Skip to Content

Hal Sanders

Minnepolis, MN
Commenter for
3 years 30 weeks

Recent Comments

Posted on 02/09/10 at 06:37 pm in response to Star Tribune's TPaw coverage gets feisty!

From Dictionary.Com

Bag man

1. A dishonest official; a person who collects, carries, or distributes illegal payoff money.

Posted on 02/09/10 at 04:08 pm in response to Star Tribune's TPaw coverage gets feisty!

By the way, Steven, I'm sure that you are aware that the item appears on StarTribune.com under "latest news."

Posted on 02/09/10 at 04:03 pm in response to Star Tribune's TPaw coverage gets feisty!

The reporter/blogger really ought to learn the meaning of "bagman" before she uses it. The term refers to an "illegal" transaction. There is nothing in the reporter/blogger's piece to back that up. If it was an "illegal" transaction, she should should have explained it -- or at least checked her dictionary or thesaurus.

Posted on 02/10/10 at 08:21 pm in response to The Star Tribune newsroom's 'Thank You' ad

Re #11-- Hi Steve: Good seeing your name again. John Addington passed away a few months ago. His funeral was quite a gathering of former and present STribbers. He came to the merged paper from the Tribune, not the Star. He was a great guy with whom to work.

Posted on 02/04/10 at 05:32 pm in response to Another questionable day for anonymous single-source sports stories

WCCO no longer has the presence whereby their "prominent" on-air personnel are widely known. The days of Boone, Erickson, etc., are long gone. Also your assertion about a tweeter maybe not representing his/her employer is balderdash. The tweeter, blogger, whatever would not even have access to the info he/she reports if not for his employment.

Posted on 02/04/10 at 03:09 pm in response to Another questionable day for anonymous single-source sports stories

Jason: "Clear?" You never mentioned it. However, I am not familiar with you since I have never seen nor read your blog. And in the spirit of transparency, I worked in the Star/Star-Tribune newsroom for 32 years. Back in the day, the paper had definitive rules on when anonymous sources were allowed. Assuming those policies are still in play, I do question why the same rules don't apply to tweets. After all, the tweeter is representing his/her employer when he/she tweets. (Oh, how I hate that...

Posted on 02/03/10 at 06:51 pm in response to Another questionable day for anonymous single-source sports stories

What a twit!! First Rosen announces his "scoop." When it proves to be baloney, he blames it on someone else. He's a real "class" act.

Posted on 01/19/10 at 12:55 pm in response to 'No comment'

However, the "no comment" is usually issued when a question is asked that has some existence in reality.

Reporters I've worked with rarely would ask a nonfact-based question when there is "zero evidence that anything's afoot." I didn't say saying no evidence exists is bad. It just showed the worthlessness of your question. Your attempt to show "context" shows there was no context.

Posted on 01/19/10 at 09:44 am in response to 'No comment'

Buried in your item, you said, "I have zero evidence that anything's afoot at this point,..."

Tell me then why Ben Taylor should waste time responding to you.

Posted on 01/07/10 at 08:04 pm in response to Media analyst Jeff Jarvis fears new Star Tribune publisher not innovative enough

Couldn't you find at least one person to talk to that doesn't have a personal vendetta against the guy as Jarvis does? This guy hasn't even talked to Klingensmith since he walked out in a snit 29 years ago.

Sometime, try writing about the Strib without your usual sneer/smirk.