Save the Strib

6 Reader Comments

The Strib began to act as the propaganda arm of the DFL and DNC long ago and certainly had an agenda. The sad thing for many employees of the Strib is that the writers, editors and managers didn’t realize that many electronic alternatives are now available, and people like me no longer have to subsidize their political agendas. The guild only has itself to blame.

So what did the Strib stand to gain by becoming a “propaganda arm” for the Democrats?

What are the electronic alternatives that came into being that they might have missed?

Scott is saying that he no longer has to go to a new source that occasionally has the truth, but nothing but unverified rumors all of the time.

I don’t think the DFL or the DNC would want anything like the Strib as their propaganda arm.

Allies like that, they can do without.

Max Sparber Apr 5 2009
11:19 pm

Scott has obviously stumbled across some propaganda, but didn’t recognize it when he saw it and decided to try and pass it off as fact.

noodleman Apr 6 2009
7:33 am

IIRC the reputation of the “Red Star” began back when the papers were still privately owned by the Cowles family. Privately-owned media have always mirrored the political values of their owners, e.g. Hearst, Sulzberger, McCormick, Murdoch, Paley, Hubbard. There’s nothing patently unusual or surprising about that. The Guild had nothing to do with the political orientation the Star-Tribune took.

Given, however, that the startribune.com got its start in 1996 (that’s 13 years ago for those who have trouble counting) I wouldn’t make the claim that newspapers missed the digital age. IMO what happened was that the powers-that-be missed opportunities to compete with the likes of Craigslist and eBay after finding their newspaper classifieds in competition with the Internet. Compare the cost of listing a used auto in a ’90s-era newspaper vs. listing it on Craigslist, eBay or CarSoup.