urbanMSP

Strib is on my shit list since they somehow set me up with a second digital subscription when I got a new credit card. They sent the subscription that was attached to my old credit card to collections, that was fun. Assholes.

Can I just say that you all peeing your pants every time the Strib publishes an article that doesn't align with your worldview is kind of weird? I mean, the Tevlin bike lane story was one thing -- he's a columnist who's supposed to take a position. But the 'reduction of downtown parking' story was pretty much straight ahead factual reporting, and everybody responded like they had a massive axe to grind.

I think that would be a great argument the decision of a topic to do "straight ahead factual reporting" on wasn't itself a political act.

I'm.... not sure a significant number of people metaphorically peed their pants in response to that Strib post (or any other one)? Most people I know were bothered by the framing, which I disagree was 'straight ahead and factual' (more on that in a moment) but still subscribe to the Strib anyway. A literal handful of people commenting on a message board (rather than pointlessly slogging in the Strib's own comment section) isn't really enough to warrant that accusation IMO.

Anyway, I disagree that they framed it without a specific desired response. The article goes out of its way to interview tons of people "impacted" by the rise in costs - from people who work downtown, to people who live in a 100 year old apartment building and claim to be car-free themselves, to neighborhood orgs and business owners concerned. They managed to tie in Uptown's boom in residential development, which has almost nothing to do with downtown parking removal/prices, for some extra clickbaity zing. Yes, they interviewed Donald Shoup and David King for an academic line each on parking - both of which help sell the narrative that this is some ideologically-driven crusade by ivory tower elites and wishful green city electeds and staff (again, interviewing a member of the Planning Commission to back this up). Not one interview with car-free or car-lite commuters, people who switched from driving to biking or transit, regular Joess who like the development of surface lots into something much better (almost any way you can define 'better'). There also is the interesting angle that the *Strib itself* is an active (profiting) agent in the loss of cheap downtown street parking by selling its own land off for redevelopment - an angle that was curiously absent from the piece. And for all the factual reporting of reduction in parking spots, etc, the Strib chose not to include any numbers around bike/transit commuting share, number of bike lanes or bus routes the city/MT is rolling out, etc. So, I don't think the Strib has a particular axe to grind, more that this is one of many posts framed in a particular way to drive clicks (and at 325 comments online, they certainly seem to have done their job, which is fine).

But as EOst alludes to (or at least what I think he's getting at), asking for "straight ahead factual reporting" is itself a loaded term. Not to harp on the 2016 election TOO MUCH HERE, but reporters simply reporting what people say isn't really enough. Just one example.. it's not enough to just print some guy from Cottage Grove's suuuuper sad story about paying $1,500 a year to park when commuting by bus would take the same amount of time but hey he needs flexibility with kids... and then not even mention Metro Transit's guaranteed ride program.

I'm sure this whole rant registers a 9.5/10 on the MNdible Pee Pants Scale, but hey.

Exactly.

But as EOst alludes to (or at least what I think he's getting at), asking for "straight ahead factual reporting" is itself a loaded term. Not to harp on the 2016 election TOO MUCH HERE, but reporters simply reporting what people say isn't really enough. Just one example.. it's not enough to just print some guy from Cottage Grove's suuuuper sad story about paying $1,500 a year to park when commuting by bus would take the same amount of time but hey he needs flexibility with kids... and then not even mention Metro Transit's guaranteed ride program.

Right. Also that even when a story doesn't have a slant in the writing--and I agree that this one did, although that doesn't rile me up too much--the choice of *that* story over others is not a neutral act. How many stories has the Strib done on people who feel safer riding in new protected bike lanes outside of a "bikes vs. cars" frame? How many stories has the Strib done about people affected by jam-packed urban local buses like the 18 or the 6? Choosing which facts and stories to highlight is how an organization like the Strib creates a public voice.

There’s definitely a fair critique of the Star Tribune downtown parking story, but I did see more than a little bit of hyperventilating about it urbanist Minneapolis Twitter.

They could have interviewed a few people who are benefiting from fewer surface lots (downtown residents – both those already there and new ones who live on those lots), plus talked about potential benefits to density downtown. But overall, it really seemed like a pretty ho-hum article. If not for the headline, this one probably would have flown under the radar.

The idea here seems to be that because there are positive benefits of bike lanes and urban infill, the negative effects to drivers are unimportant. But the reality is that thousands of people drive downtown every day, some have been doing so for years, and for many there aren't great alternatives. So it's unrealistic to expect that everyone will embrace these changes right away, and I think it's fair for the Strib to do a story on changes that negatively affect a lot of people — even if the cause of these people's problems is something that (I think) is ultimately positive.

Anyone else hate the new Star Tribune app? It's basically a slower version of their mobile website that lacks basic functionality for a news app, like being able to scroll "back."

That’s too bad. If an app is a poorer option than the standard website what possibly is the incentive?

I wish some effort was made to make the website work better with Apple News.

The old mobile app had a finite number of available stories at a given time but was otherwise really easy to use. This one is really just a browser. Meh.

Comment section aside, it is a great paper.

I agree. We are lucky

Absolutely. Subscribe if you can!

Does anyone else seem to encounter the paywall at _all times_? I literally read less than 3 strib articles per month now, but no matter if I'm using the twitter app or safari, it *always* says I've reached my limit, so I have to use incognito.

Another annoying thing that happens on desktop is that every article page auto-refreshes after maybe 5 minutes or so. Every time. And this seems to count against my 10-article limit, as once I hit the paywall after it auto-refreshed itself. Does that happen to anyone else?

Yeah, I don't have much sympathy for people who don't pay. Support the newspaper you read. Stop complaining when your free stuff isn't perfect.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Lol okay dad.

I subscribed a while back and haven't regretted it. It's a good paper, and it's so unbelievably lucky that MSP is still served by a fully-staffed broadsheet. Some major US cities (Pittsburgh, for instance) don't even have newspapers that print seven times a week anymore. Some smaller cities (Youngstown, most recently) have lost their newspapers all together. The Star Tribune has been able to stay strong in large part because they have been more successful than their peers with digital subscriptions. If you regularly read their coverage, it's worth supporting. It costs less than a nice cup of coffee a week.

I got a year of digital subscription for ultra-cheap, even cheaper than the State Fair deal. I'll try to find his number for y'all.