The Strib jumps in the Coleman-donor lawsuit pool

Not to mix water metaphors, but the floodgates are now open.

Tomorrow’s question: What kind of play does the Strib give this, especially compared to the Coleman campaign’s unfair-campaign practices lawsuit today.

(Idle question: was the Coleman campaign’s suit a pre-emptive shot to split coverage, knowing the donor-dough-funneling suit was coming?)

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (1)

  1. Submitted by Lynnell Mickelsen on 10/30/2008 - 11:52 pm.

    Love your blog, David!

    I noticed that Norm’s spokesman called the charges “vicious and defamatory”, which isn’t the same thing as a denial. The charges are indeed vicious—although I think “serious” is the better adjective. And the charges certainly defame Norm’s reputation. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t true. It’s one of those great non-denial denials.

    To answer your questions:

    1)I’m betting this story will appear buried/hidden/downplayed somewhere inside the Metro section.

    2) I think Norm’s lawsuit against the Franken was indeed a pre-emptive shot and an attempted diversion. That way he could also play down the soon-to-break story about the funneled dough to Mrs. Coleman as simply a tit-for-tat sort of thing. And if history is any guide, reporters decide to act very Broderesque, bi-partisan and above the fray, by saying stuff like “both sides are accusing each other of scandals in the closing days of the campaign.” It’s the old false equivalencies garbage that could allow the press to ignore the fact that the charges against Norm are far more serious. He could be looking at jail time.

    I hope I’m wrong and the Strib, Pi-Press, MPR, WCCO and others treat this story with the seriousness it deserves. But alas, we’ve seen this movie before.

Leave a Reply