Secrets of the City

That’s a bummer for Paul. I bet that was a pretty nice gig for him. The nice thing is, he’s the last guy in media locally that I’d worry about. He’s last man standing material.

maybe now he can stop being a self-made brand and go back to behind a behind-the-scenes guy and ditch the stage name.

also, I read where he said that he threatened to sue WCCO for age discrimination when they fired him and refused payment on the balance of his contract. I don’t get that. Was he threatening on the grounds that they fired him because he was too young for their demographic?

Didn’t the Tribune once partner with KSTP? How about this for an idea instead: Report news!

Good idea Kwatt, The Strib needs to do alot to get back in shape.
Maybe merge with the Eastside fishwrap.

I look to the day when Weatherdog Millionaire Douglas buys both WCCO and the bankrupt Star Tribune and makes his former bosses crawl on their knees to him to beg for their jobs.

On their knees, I say!

This is said, now Paul we either need to be decommissioned or reprogrammed.

I think the partnership with CCO is actually a pretty good idea. Newspapers need to stop thinking of themselves as “newspaper companies” and start thinking of themselves as “media companies”. It’s already started, with video on the website, etc.

Maybe StarTribune can tap into video from CCO. CCO can utilize some of ST’s news gathering power. It seems like a good thing for both organizations.

sorry said = sad

I’ll miss Paul Douglas and I don’t watch ‘CCO News so I don’t see myself looking at the weather page. Another reason to dump my subscription

Wow, this dude can’t catch a break.

Although, do you think he’s starting to wonder if CCO has it out for him?

I’ll have to recheck my Sunday paper. If WCCO is paying the Strib, like Bauer and Douglas state, I’m pretty certain that means that page has to be labeled an advertisement.

That’s the way it works in the scientific journals. A lot of journals charge a per page fee to the authors to defray publishing costs. Those that do, always have a statement that “this is labeled an advertisement to solely not the fact that a per page charge was paid.”

@miller: At one time, both the Star-Tribune and Pioneer Press owned what was to become WCCO-TV:

In 1934, two newspapers—the Minneapolis Tribune and the Saint Paul Pioneer Press-Dispatch—formed a joint venture named “Twin Cities Newspapers,” which purchased the radio station and changed its call letters to WTCN. WTCN-TV went on the air on July 1, 1949 as Minnesota’s second television station, broadcasting from the Radio City Theater in downtown Minneapolis.

When Twin Cities Newspapers sold all their radio holdings, including WTCN Radio, in 1952, it created an opportunity to purchase WCCO radio (AM 830 and FM 102.9, now WLTE) and merge the two companies into Midwest Radio and Television, Inc. The new company changed Channel 4’s call letters to match its new radio sisters.

[from Wikepedia.org]

Time were different then. The concern of the FCC back in the early ’50s was the concentration of various media by one industry … in this case, newspapers owning TV stations.

If WCCO is paying to provide content, does it have to be labeled advertisement?

Wouldn’t be the same as any vendor that provides content on startribune.com?

I suppose not, Cat. Weather is considered news, so labeling it “advertisement” would be as nonsensical as labeling Associate Press wire copy as “advertisement.”

Except AP isn’t paying the Strib to publish an AP wire.

I don’t know all of the rules, but it seems to me less what exactly the content is, but who’s paying for it. After all, I consider it just nonsensical for a peer reviewed article to be labeled “advertisement” as news. (I should pop up to the library and try and find the exact wording that journals use)

Does it take a rocket scientist to deduce that if WCCO’s meteorologists are pictured, that the content is being provided by them; not the newspaper? (Technically, though, it’s all just NOAA anyway you look at it.)

Did Dave Dahl or Paul Douglas have to have “advertisement” labels beneath their daily newspaper weather summaries?

I guess I don’t see the point or concern.

It’s a matter of “paid consideration. Maybe not a big deal when you’re talking about weather, but what if, instead, it’s a political campaign, or a medical device?

If the outlet is being paid to pass off a political or corporate press release as “news,” I want to be aware of that fact.

(i.e., I want to be reasonably certain that article assuring me about the safety of the new cholesterol drug, or heart stent, or implant isn’t being churned out by the marketing department of a company with a vested interest in assuring me of that safety)

At any rate, here’s the relevant statute:

39 USC 4367. Marking of advertising matter Editorial or other reading matter contained in publications entered as second class mail and for the publication of which a valuable consideration is paid, accepted or promised, shall be marked plainly “advertisement” by the publisher. (Public Law 86-682, September 2, 1960, 74 Stat. 671.)

Since it’s a postal (2nd class mail) rule, it’s probably not applicable in this situation anyway.

mnblrmkr: I get your concern, but there are strict guidelines when it comes to advertising political campaigns/advocacy, med devices, financial products, etc.

Paid content is a great idea and a way for newspapers to finally incorporate what online has been doing pretty much since the inception.

I admit that it’s squishy territory, but I do think that it’s feasible and ethical to do it without compromising the content.

I’ve done political ads in the Tribune and they require it to say that it’s a paid advertisement. I agree with marklar, if there’s payment exchanged, it should be disclosed.