urbanMSP

I recall a disclosure about the paper's land value in pretty much every story on the subject, no?

No. I recall reading several that made no mention or did so in an extremely weak and sneaky manner. They let their boosterism creep way outside the editorials and completely take over how they framed the story and issues. All these 'surprises' about what a terrible deal it was for the people of Minneapolis and the state in general would have come to light with just the tiniest bit of actual investigative journalism or due diligence. But they didn't do any of it because they wanted to get paid. I hope the Vikings money sustains them for a while because I'm not alone in my scorn for them.

They only included the disclosure in their many pro-stadium editorials, never in their news articles on the subject.

Local business is business, news at 11.

They only included the disclosure in their many pro-stadium editorials, never in their news articles on the subject.

That's just not true.

Ok, care to provide an example?

I did a quick search, but my results turned up so many results as to be completely unhelpful. You'll have to take my word for it. Or not, your choice.

Their editorial side was ridic, picking stadium yes votes or their annointeds over endorsing the obvious to-be-winners Bender and A. Johnson.

But even their news side was a little sketch during this era. I also cannot find any meaningful historical record as there are too many articles coming up in searches. But I remember the Strib definitely playing dumb to the value of their property (which was bundled for use with the publicly subsidized MSFA ramp) and the stadium (which provided the MSFA ramp). Keep in mind, two sales ago, the Star Tribune's entire value as a company was roughly equal to the entire value of their real estate holdings.

Local business is business, news at 11.

Yes, they are a business. But journalism is also a profession with a duty the the public. So when they advocate for a bad deal for the public out of narrow financial self interest, they deserve to be criticized for marring their profession.

Sort of like a doctor who prescribes a drug not because it's best for their patient, but because they are on the drugmakers payroll. Being in it to make money does not relieve the doctor of professional responsibility.

I noticed early on their policy was to include disclaimers on editorials but not news articles. I recall this pattern was consistent. It shouldn't be hard to link to one news article with a disclaimer to prove I was wrong about "never". Though I'm sure you have better things to do.

Here's one.
http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis- ... 121518294/

The Star Tribune owns five blocks near the Dome that could be involved in a stadium deal. In 2007, the Vikings struck a tentative $45 million deal for that property but withdrew, citing turmoil in credit markets.

Ok, I stand corrected. On this issue of which stadium location they did disclose their self interest.

It’s not terribly difficult to use Google to more easily find articles (it’ll still be pretty overwhelming given the coverage it got).

Search: “startribune.com vikings stadium” and then refining by date range can give you a pretty good look at the coverage.

One such example of their disclaimer: http://www.startribune.com/dayton-to-vi ... 137938123/

There seems to be a split between coverage that involves the land sale and stories that took place after that. Not that it can’t raise some interesting questions.

I'm used to seeing things like "full disclosure: here's our financial interest in the topic at hand."

They just kind of snuck it in like it was another line in the story. And again, pretty inconsistently. It did not give the impression of being on the up and up about things.

Disclosure really would only be required in relation to the dome site during the planning process. Does an article about an improved scoreboard or lactation stations require one? Remember when Ramsey County had a foolproof Stadium plan in TCAAP? How about coverage regarding stadium financing at the legislature, which went on for the better part of 6 years? It's not a conspiracy folks. Feverish boosterism came from your friendly elected officials, i.e. Rybak, Dayton, & Opat, and even they couldn't decide on a stadium site between them.

I'm used to seeing things like "full disclosure: here's our financial interest in the topic at hand."

They just kind of snuck it in like it was another line in the story. And again, pretty inconsistently. It did not give the impression of being on the up and up about things.

Media outlets all have a different way of disclosing material. There’s no need for “Full disclosure: This is our land we’re talking about.” What the Strib did is pretty much SOP.

Looking back at the archives, it’s pretty obvious that disclosure varied by which journalist was writing the story up. Eric Roper, for instance, seems to have done a much better job than others (perhaps in part because he seems to have written about how the stadium with proceeding with the City Council and such).

It's also worth noting that the Star Tribune's newsroom, editorial department, and business side are officially separate entities. The editorials were in favor of the stadium, but I'd be curious to see news articles that could be considered "cheerleading." The Metrodome location was selected because it was the cheapest/most feasible site in Minneapolis, and I kind of doubt the Star Tribune covering the process affected that very much.

The Strib also has a long history of being a booster for Downtown Minneapolis in general, and for siting important regional amenities in central locations, so it's really pretty difficult to say that the only reason that they supported that location (from an editorial standpoint) was just because they stood to cash in on the land sale.

I'm less worried about the nuances of the disclosure than about the dishonest way they framed stories about the public financing deal and did little to no due diligence on the details of it. They used loaded language when reporting on it and conveniently glossed over criticisms and opposition. It was blatantly obvious where they stood on it if you had any alternate sources of information. You could chalk it up to lazy reporting, but to me it seems a bit more insidious given their profit motive.

Also a real booster for downtown would have complained about how bad many aspects of the deal were for the city (like the park) even if they did support the overall plan.

MinnPost on the Strib's ad-blocking experiment:

http://www.minnpost.com/media/2015/10/s ... ong-battle