Author: Tom Bartel

  • Damn Press Got it Wrong


    Kevin and his wife, whose family lives somewhere in Michigan

    The new City Pages editor, Kevin Hoffman, logged on to the City Pages blogs Wednesday to clear up the geography question regarding the relative proximity of the Twin Cities and Cleveland to Michigan.

    Some have suggested that he could have made the whole thing go away by claiming that his wife’s family is from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, which is arguably closer to Minnesota, and doesn’t require a boat ride to get there. But no, he went with the time tested explanation employed by politicians everywhere: “I wuz misquoted by a journalist.”

    In this case, that journalist is Deborah Rybak, the media reporter at the Strib.

    First, you might want to ask yourself, Kevin, “Do you want to piss off the Strib’s media reporter right off the bat?” Second, you might want to ask yourself, “Do I want to act so thin skinned right in front of all my new subordinates?” Third, you might want to ask yourself, “What sort of big brass ones does City Pages staffer Chuck Terhark have to make him want to make fun of me before he even has the opportunity to kiss my ring?”

    There’a thread going over at mnspeak about Hoffman and some of the ribbing he’s taken so far. The latest entrys are Deborah Rybak’s short jab in the Strib this morning (last item) about Hoffman’s myspace page, (Clarification: Rybak wrote the item on Wednesday, before Hoffman said he was misquoted) and my son’s fictitious Seven Quick Questions for the out-of-towner.

    Given Hoffman’s comments on the CP blog, and his own defensive remarks to Rybak when questioned about his age, what we can perhaps conclude about him is that he could use some help in the humor and self deprecation department.

    Maybe he could just use a better writer. Let’s pretend, ok?

    Rybak: “Kevin, aren’t you kind of young?”
    Hoffman: “Yeah, I’m so young, I still have my high school graduation on my myspace resume, just to make it seem longer.”

    or

    “I’m so young, I have a picture of a green guinea pig on my myspace page.”

    or

    “I saw that the City Pages’ publisher’s twelve-year-old daughter has a myspace page, and I thought being her myspace friend would be a good career move.”

    or, maybe even

    “Yes, I am young and I have some huge shoes to fill. Steve Perry has been an institution in the Twin Cities since before I got my learner’s permit. Over the years, he and City Pages have been responsible for a lot of remarkable journalism, and I hope the current staff, (none of whom were even considered for the editor’s job by the corporate bosses) will help me get to know the cities, and help me carry on the tradition of excellence they and Perry have established.”

    Naah.

  • First Story: Geography of the Upper Midwest

    Here’s a quote from the Strib about the new editor of City Pages and his pending move from Cleveland, which is in Ohio, to here, which is in Minnesota:

    “Hoffman, 30, who joined the Cleveland paper as a writer in 2002 and was promoted to managing editor in 2005, said he was drawn to the City Pages job because he and his wife, an attorney, were looking for a place to live that wasn’t too far from her family in Michigan.”

    Ohio is the state that touches Michigan. Minnesota is the state that has Wisconsin and a Great Lake between it and Michigan.

  • As if we needed further proof that Bachmann's seriously unhinged.


    I grope Merkel, Bachmann gropes me.

    In case you missed it last night, Michele Bachman put on quite a show of pawing President Bush after he finished the State of the Union address. KSTP got it on tape. (Click play on the tv-shaped window on the right to view the video.)

    According to a former Congressional staffer I know, Bachmann would have had to have arrived about 12 hours early in the House chamber to get the seat on the aisle that gave her the opportunity to grope W for the cameras.

    As much as I dislike the guy, he is the President of the United States, and he doesn’t look any more presidential by having this idiot-school-girl-who-is-pretending-to-be-a-member-of-Congress fawning on him.

    Is she really that lame? Don’t forget she’s the same one who hid behind the bushes or in the bathroom when confronted by opponents. So, I’d have to say, yes she is.

    I was just reminded of another possible explanation, though. Perhaps Bachmann was channeling German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who was groped by Bush last year.

  • Put Down Your Guns Before I Tell You This

    Unlike Demi Moore, Emperor George has no clothes.

    I’ve just corresponded with my friend, the mother of two sons with the Minnesota National Guard brigade in Iraq. She chatted online with them both yesterday, after they’d received the news that their tour would be extended by our fearless leader.

    Nothing funny about that really. The Minnesota Guard contingent is the only Guard combat unit in Iraq right now. News in the paper today was that another of their number had been killed. Ironically, the headline said Sgt. James M. Wosika had been killed just two months short of the end of his tour. Sergeant Wosika never got to hear the news that his tour had been extended.

    What is funny, though, is that according to my friend’s sons, the Minnesota troops were called into formation, then ordered to put down their weapons and ammunition. Only then were they given the news that they’d be carrying those weapons and ammo for an undetermined, extended time.

    There was an editor’s note in this month’s Vanity Fair (the editor’s note is not online–you’ll have to spring for a paper copy) in which Graydon Carter comments on a previous story the mag had done on George Bush. It contained anecdotes of how Bush, even when he played tennis, was a spoiled brat who refused to allow a game to end until he’d won. If the opponent won, it was best two out of three. If the opponent won the second game, it was best three of five, etc.

    Seems like Georgie’s bratty obsession will carry on until we all lose.

  • Paying for Crime

    The Minneapolis City Council proved itself to be more politically adept than the Minneapolis Library Board in early December when it warded off the pleas for permanent funding of the Minneapolis Library system. Instead of the hoped-for permanent budget increases that had been dangled before the Library Board, the Council instead gave them one year’s worth of funding to keep open three libraries that had been proposed for closing—that and the promise from Mayor Rybak to lobby the Legislature for more. 

    Given the previous record of Rybak at the Legislature, I wouldn’t hold my breath. If I were on the Library Board, (disclosure: I am on the Friends of the Library Board) I wouldn’t give the Council the political cover they seek, either. Keeping those libraries open for a year while Rybak begs for state money just lets the Council off the hook. They, not the Library Board, determine the library budget. If the Council wanted to find permanent funding for libraries, they could. Instead, we get funding for more liquor license inspectors (to speed approval of licenses for Council candidate donors,) and an aide for education policy for Mayor Rybak, although the Mayor’s office has nothing to do with the schools.

    The most maddening component of the debate was the Council’s concerted positioning of permanent library funding against funds for additional police officers. To paraphrase the Council’s argument: do you want three more libraries, or forty-three more police officers? Putting it more vividly, Council Member Don Samuels, representative of Minneapolis’s most-likely-to-be-murdered-in ward, said this: “When you are a person at the other end of a gun … the only use for a book is to throw it at them, or block a bullet with it.”

    Is the choice really books or cops? Perhaps the Minneapolis Council could call their counterparts in St. Paul, who, in their budget passed in early December, somehow found funding both to hire more police officers and to expand Library hours. Of course, St. Paul has a strong mayor system, and Minneapolis has a weak mayor system. Given that context, Chris Coleman and R.T. Rybak both seem to be ideally suited to their roles. Coleman gives St. Paul open libraries; Rybak gives Minneapolis Bonnie Bleskachek.

    In June 2005, Rybak made the following statement about how he was addressing increasing crime: “We need to remember that these recent murders have been driven by people living high-risk lifestyles: kids buying and selling drugs and guns. Minneapolis is a safe city for people who are not engaged in buying and selling drugs and guns.” Minneapolis didn’t become an “unsafe” city until a few other things happened. First, Rybak’s opponent in the 2005 mayoral race, Peter McLaughlin, started making points by calling for more cops. Then, Michael Zebuhr was murdered in Uptown while walking with his mother, and Alan Reitter was killed in Downtown while walking with his fiancée. So, as long as the “high-risk lifestyle” meant “African American high-risk lifestyle,” we didn’t need more cops—but when white people walking on the street get killed, we’re just going to have to close some libraries and address the crime problem head-on.

    Minneapolis needs both more cops and more library hours. It’s particularly unfair to the police and disingenuous in the extreme to make it an either/or question. The Minneapolis Police Department, just like the Library Board, has been handed an impossible task since the city began to lose Local Government Aid funding from the state in 2002. Police staff levels declined just as precipitously as library hours. After a decade-low number of forty-three homicides and 1732 aggravated assaults in 2001 (when there were over 900 Minneapolis cops), the numbers of both crimes have ticked up to the point where, as of this writing, we have had fifty-nine murders and over 2700 aggravated assaults in 2006. When the forty-three cops authorized this year are added to the force, on top of the seventy added as a result of last year’s campaign promises, Minneapolis will be back up to 893.

    According to Deputy Chief Rob Allen, the restoration of the force will allow more “proactive and preventative” police work. For example, he expects that the Juvenile Crime Unit, which had been disbanded for lack of manpower, will be restored. He also hopes that the investigative squad will restore the ten detectives who had been cut. “Case loads are overwhelming,” he said.

    Without being asked, Allen volunteered, “We’re conscious that the city has made the sacrifice to bring back the police department [staffing levels]. It’s critically important that we’re putting our officers where they’re needed, and that we’re efficiently using our people, otherwise that sacrifice is in vain. I don’t like being pitted against library hours, and it’s important for people to know that our officers are aware of that.”

    We do know that. And we also know that no sentient person thinks we need fewer cops in Minneapolis. What we do need is less cynical manipulation of budget priorities by the Mayor and City Council. Don’t hold your breath for that, either.

  • A Book Stadium?

    News came at the end of this week that the Gopher football stadium was going to cost more than originally thought because it’s being built on mushy ground. Boy, if that isn’t an opportunity for a metaphor, I don’t know my Aristotle.

    It’s been suggested by more than one wag that the reason the Minneapolis Library system is in such tough shape is that the city’s and state’s priorities are pretty mushy as well. Another, an unpaid advisor to a Library support group, has suggested that what the libraries need to do is drop the name “Library” and replace it with “Book Stadium”.

    Think of the possibilities. As part of the U stadium finance plan, the University is charging each of its students $25 per year, whether they like football or not. (Whether or not you appreciate the irony that real students are being charged to pay for the playground of the pseudo students hired by the university to play football, you have to admire the University’s boldness in charging impoverished students 25 bucks on top of the rampant tuition increases and large increase to President Bruinink’s salary.) It’s also ironic that the Friends of the Minneapolis Library is currently running a campaign to raise funds to buy books for the Minneapolis Library that the city of Minneapolis seems unable to fund. The cost to buy a book for the whole city? $25 per book, and that includes a Friends membership.

    Think of a similar program at the U. There will be about 51,000 students contributing to the stadium. That’s $1.275 million per year going to pay off the stadium–money that could be buying 51,000 books for a library, or making up the shortfall that Minneapolis needs to keep the three libraries open that are facing closing–and that’s just this year.

    Thanks to some wise Hennepin County Commissioners, a tiny amount of the money from the sales tax which will fund the Twins stadium will be coming to Minneapolis and Hennepin County libraries. Here’s some more irony. The citizens of Minneapolis voted to tax themselves $125 million to build the new library and renovate the community libraries, but didn’t get to vote on whether they’d be taxed about $500 million to build the Twins stadium and, by the way, throw a small bone to the libraries.

    Then there’s the Target Center, for which the city had to pony up a couple of million this year to cover operating losses so we’d have a spot to not watch NBA games in increasing numbers. When that expenditure was questioned by an executive of the Friends of the Library, a certain city council member nearly blew a gasket.

    So, in the past year, we’ve been able to commit to three quarters of a billion dollars from various sources to build a couple of stadiums and a couple of million more from the city to keep one open that we should have never bought. The smart money says there will be a new Vikings stadium in our future soon, too. God knows what that will cost, but any conservative estimate is that it will be about thirty times the annual operating budget of the Minneapolis Library system.

    I’m beginning to agree we indeed have gone about the funding of the libraries in the totally wrong way. “The (Insert Corporate Naming Rights Purchaser Here) Book Stadium” has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?

    Addenda: More on this today at MNspeak and the Strib edit page, and Nick Coleman’s column.

  • Attempting to Fly While Muslim

    I had a hard time deciding whether to write about the “Imam Incident” or the “Bleskachek Blunder“. They both offer up the easy target of political correctness run amok. Everyone’s upset about Muslims being put off the plane, and everyone should be upset about Mayor Rybak appointing someone to a top city job who would have been disqualified if even a cursory investigation had been done.

    Ok, one crack before moving on to the main event: If Bleskachek is magnanimously offering to take a demotion after costing the city hundreds of thousands of dollars because of her misconduct–a demotion to the same rank she had when she sexually harassed and discriminated against her subordinates, with all back pay and her lawyer’s fees covered–can we ask the same of the person who appointed her?

    But, the Imam idiocy gets my attention, if only because it has garnered national publicity. You might put me down as a right wing crank after reading this, but those Imams would have been put off my plane, too. If a story in the Washington Times is to be believed, these guys were intentionally acting to fit the profile of a hijacker. To wit:

    It was an Arabic speaker who helped bring them to the attention of the crew. Presumably the Arabic speaker was not prejudiced against Muslims, yet knew what was being said.

    Three of them requested unneeded seat belt extenders, to draw attention to themselves, yet did not use them. Seat belt extenders can be used as weapons.

    They sat in other than their assigned seats spread through the plane, to draw attention to themselves, and also, as noted in the story, to cover exits.

    They did this in an airport in the constituency of the only Muslim congressman-elect.

    These guys were obviously trolling for an incident. They got it, and they deserved what they got, which was the inconvenience of having to take a later flight, something I have had to do on occasion, including the last time I flew from New York, because the TSA had a problem with my wife’s nail polish remover in her carry-on.

    If they were actually trying to hijack the plane, they would have tried, presumably, to remain as inconspicuous as possible. They were trying to either set up big publicity or a lawsuit against the airline. They got the first, and does anyone doubt the second will follow soon?

    Thousands of Muslims fly every day in this country without incident. These guys could have done so, too, if they’d wanted to.

  • A Thanksgiving Turkey

    Five years ago, when we looked at the Twin Cities publication scene, one of the things that struck us was the editor’s column in the front of the various mags. Almost without exception, each month’s installment would feature a list of all the cool things they’d done that month. There was the businessperson they’d lunched with. There was the trip with the wife. There was an inventory of stuff they’d bought from their advertisers.

    At The Rake, we were determined to differentiate ourselves. Our columns would be thoughtful, significant. We would talk about intellectual issues, not about the society folk we ran into that month. We’d write essays, not snippets.

    Sorry, but to hell with that. It’s two weeks ’til Thanksgiving, I’ve got a lot to be thankful for, and you’re going to have to bear with me for the next six hundred words or so.

    First, though it may be trite to say so, I’m thankful for my parents. The best thing a parent can teach a child is right and wrong, and I can imagine no better teachers than my parents. My dad sold insurance—still does, in fact, at age 84. Every morning, he got up, got dressed, had a glass of water for breakfast, and was at his office before 7. He never avoided a household task and openly enjoyed hands-on projects such as refinishing the basement, building furniture, and rewiring lamps. When I was interested in something, he’d teach me, but he didn’t force it on me if I wasn’t. Although he was a decorated veteran of World War II, he taught me that all reasonable people should hate war.

    My mother is Motherhood personified. She made sure the clothes were clean, the lawn got mowed, our homework was done, and we got to the dentist. She kept in touch with the family as it dispersed and still writes letters, by hand, every week. All family members get cards on their birthday, anniversary, Valentine’s Day—you name it. Mom also made sure we got to church, which for three boys seemed like punishment for all the fighting she’d had to put up with during the week. But the church, too, was instructive. There was no dogma. Every week we were read the epistles and the gospel, and those were followed by a short explanation from the priest. It wasn’t an oppressive religion; it was sort of like dinner at our house. Mom never made us eat all our vegetables, and she never made us swallow the church whole, either.

    I won’t bore you further with all I’ve learned from my wife and partner and my two perfect children other than to say they never let me get away with anything, yet always prick my balloon with humor rather than the pique I’m sure they often feel.

    I’m particularly thankful this week that I was born in the United States. Whatever your politics, most Americans respect the process and recognize the great gift of free speech and free press that—ideally, at least—informs our debates and ensures the good sense of Americans eventually wins out. The best news of the recent election is not that one side won and the other lost; it’s that the politics of fear and suspicions of other Americans has been pushed back, at least for now.

    I’m thankful I get to work in an industry where no government inspector can tell us what to do. I’m grateful that this industry is best represented by the reporters who are relentless in their search for true stories, despite their constriction by some corporate editors. Please don’t be discouraged, friends.

    Finally, there are all the friends we’ve made over the last five years of publishing The Rake. The subjects of our stories, our clients, our freelance writers, and our readers have supported what we’re trying to do beyond all of our expectations.

    Our staff makes it easy to come to work. Everyone puts his or her best effort into this magazine every day. They work very long hours. They suffer criticism of an impatient boss who doesn’t always think before he opens his mouth. But most of all, they laugh. This office is loud with laughter at least a couple of times every day. Sometimes I have to close my office door to drown it out. But mostly, I revel in it.

    Thanks for reading The Rake. Next month, we’ll be back to our regularly scheduled lineup of sarcasm.

  • On Her Majesty’s Secret Service

    The best news the fans of James Bond books could have heard last year was that Paul Haggis was working on the screenplay for Casino Royale, and that this movie would stick closely to Ian Fleming’s book. Haggis, the writer of Crash and Flags of Our Fathers, teamed up with writers of the last few Bond-taculars to restore some intelligence to what had become a franchise sustained only by a spectacular chase, followed by a fight, followed by an explosion, followed by sex. Repeat as necessary.

    Casino Royale, the first of Fleming’s books, is the purest distillation of Bond. There is a mission. There is a card game. Bond is tortured. He gets the girl, sort of. There is only one audible gun shot, and it’s not even fired by Bond. News that the screenplay was going to stick to the basic plot, and would contain at least some of the nuance of the book, was welcome indeed. (Those who go to Bond movies for the action need not worry, though. The mission setup, which was handled in the book by a conversation in M’s office, features in the film the best Bond chase ever, a couple of explosions, and lots of gunfire. Oh yeah, there’s a woman, too. But once the movie’s financiers have been satisfied, you get some actual Fleming-brand Bond.)

    The Bond literary phenomenon was characterized early on as a mere combination of “sex, sadism, and snobbery.” Those elements are all there, to be sure, but reducing them to the three-“S” formula grossly underestimates Fleming. In 1953, the year Casino Royale appeared, Elizabeth II was crowned monarch of a country that was little better than a vassal state of the United States and an irrelevant player in the battle between its liege and the Soviet Union. Neither power paid much attention to the country that had put on such a poor show in Europe and Asia during World War II, had lost its empire, and had sunk into economic despair.

    But Fleming, a former intelligence officer, knew that intelligence was where Britain actually had made a difference in the war. The Brits were the master German code breakers, after all. Where could a badly needed hero emerge? How could relevance be restored? Only one man for the job, really. Bond. James Bond.

    The plot of Casino Royale is simple, plausible and eschews the grandiose evil schemes that pepper the later books. Le Chiffre is the banker for the Russian spy operation in Western Europe. He’s been embezzling from his employers, and has set himself up at a high stakes Baccarat game in order to replenish the payroll account before the ruthless Russians find out. Somehow the Brits have learned about this before the Russians; they send Bond, the best card player in the service, to bust him at the table. Bond’s not quite as good as all that, however (and Baccarat is a much more difficult game than the Texas Hold ’em of the movie,) and he’s the one who is busted instead. The CIA, which also seems to be way ahead of the Russians, steps in and bankrolls Bond and the poor British, and Bond eventually triumphs on the second go round. (The film version makes a point of rubbing in the Brits’ poverty when Bond asks Felix Leiter, his CIA counterpart, where to send the winnings; the reply: “Do we look like we need it?”)

    Eventually, Bond is tortured by Le Chiffre for the money and, ironically, it is the Russians, who’ve finally realized what MI-6 and the CIA have known for quite a while, who rescue him. After his recovery from the torture, Bond suffers the further indignity of being double-crossed yet again—which adds a subtlety to the plot (thankfully preserved in the movie) that appears far too rarely in subsequent books, and almost never in the films.

    To give away the twist would spoil the movie … and the book. In the book, the twist is the end, and Bond’s discovery of it leads him to the realization that the real game was always being played at one level above his pay grade. It seems that that ending didn’t sit well with test audiences of the film, however, and so we’re made to suffer an unnecessary coda which leaves us with Bond thinking he can actually do something meaningful … and, by the way, sets up the next movie.

    The Fleming books are infinitely darker than the movie franchise. The best of the books build on Bond’s despondence first seen at the end of Casino Royale. In the books there is none of the quipping made famous by Sean Connery or Roger Moore (but plenty of the anomie of Timothy Dalton—the best film Bond.) We do get the occasional gourmet meal featuring caviar and champagne, but far more often, Bond satisfies himself with, believe it or not, scrambled eggs. These are often washed down not with a shaken martini or a bottle of Bollinger ’53, but with the better part of a bottle of bourbon and too many cigarettes. Bond is, in reality, a drunk. The infrequent feasts and frequent hangovers are his reward for what he knows is a lousy life—a life in which he gets many more brutal beatings from his enemies than lusty scenes with his leading ladies.

    The Bond of Fleming’s books can be as brutish as his enemies. When he meets Vesper Lynd, his beautiful fellow agent in Casino Royale, she gazes at him “with a touch of ironical disinterest which, to his annoyance, he found he would like to shatter, roughly.” When they finally do make love, Bond knew “that the conquest of her body, because of the central privacy in her, would each time have the sweet tang of rape.” When it comes to the women of the Secret Service, we’re treated to the contents of their personnel files, including bust, waist, and hip measurements. They all seem to be built like Marilyn Monroe. It’s not surprising that President Kennedy was a fan of the books. Today, we can’t help but wonder if M’s personnel file would contain Judy Dench’s vital statistics.

    But, as Bond goes about making it with a series of women, the reader realizes the only ones that he is able to form any sort of emotional attachment with are somehow terribly damaged, or are out to damage him. There are no happy endings to the books, none of the typical culminating scenes in the movies, where Bond and the girl float away in a tropical island embrace. When there is sex, it’s brutal and impersonal. When there is love, it always turns out badly, more so for the women than Bond. And while one trademark of the movies is their highly suggestive scenes, there are no prurient interludes in the Fleming books. It’s almost as if he were denying his readers the same genuine satisfaction he was denying Bond.

    The best intercourse of the Fleming books is that between Bond and his adversaries. The Baccarat match with Le Chiffre in Casino Royale, the bridge game with Hugo Drax in Moonraker, and the golf with Auric Goldfinger are all more visceral than any feminine interplay. His victories in these encounters are far more satisfying to Bond than his eventual destruction of their evil plots or the bedding of the converted vixen.

    In the last novel Fleming finished before his death, You Only Live Twice, Bond is called “a blunt instrument of policy,” words repeated by M in the film of Casino Royale. By You Only Live Twice, Bond is nothing more than that blunt instrument, and an unrepentant guzzler of sake besides. He’s sent by M to Japan as an expendable commodity offered to the Japanese secret service in return for Russian intelligence that they’d been previously providing only to the CIA, and which the CIA would not share with the British. In addition to the personal service he’s to provide, he also has to listen to a lecture from the head of the Japanese service about why the British are irrelevant.

    The Japanese send him to assassinate a prominent botanist, who has constructed an elaborate poison garden to lure the suicide-prone Japanese to their deaths. Unknown to the Japanese, the British, and Americans, this botanist turns out to be none other than Ernst Stavro Blofeld, the villain of Thunderball and the murderer of Bond’s only true love in On His Majesty’s Secret Service. But by now, like Bond, who no longer gives a damn about Queen and Country, Blofeld also no longer cares about SPECTRE’s avowed purposes: terrorism, revenge, and extortion. Blofeld’s designed his death garden for the pleasure of watching the Japanese annihilate themselves one at a time. It’s a metaphorical mirror held up to Bond’s entire world.

    Bond kills Blofeld in You Only Live Twice, but, in the process, loses his identity and his memory—he even forgets how to make love to a woman. Only at that point does this genuinely unlikable “blunt instrument” finally become a sympathetic character.

    At the end of an earlier book, Diamonds are Forever, Bond muses about trying to write his own epitaph. He comes up with “It reads better than it lives.” That’s exactly what Fleming was trying to tell us all along.

  • Point, Counterpoint

    Steve Brandt, the Strib reporter whom I criticized yesterday, has posted a response to that blog and another comment I made at e-democracy. (The rules of the e-democracy forum prohibit me from making a response because I’ve hit my daily post limit already due to my own stupidity. The daily post limit is two, btw.)

    So here is Brandt’s response to me:

    Those who followed Tom Bartel’s link to The Rake might have been better served had Bartel gotten his facts straight. He suggests that he ought to be hired by the Star Tribune to cover schools (my beat) because he was able to speak to Chris Stewart on Monday. That’s great, but I wasn’t trying to reach Stewart on Monday. Another reporter was. That’s because this began as a 5th District campaign issue. I cover schools. I did try to reach Stewart on Tuesday night as returns came in, for normal campaign coverage. He didn’t return my call, nor that of the reporter who originally tried to reach him. I got someone else’s mess dumped in my lap after the election.

    As for why no story was printed out of the Lee press conference for the election-day paper on the basis of one candidate’s assertion, the Star Tribune is very cautious about printing last-minute charges without a response from the target. That’s something that differentiates the MSM from blogs. Some people like to throw up anything and see if it sticks. If that’s your threshold for reporting, fine. But for all the Star Tribune’s faults, that’s not our M.O.

    Steve Brandt
    Star Tribune
    Not The Rake

    And here is mine to him:

    I notice that Brandt didn’t deny anything I said in my blog, except that he hadn’t made the original call to Stewart. Here’s what the story Steve Brandt wrote said: “Stewart didn’t return calls until after his election.” Please forgive my inference that Brandt had made the calls related to a story that Brandt wrote.

    However, the substance of my post was that Brandt, or whoever makes his calls for him, blithely accepted Stewart’s “explanation” of the site. He didn’t question why Stewart had published it under a pseudonym, or why he’d linked to KKK and Nazi sites, or why, when Lee first confronted him, he posted a response along the lines of “Thanks, Tammy for making us famous,” or any of the other questions I suggested. Finally, he never asked (or at least didn’t print the reponse to) the question of why Stewart refused to return calls until after the election.

    The answer to that last one, though, Brandt does supply himself. It’s because Stewart well knew that the meek Star Tribune reporters wouldn’t actually do any digging, or threaten to print the truth without his comment, and that Stewart would be safe from widespread bad publicity until after the election. Hey, Steve, papers print things all the time like: “Stewart refused to return repeated calls for comment.”

    That’s part of the story–that Stewart was stonewalling admitting his involvement, wasn’t it?

    Brandt calls this caution. I call it sloth or cowardice. Take your pick. If that’s the Strib’s M.O., you can have it.

    Tom Bartel
    The Rake
    Not the Star Tribune