Hat tip to Politics in Minnesota’s Sarah Janecek for today’s media scoop: Pat Lopez, the paper’s chief political correspondent, will take over Doug Tice’s old job as politics/government editor. Tice moved to the editorial page staff last month.
According to Janecek, “The rest of the top-notch political coverage team remains: Kevin Diaz and intern Eric Roper in Washington, and Mark Brunswick, Kevin Duchschere, Pat Doyle and Mike Kaszuba.”
Strib managing editor Rene Sanchez says Lopez’s slot will be filled, meaning the political team won’t shrink. The newest posting says applicants can be internal or external. Given journalism carnage nationwide, even a bankrupt paper should be flooded with applicants.
Lopez’s ascension — which occurred the same day the Supreme Court released its recount verdict — comes at an opportune time. While the political crew is understandably exhausted after a seemingly endless election season, the paper has some repositioning to do as 2010 approaches.
Sanchez and Lopez say they plan to further emphasize original reporting. You often hear that these days, but it’s the right way to go. The Strib can’t be the paper of record anymore, and shouldn’t even try. It will be a good sign if we see more wire service pieces in the Strib about workaday Capitol happenings — as long as that frees the staff to unearth unique facts.
While it is secondary to great reportage, the Strib’s virtual absence from the social-media conversation is also holding its staff back.
MPR and the Pioneer Press have only helped their public profile via the tart (yet apolitical) blogging of Tom Scheck, Bob Collins and Rachel Stassen-Berger. Believe me, I understand the horror of dumping blogging on an already-scrambling reporter, but journalism’s goal is to tell people what things mean, and a well-constructed social-media presence can be one of the most efficient ways to do that.
It’s a cliche that news is becoming more of a conversation, but it’s also true, and the Strib should be able to walk (report) and chew gum (explain, provoke, discuss). And it needs to show its favorite pudding flavor isn’t tapicoa.
Heck, take the tartest tweets or posts as the foundation of a brisk Sunday roundup — the Strib hasn’t had one of those in years. With news columnists de-emphasizing politics, it’s even more needed, even if ideology must be eschewed.
While we’re at it, the Strib needs to blow up some long-teetering efforts.
Begin with the Big Question, which was a draw when Eric Black and Tice were batting large ideas back and forth. Both chin-strokers are gone from the newsroom, and BQ has become a zombie, occasionally staggering to life when a staffer dumps in a random post. The questions are no longer big, and time has fatally weakened the brand. Shoot it in the head. Now.
Likewise, Politically Connected — a branding exercise in advance of the 2008 campaign — hasn’t become a real go-to destination. However the Strib chooses to corral its online political coverage (I’m no visionary here), it needs to give it more verve, imagination and identity. Personality does not compromise great reporting; knowing some of these reporters behind-the-scenes, I’d love to see that reflected.
I know partisans will want me to scream louder that the Strib should call b.s. on the other side, but I guess my honest explanation is that I don’t mind neutrality-worshipping fact gatherers in our increasingly opinionated midst.
Unlike Tice, who came from conservative column-writing, Lopez’s politics are traditionally opaque; though she votes, she won’t even tell her kids which arrows she connects.
I’m a cards-on-the-table guy who never wanted to spend the energy hiding my opinions, but there are unquestionably strategic advantages in guarding your hand. It doesn’t mean a great reporter can’t speak plainly, or engage with the audience (the non-frothing segmment, anyway) to the benefit of both. That’s the person I’d hire.
Encouragingly, Lopez says she plans to “re-evaluate all these things to see what’s the most effective.” With a governor’s race, unallotment’s real-world impacts and a Pawlenty presidential bid lurking right around the corner, it’s never been more necessary.
I’m not sure I understand what your purpose for this space is. You only write about what is happening at the Star Tribune? How many of your readers really care about that? I sure as heck don’t.
Larry, if you don’t care about the Strib, why did you read this piece then? Doesn’t the headline give you enough of a clue?
If her kids are in doubt as to Mom’s political preference, they must be among those growing young ones who never read a newspaper. Lopez is a card-carrying member of the lunatic left. She is quick to promote DFL talking points in her articles.
For example, a simple but excellent way to determine bias among reporters covering the Minnesota legislature is to note how they use prejudicial and pejorative words such as tax relief and tax breaks.
When Star-Tribune reporters write about tax reduction legislation they favor that action is referred to as “tax relief.” Conversely, tax reduction they oppose is invariably labeled as “tax breaks.”
Lopez achieved the “Daily Double” in an April 24, 2007 story writing that a tax bill promoted by DFLers would provide “tax relief.” Predictably, later in the article, Lopez described provisions giving tax reductions to companies as “tax breaks.”
If you know what to look for, the bias of reporters such as Lopez is very clear and predictable.
“If you know what to look for, the bias of reporters such as Lopez is very clear and predictable.”
Same can be said for flaks like Krauthammer, Will, O’Reilly and Hannity.
lopez
she worked hard from her beginnings. When she was a reporter in California she went under Patricia Manisco
The former “Patricia Baden Lopez”? That triple decker byline was an early tipoff on her political “slant”.
Jeff Michaels is right on.
John Olson apparently does not know the difference between what is generally expected from a (supposedly unbiased) journalist / reporter and an opinion columnist or television host.
>The former “Patricia Baden Lopez”? That triple decker byline was an early tipoff on her political “slant”.
Huh? what does that mean? Do you know her? Do you know anything about her personal life? How is her byline a clue to political bias? What doed BD stand for, anyway?
Brian – you didn’t even get the byline right. Please don’t embarrass yourself further.
Just sayin’, maybe you should examine the “perception / reality” aspect of the elongated byline, vis a vis the liberal bias that has contributed to the paper’s “challenges”.
Lord knows you eagerly examine more arcane Strib issues.
I can’t think of ANY other media where the names are elongated, then changed, with such regularity.
Why is that?
Note to John Olson regarding your email in which you wrote:
“If you know what to look for, the bias of reporters such as Lopez is clear and predictable.” “Same can be said for flaks like Krauthammer, Will, O’Reilly and Hannity.”
Krauthammer, Hannity, etc. are columnists and commentators. Their bias is well known and accepted, as is that, for example, of former N.Y. Times reporter and now archliberal columnist Maureen Dowd. The significance is that Lopez purports to be an unbiased reporter. She is not.
Writers for the StarTrib, such as Lopez, quickly adopt the giveaway words: conservatives are labeled “conservative.” Liberal are “activists or advocates” and left-wing organizations are routinely identified as non-profits. (Name the last conservative group labeled in the Star-Trib as a non-profit.)
Judicial decisions favored by liberals are “landmark or historic.” Court decisions the StarTrib’s liberal editors and reporters disagree with are “controversial.”
Laws that liberals don’t like are “restrictive” as in abortion. Laws regarding the things they would like to control are to be “strengthened” as in gun control laws.
Also intriguing is who, in the eyes of the newspaper’s reporters, receive “taxpayer” money (that would be businesses) as opposed to those who get their money from the government (that would arts groups and social service organizations.) It is, of course, all taxpayer money.
John, there are numerous clues in anybody’s writing about their political philosophy. I am sure you, as a liberal, could quickly identify the bias of a conservative-leaning reporter in the StarTrib should the newspaper ever hire one.
Brian – you have to be kidding.
There’s a long tradition of female journalists keeping their maiden names in their bylines, at least during a transitional phase so readers know they haven’t left. Since men don’t change their names, this isn’t a decision they’re forced to make – or a brickbat they have to be exposed to.
And of course if a woman does change her name, and there’s a divorce, she has to make a decision all over again — especially if, as you insist, the only way they can appear unbiased is to always change their name.
Truly, this is Bizarro World. And even to get there, you have to go from that to the idea that if you don’t instantly change your name, to, “you’re a feminist and therefore you’re liberal and therefore your reporting is biased.”
It just strains credulity. I like details but will leave the wacky theories to the Art Bell crowd. Enough trolling for now.
I’ll leave it to John Edwards’ response.