Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

First of all, you're right about Lileks, and about the myopia of the Star Tribune. It's a shame that they can't see talent when it's staring them in the face (albeit it while that talent is standing on a few phone books... Lileks isn't the tallest bloke on the block).

That said, there's a missing closing italics somewhere in your block quote from Lileks, and it's made the entire rest of your page into italics on IE.

Posted by John Breen III at May 7, 2007 06:17 AM

So sorry to hear that, and best wishes to you. MSM tends to think "Tech" reporting is all about the internet (and its effect on the MSM) instead of other sciences like spaceflight. We can also wonder why nearly every paper has a column on astrology and none on astronomy. In the future you will make a far greater impact writing ON the internet.

Posted by L Riofrio at May 7, 2007 09:17 AM

Yeah, the Star-Trib mgmt are idiots, since Lileks is a hugely valuable asset. But they are also so stupid that they don't even know how to screw him over in this day and age, and the ultimate outcome of their actions will be greatly to Lileks's benefit. Look at how they're handling it. If they were smart they would do something like quietly reduce his column's publication frequency. (If they were really smart they would give him a raise and coopt his blog, but that's a different issue.) Instead they are following the example of numerous stupid lawyers and doing the equivalent of sending a bullying C&D letter. Now everyone with a blog who likes Lileks is outraged and is vigorously publicizing his availability. No corporate headhunter could do a better job of marketing a client than the Star-Trib is doing for Lileks. He will probably end up with a better gig in short order.

Posted by Jonathan at May 7, 2007 10:04 AM

Sometimes, you just have to shake your head and wonder what they were thinking. I saw the same thing here with Jerry Bledsoe, a gifted writer, but prickly personality. The local paper let him go and replaced him with some woman columnist who is as bland as can be (although she seems to have all the right political inclinations). Jerry Bledsoe started his own book imprint and has been publishing for years. The newspaper, meanwhile, has continued its descent into irrelevancy, its editorial page a pale echo of The New York Times. I know the name of the game is to work out in the farm leagues for a few years, make the proper "politically correct" noises, have the correct degrees from the correct universities, and then get that coveted place on the staff or editorial page of The New York Times or The Washington Post. That is the way that it has always been done. Now, with revenues plummeting and staff cuts an inevitability, they seem to have gone insane. Lileks is that rarest of newspaper people, an interesting person with opinions and insights that we want to hear -- or read. He should be syndicated all over the country. Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. Obviously, they put Lileks into a demeaning position where he would be forced to quit, and they could not be blamed for firing him. Someone should hire him -- quick.

Posted by jmcnulty at May 7, 2007 10:24 AM

A click to the Star-Trib Reader Rep page brings up a time stamp of May 5th, 2007 (I just clicked at 12:42pm CDT 5/7/2007). Apparently, the old rag is indeed old.

I think NRO and Townhall should be giving Lilek a call quickly.

I do suspect his transfer was intended to convince him to move on. I have a hard time fighting for him, because the Star-Trib is a lost cause that he should distance himself from. However, I understand the desire to work at home or at least close to home. With his talent, he should land on his feet.

Posted by Leland at May 7, 2007 11:18 AM

I posted on topic at www.scsuscholars.com. A commenter suggested just letting the Star Tribune die its slow death. Then, perhaps, some decent people can buy it for a song and make it into a real paper. Though the idea is sound, I don't know if I'll live long enough to see it happen.

What a pity, then again, the paper can't or won't or don't realize that they're dying. Talk about an echo chamber. Still, I'd prefer a paper rather than a screen with my coffee.

Posted by Janet at May 7, 2007 01:07 PM

Sometimes, you just have to shake your head and wonder what they were thinking. . . .

(Grins).

Seriously, now would be a good time to invest in Star Tribune anti-stock. Frankly any time is a good time.

Posted by jmcmcnulty at May 7, 2007 01:51 PM

Anyone else appreciate the irony of someone who spends a fair bit of time complaining about the MSM getting petulant about the MSM setting some conditions for his employment? I got the impression that the Star Tribune published a little humor column of Lileks' (which I read once or twice when at a CME thing in Rochester MN) the quality of which wasn't as good as what he put up for free on the web. But that's what paid the bills.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at May 7, 2007 02:19 PM

Anyone else appreciate the irony of someone who spends a fair bit of time complaining about the MSM getting petulant about the MSM setting some conditions for his employment?

No, Jane, so far, you're apparently the only one.

Care to think that comment through, and elaborate on it (or, if you're smart, just pretend you didn't write it)?

Because, yu no, duhhh...we are too dum to get it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 7, 2007 02:29 PM

Because, yu no, duhhh...we are too dum to get it.

Not everyone. I also like the guy but if his soy ink offerings weren't of much value to the S-T then they weren't. In JB's experience, they weren't.

Posted by D Anghelone at May 7, 2007 02:48 PM

Well, okay. I have a surgery in a few minutes but I'm happy to elaborate if you think it'd be useful or productive. Later this afternoon if you like.

I'm not sure where you're going with the snark - but I surely do not think anyone here is too unintelligent to appreciate my comment, nor do I think I was excessively elliptical. I apologize if I annoyed you in some way.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at May 7, 2007 02:51 PM

"the quality of which wasn't as good as what he put up for free on the web."

Lileks' Strib column was a) limited in word count by the Strib, b) passed through editors at the Strib, and c) required to adhere to certain themes depending on the day of the week (Life+Style, etc), again, by the Strib. If anything, his Strib column was "wasn't as good" as The Bleat because the Strib made it that way.

He put no less effort into his columns at the Strib or Newhouse than he put into his blog. In fact, he probably put MORE effort into his columns, since he was cramped for space and had deadlines. He approached the Strib a number of times about a blog, or about linking to his blog, but apparently they weren't having any of it. I guess that winning the 2006 Weblog Award for Best Individual Blog didn't count for anything in their eyes (not that it's a wholly unbiased award, but still a popular vote won it for him by a significant margin).

Bully for them. I, for one, am glad to see the blogoshpere and others (such as Dave Barry) rallying around Lileks in support. As the saying goes, when the chips are down, that's when you find out who your true friends are. I'm confident that, through it all, he will bounce back and get an even better gig than the one he had, doing something that he loves rather than dreads, and that he'll still be allowed to publish books on the side (speaking of which, I'm glad to know that his latest book is already off to the publishers... I can't imagine the amount of stress that a looming book deadline would put on someone whose job was lost less than 2 weeks after quitting another job).

Posted by John Breen III at May 7, 2007 03:07 PM

I surely do not think anyone here is too unintelligent to appreciate my comment, nor do I think I was excessively elliptical.

Well, I obviously am, Jane. I don't get it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 7, 2007 03:27 PM

Somewhat ironic that Lileks wasn't fired because of a Union, if that's true.

Posted by Offside at May 7, 2007 03:27 PM

I'll begin by saying that I greatly admire Mr. Lileks' skill as a writer, though I seldom agree with the political content of what he has to say (Frankly, Rand, I feel the same way about you). But the essence of:

I want to write on the Internet. ... It’s that simple, and it’s also a matter of recognizing my failings: I am not Biff Deadline, Ace Reporter. Writing straight news - clearly, simply, briskly - is a skill I lack, and I take off my hat to those who've mastered that discipline.

..is all well and good, although perhaps a little less complaining about mainstream media news coverage, whether in St Paul or Iraq, might be in order from one who has not yet mastered the discipline of writing straight news. We all have our various talents. So that's really the source of the petulance, to me: "I want to be paid for what I want to do, rather than what my employer wants me to do." Perhaps he can make a case, and good luck to him. I happen to agree with Lileks that the future of journalism is moving to the web, and I find, for example, Talking Points Memo a great example of the fusion of sourced traditional journalism with the speed and immediacy and flair of blogging. But Lileks' web presence (MUCH less than the Star Tribune's, by the way, if I read this graph correctly) is in significant degree subsidized by his newspaper job.

So that's the irony - a state of affairs that is contrary and incongruous to what one might expect. The MSM does a poor job of its core mission, apparently, but a fine one of signing Mr. Lileks' paychecks.

A good outcome here would be Lileks finding a way to leverage his web presence into a steady gig. If he can keep the pageviews coming, perhaps that'll work. Good for him if it does. I'll check him out every so often, as I do now.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at May 7, 2007 04:42 PM

Jane, your comments might be more pertinent if the Star-Trib weren't bleeding red ink.

As it is, it simply looks like more of the same idiocy that has resulted in that. There aren't enough people (like you?) who want to read the tripe that they produce, and when they have actual talent in their midst, they decide to do whatever is within their power to chase it off...

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 7, 2007 04:57 PM

Rand, it might also be the case that Lileks is not bringing in readers and traffic to the Star Tribune in sufficient degree to justify his salary. It's perfectly possible that it's a hardnosed business decision. It might be folly, but it's not obvious folly.

And I don't read the Star Tribune unless I happen to be in its circulation area and I need something to read over breakfast. Indeed that's about the only time I read a physical newspaper generally.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at May 7, 2007 05:12 PM

Let's see - they're putting their news analysts on the front lines to to fight TV, radio and Internet reporting? They are going to get slaughtered. This is a journalistic Maginot Line.

Physical newspapers are irrelevant for news. Good luck, suckers.

Posted by Frank at May 7, 2007 05:28 PM

Yes, Jane. Obviously they have a keen sense of what their readers want, and what they don't.

That would clearly explain why they're going out of business.

They're obviously in denial about this. My question is, why are intelligent people like you?

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 7, 2007 05:36 PM

Rand, entertaining an alternative hypothesis is hardly denial. And there's an expense-benefit calculation that the publisher at the Star Tribune has undoubtedly made - perhaps erroneously. I'm not sticking up for the paper, just saying that there may be a bit more to the decision than simply "they're idiots."

Posted by Jane Bernstein at May 7, 2007 05:44 PM

Rand, entertaining an alternative hypothesis is hardly denial.

Jane, you're not just entertaining it. You're offering an open bar, and free hookers, and denying entrance to anyone else.

What is your basis for thinking that this was a rational business decision? There's certainly zero evidence to support the hypothesis.

Other than your apparent wishful thinking, of course...

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 7, 2007 05:51 PM

This is most certainly a business decision. All metro columnists were assigned reporter roles. Not just Lileks. Apparently, other commentary folk in the rest of the newsroom are going to face the same fate.This is happening to newspapers all over America, not just the Star-Tribune.

Jane - newspaper editors have no clue, I know this first-hand. These same business decisions going on all over America are really, really stupid.

Posted by Frank at May 7, 2007 06:07 PM

Frank, thank you for a piece of corrorborating evidence that it was a business decision. Rand, there you go. I'd ask for similar evidence of your hypothesis ("they're just idiots") but I think your dismay at the all-but-sacking of a writer whom you admire has temporarily diluted your objectivity.

But not your pen. I did actually laugh out loud at the "open bar, etc" part of your comment. Very well done; I may have to borrow the line (maybe adding something about really mean bouncers at the door?) sometime.

But for the record:

1: When I throw a party it's always an open bar. It'd be unhotesslike of me to do otherwise.

2: The hookers are NEVER free. I have to get my cut, after all, and ten percent of nothing, let's see, carry the nothing... nope. Doesn't add up.

3. I actually like hanging out with smart people who disagree with me. Keeps me sharp - you all do me a favor, you know, and thanks.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at May 7, 2007 06:55 PM

Jane, how do you reconcile "...newspaper editors have no clue, I know this first-hand" with the notion that this somehow disputes my (paraphrased by you) claim that "they're just idiots." Just...you know... askin'.

Or are you saying that they're not idiots--they're just ignorant? If that's your only point, well...OK.

It doesn't really support the Lileks decision, though, or your defense of newspaper management, does it...?

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 7, 2007 07:11 PM

I agree with Jane. I rarely enjoyed Lilek's Trib material. Sure, the Trib editors had a lot to do with that, but why, if Lilek's is very disappointed with this, should Lilek, or anyone else who agrees with him, care about him being cut or demoted.

Is it an insult to Lilek? Yes. Will it hurt the Trib? Yes. If it will hurt the Trib more than Lilek, then why the outrage?

Lilek needs to move on. He has plenty of talent and obviously can edit and publish himself. He simply needs to make the next step to make it profitable enough for his lifestyle. As I said before, the NRO and Townhall should call him or Lilek call them.

Why waste rage on the Star-Tribune? If it fails, it will be sweet justice. If it succeeds without Lilek, then isn't the claims just a bit hyperbole. I really find it hard to believe that the Star-Tribune's subscribership is based primarily on Lilek fans.

Posted by Leland at May 7, 2007 07:14 PM

Rand, I meant this part of Frank's comment:

All metro columnists were assigned reporter roles. Not just Lileks.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at May 7, 2007 07:25 PM

All metro columnists were assigned reporter roles. Not just Lileks.

I don't understand how this excuses them. No one claimed that they singled out Lileks (though they may have indeed taken pleasure in lumping him in with the lesser lights, and hoped that he'd resign). The claim was that they are idiot managers of a newspaper, not making the best use of the resources at their disposal. So I guess I'm still missing your point.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 7, 2007 07:31 PM

So the Strib isn't singlng out Lileks. His bosses are still idiots for squandering his talents. And now he will get the opportunity to put those talents to work elsewhere.

Posted by Jonathan at May 7, 2007 08:05 PM

Good comments from all.

Most dailies are losing money and readers. Problem is, management is focused almost entirely on the former. I believe shifting attention the retaining readers would go much further in stopping the financial bledding than slashing staff.

A good columnist is a rare find. Anyone in this room think he or she could brainstorm five ways the Strib could've earned money through Lileks' popularity?

"Cut his salary" wouldn't be in my top 100.

Posted by Todd at May 8, 2007 03:35 AM

Interesting that the libertarian voices in this exchange have been those of Jane Bernstein and Leland.

Posted by D Anghelone at May 8, 2007 03:54 AM

Interesting that the libertarian voices in this exchange have been those of Jane Bernstein and Leland.

There's something "unlibertarian" about pointing out that the Star-Trib management are idiots? Who knew?

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 8, 2007 05:20 AM

There's something "unlibertarian" about pointing out that the Star-Trib management are idiots? Who knew?

That's not it, Rand. It's the all-knowing attitude. As Baruch might ask, "If you're so smart then why aren't you statist?"

Denouncing the Star-Tribune as opinion is one thing and declaring what should be their business decisions quite another.

I've never succumbed to the notion that libertarianism is limited to anti-statism.

Posted by D Anghelone at May 8, 2007 05:51 AM

There is nothing unlibertarian about judging others' competence, whether correctly or not. The notion that there is, is in fact absurd. It only becomes so when one goes a step further and says "there oughtta be a law."

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 8, 2007 05:59 AM

Surely 'it was a business decision' and 'they are idiots' are not mutually exclusive propositions?

Posted by Paul Dietz at May 8, 2007 11:15 AM

Surely 'it was a business decision' and 'they are idiots' are not mutually exclusive propositions?

Surely not. I don't recall anyone accusing me of not being a libertarian when I complained about GM's management running the company into the ground.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 8, 2007 11:19 AM

As a former columnist kicked downstairs to reporting, just a note to say this is a wonderful thread, and Jane's comments are especially interesting and insightful. While I agree that the Strib has blundered, it's also true that Mr. Lileks has no right to a column in their newspaper. That's a point worth making.

Still, it doesn't change the fact that Mr. Lileks is one of the best columnists going, and getting rid of him makes no sense at all...

Posted by Hiawatha Bray at May 8, 2007 11:21 AM

...Mr. Lileks has no right to a column in their newspaper.

Of course not. I hope that no one inferred from anything that I (or indeed anyone) wrote that we thought otherwise. In fact, if they'd demanded more from him, I think that would have been reasonable and smart, if all he was doing for them was really The Quirk, because that was definitely a sweet gig that couldn't last.

But the column dropping and reassignment sounds too much like punishment to me to call it purely a "business decision," unless by that you mean it was a "business decision" to get rid of a highly-paid columnist who the union wouldn't let them fire, or to save buyout money, by shipping him to Siberia and hoping that he'd quit. I can understand if they really had a need for local reporters, but when you add in the demand that he come in to work every day when he'd been doing just fine from home with occasional trips to the office, it starts to sound like pressure to get him to quit to me.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 8, 2007 11:35 AM

Oh, and Jane?

It'd be unhotesslike of me to do otherwise.

We know that you'd never do anything that was unhot.

Oh, and just to clarify upthread. My question was never whether or not it was a business decision. My question was about whether or not it was a "rational business decision." Of course, that depends on the premises, doesn't it. My (and many's) point is that it is a terrible decision from the standpoint of staunching the flow of subscription cancellations, if that was their goal. If their goal is to get rid of Lileks cheaply, well, then it may have been imminently rational.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 8, 2007 11:42 AM

I don't recall anyone accusing me of not being a libertarian...

To be more clear, I didn't accuse you of not being 'a libertarian.' You can't well be libertarian without being individual and you are surely that.

In this instance it was others who took that endearingly detached, philosophical view of the Lileks affair.

Posted by D Anghelone at May 8, 2007 01:42 PM

Ok, I can't resist....From the point of view of old-line newspaper people, what did Lileks offer? A humor column, most of whose readers are people who don't live in the area, and therefore don't support their advertisers. If I were Bob's St Paul Insurance agency, I wouldn't give a flip if people in Japan came to the Strib site to read the Quirk.....I would want more local people to read my ads and buy insurance from me. My guess is that the suits want to use his salary to hire two new local reporters....so they gave his a position they know will make him want to leave.

They are missing a golden opportunity. Turning him loose with a weekly paper-only (or subscription required for web-based) section on city history would be genius....and it would bring in local readers and build pride in the city. Two pages on Sunday, with pics and columns about neighborhoods and buildings would rock. And it could be turned into a book after a couple years.

But alas, it will not be. James needs to write about supper clubs until he finds something better or breaks out entirely on his own.

Posted by Fred Barnes at May 8, 2007 07:04 PM

Post a comment