can remember a customer canceling his paper because he thought it was to liberal. I had no idea what a liberal was! The things one remembers……………..
jims on January 17, 2009 at 5:51 AM