The voting will continue for a couple more days. Yossarian's third entry has the best shot of me winning, although I'm falling further behind the dastardly LearnedFoot to a point I'm not sure I can recover. If you'd all be so kind as to vote for Yossarian's third entry, you'll have that much more of a chance of getting into heaven.
Earlier this week, Minnesota's largest--and arguably the nation's most biased--newspaper, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, was sold for $530 million dollars. When one considers that it was purchased in 1998 for $1.2 billion, we're talking about a considerable price cut. A fire sale, if you will.
When I first read the news, I thought to myself: "It will be less than a week before Nick Coleman whines about this."
When the McClatchy Co. got the keys to the Star Tribune in 1998, McClatchy's patriarch hailed the merger. James McClatchy called it a wedding of two newspaper traditions that shared "a deep-rooted commitment to building a just society."
Yes, because we all know it's the responsibility of the press to "build a just society," rather than, say, reporting news and events. I'm sure the idea of "building a just society" were jingle-bells to Nick Coleman's ears, a man who determined 30 years ago society was just sick and wrong about everything.
You now are permitted to laugh derisively.
At who? At Nick Coleman? Believe me, I've been doing that for years now.
Eight years later, hardly anyone in the newspaper business talks about anything other than building profit margins that would choke a robber baron.
Why can't newspapers operate at a loss? In the name of building a just society, can't profits be put on hold? Can't the state come in an fund newspapers so they can operate without the nasty specter of having to remain profitable?
Mercifully, Mr. McClatchy passed away in May and did not live to see the Sacramento-based company that bore his name disgrace his legacy by dumping its largest newspaper -- the most important one between Chicago and the West Coast, the one that serves 5 million Minnesotans and that can be a conscience, a scold, a cheerleader and an interpreter of life on the tundra.
Sweet merciful crap! Nick Coleman holds the Strib in far higher esteem than a lot of people. In Nick's mind, the Strib only pales in importance behind God, and only just barely behind at that. The most important newspaper between Chicago and the West Coast? Is that the bubble Nick's been living in? How amazingly, frighteningly sad. Although, it DOES explain a lot. I know I love a newspaper that acts a conscience and a scold. There's nothing I like more than a newspaper that deems itself my Mommy.
On the day after Christmas, the McClatchy Co. took the Star Tribune to the return window and sold us to a company that removes medical wastes, drills for oil and (quoting its website) "operates four off-shore jack-ups, three mobile off-shore production units and one self-propelled completion and work over rig" in the Gulf of Mexico. Not to mention a newspaper in flyoverland.
Oh, the horror! A company that removes medical wastes! As if medical waste just somehow should be able to remove itself. And OIL! That evil black blood of the earth! It's funny how outraged Coleman is about a company that deals in oil, but he seemed fine when the Strib was owned by a company that basically dealt in the pulpified medium of dead trees. It's simply delicious to see Coleman in such an absolute conniption fit. Oh, and please note how the most important newspaper this side of Chicago is now just a newspaper in flyoverland.
Maybe we're an on-shore jack-up.
There's that quality Nick Coleman humor we've grown to know and love. Cue the laugh track.
You are what you eat. So when McClatchy swallowed the larger Knight Ridder newspaper chain last spring, a lot of people worried that the $6.1 billion deal would spell trouble in the Twin Cities.
By "a lot of people," Nick means the employees of the Star-Tribune. Pretty much everyone outside of those doors PROBABLY didn't give a shit.
Both newspapers here were in play: the Star Tribune, as the "flagship" of McClatchy, and the Pioneer Press (where I worked for 17 years) as one of the Ridder heritage newspapers.
We were right to worry.
Again, "We" being the Star-Tribune. As for the worry of everyone else. . . not so much.
First, McClatchy sold the Pioneer Press to MediaNews Group. Staff reductions followed, with threats of more to come.
Now McClatchy has dumped the Star Tribune.
And now, I, Nick Coleman, am crap-in-my-pants terrified that my woefully crappy body of lifetime work may actually be scrutinized and identified for what it is: pure, steaming, crap. I may have to actually think for a change and attempt to write something that doesn't read like a self-parody. OR I MIGHT GET FIRED!
While the outcome of all this cutthroat gambling is unclear, there are two possibilities:
1) A private equity firm with no newspaper experience will show the newspaper industry how to save itself.
Which I, Nick Coleman, completely doubt because a medical waste and oil company will carve out my still-beating heart and try to find a way to make oil out of it.
Or:
2) A privateer thinks the Star Tribune, with 2,000-plus workers, is ripe for plucking and pillaging.
Did I mention that I, Nick Coleman, am one of those 2,000-plus workers, and am arguably the most important? And oh my God I just shit my pants.
I hope it was the first option that attracted Avista Capital Partners to add us to its fleet of oil rigs.
Oh. . . just. . . ugh.
But one thing is clear: A newspaper company abandoned its employees and readers, for profit, not principle.
A of all, the Strib was dropped for over HALF what it was purchased for almost a decade ago. Making a profit = DOES NOT COMPUTE. B of all, when was the last time, do you think, a company board got together to talk about principle? How much of the stock market is guided by principle?
McClatchy leaves Minnesota's newspapers weakened and in the hands of companies with no local ties.
Damn you, McClatchy! Damn you all to HELLLLLLL! Has the Pioneer Press really been "weakened?" As for the Strib, if a newspaper basically sells for peanuts, doesn't that indicate an pre-existing status of "weakness?"
And with its departure, McClatchy is taking away important resources that a newspaper chain provides, resources that help each newspaper in the chain serve readers.
Such as paying Nick Coleman, for example, which has been such an invaluable service.
Here is some of what is going away: the Star Tribune Foundation, which has funded nonprofit groups in the Twin Cities for decades;
One of those cornerstone responsibilities of a free press. I know they dedicated an entire semester to teaching the importance of funding non-profit groups back in college. Oh, wait, no they didn't.
and the Washington bureau and foreign correspondents, including those in Iraq. They'll still be working, but not for the Star Tribune. Also disappearing: the pooled financial resources a chain can use to gather news and resist the fickle winds of market forces.
Hey, Nick: I'm pretty sure you'll still have access to AP and Reuter's news feeds. You should be just fine. But, don't let that get in the way of a classic Nick Coleman whine-fest.
Despite lip service to the cause of quality journalism, in the end McClatchy folded like a cheap lawn chair under a steady gale of Wall Street demands.
Again, to the tune of a loss of over a half a billion dollars. At some point, even the most strident believers of "quality journalism" *stifled laugh* have to look at their financial situation and say "wow, we're really taking a bath on this one," and unload a stinker.
When it bought the Star Tribune in 1998, McClatchy was a second-tier chain that had 10 dailies and a profit margin of 13 percent.
Today, after buying its way into a far better club by using the Star Tribune for leverage, McClatchy has 32 papers and a profit margin of 26 percent.
But I was going to Toshi station to pick up some power converters!
But 26 ain't enough. It would be higher if not for the Star Tribune, which earns only about 19 percent, though its revenue has declined over the past year or so. That's still good for a newspaper its size, and two or three times the margin demanded 20 years ago. But it ain't enough. So McClatchy punted.
Two "ain't enoughs" in one paragraph. That must be a record for a newspaper column. Call Guinness. Sure, their revenue has declined over the past year or so, but that still good.
Which shows that the McClatchy Co. lost more than a patriarch when James McClatchy died. It lost its compass.
McClatchy CEO Gary Pruitt did not bother to come to Minneapolis on Tuesday to say he surreptitiously had sold the paper and to kiss us goodbye.
Yeah, because that's what CEOs are supposed to do.
But McClatchy brass gave us some nice parting gifts from afar, complaining that the Star Tribune had lost value (and proving it in a secret auction at fire-sale prices), calling the flagship a drag on profits and saying McClatchy would have shown a one-percent increase in ad sales if the Star Tribune weren't included. One percent! Huzzah! Sound the trumpets!
Funny how Nick focuses on the one percent increase in ad sales while glossing over the earlier mentions of "lost value," "a drag on profits," and the fact the Strib sold for over HALF less than it did almost a decade ago. Gosh, it almost seems like there was quite a bit more going on than simply the one-percent thing Nick gloms onto.
There's the market for you: The Star Tribune held down ad sales one percent. So One-Percent Pruitt axed his best newspaper. Brilliant.
Obviously, it wasn't his best newspaper. B-b-b-b-but, a CEO wouldn't say one thing and do another, right? There are those of us who deal with corporate BS on practically a daily basis and recognize it for exactly what it is. I can't remember the last time I trusted the word of someone two steps above me. It comes as a suprise to Nick though. Imagine that.
"The Star Tribune is one of the best newspapers in this country," Pruitt said in 1998. "The Twin Cities is one of the most attractive newspaper markets in the country. And it was a near-perfect fit in terms of values and traditions."
Hey, I recognize that paragraph! That's called marketing PR! I write stuff like that! God it sounds good! It's feel-good BS! Funny Coleman didn't recognize it.
We didn't change. But you, Mr. Pruitt? We don't recognize you anymore. So long.
Maybe the problem was that "you didn't change," Nick. You've been complaining about every newfangled technology that's given a voice to anyone who isn't yourself. Your newspaper defends plagiarism, is hopelessly biased, features routine lazy reporting, and continues to run your drivel practically un-edited. Perhaps a change would do you some real good.
Don't bother to write.
Mainly because Nick probably won't be available at his Strib address for much longer. Hmmm?
Via Mitch, a mindless meme:
1. Was 2006 a good year for you?
On a personal level, yes, a very good year. On a professional level, being a managing editor for two magazines has been a stress roller-coaster I can't wait to be done with.
2. What was your favorite moment(s) of the year?
Vacationing in Tokyo in April. Earning my blue belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. Deciding to get married sometime in 2008
3. What was your least favorite moment(s) of the year?
Having to take on a second magazine. Moving my girlfriend's dad's boyfriend from the Cities.
4. What did you do in 2006 that you’d never done before?
Earned my blue belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. Decided to get married sometime in 2008. Moved my girlfriend's dad's boyfriend from the Cities.
5. Did you keep your new years’ resolutions, and will you make more for next year?
I don't do resolutions. I have a hazy idea of what I'd like to accomplish and where I'd like to be, but no real plan for achieving either.
6. Where were you when 2006 began?
At a friend's house.
7. Who were you with?
My girlfriend and several friends.
8. Where will you be when 2006 ends?
At a friend's house.
9. Who will you be with when 2006 ends?
My girlfriend and several friends.
10. Did anyone close to you give birth?
Proximity-wise: no. My girlfriend's sister is slated to go into labor on or around the 31st of this month, and my girlfriend's the lamaze coach, so that proximity thing could actually go south, should my luck fail somehow.
11. Did you lose anybody close to you in 2006?
Nope.
12. Who did you miss?
Nobody.
13. Who was the best new person you met in 2006?
The Rhodes don't play favorites with his acquaintances.
14. What was your favorite month of 2006?
I think September.
15. Did you travel outside of the US in 2006?
Yes. Tokyo, Japan for about a week.
16. How many different states did you travel to in 2006?
Oh, brother. Iowa, Wisconsin, South Dakota, Washington, Maryland, Nevada (twice), New York. Illinois.
17. What would you like to have in 2007 that you lacked in 2006?
A sense of job security.
18. What date from 2006 will remain etched upon your memory, and why?
Not sure on the date, but when my mom asked me to buy her lotion and panties, that's gonna be with me for awhile.
19. What was your biggest achievement of the year?
Attaining my blue belt.
20. What was your biggest failure?
To land a job at the Mayo Clinic. Not a failure so much as a recurring disappointment.
21. Did you suffer illness or injury?
A broken toe, and that's about it, except for the usual flu and cold knock-downs.
22. What was the best thing you bought?
An entertainment center.
23. Whose behavior merited celebration?
I have no idea.
24. Whose behavior made you appalled and depressed?
Not sure, although I know MY BEHAVIOR has appalled and depressed many.
25. Where did most of your money go?
My mortgage, utilities, and a new central air conditioning unit.
26. What did you get really, really, really excited about?
My trip to Tokyo.
27. Did you drink a lot of alcohol in 2006?
Define "a lot." I would have to say a drinking night every other weekend or so, with the occasional tipsy evening of Monday Night Football. Usually a beer or two on the nights the girl and I went out to eat.
28. Did you do a lot of drugs in 2006?
Nope. My body's a temple. A temple to Bacchus!
29. Did you treat somebody badly in 2006?
Not that I know of.
30. Did somebody treat you badly in 2006?
Probably.
31. Compared to this time last year, are you:
i. happier or sadder? - Happier. I'm a happy machine!
ii. thinner or fatter? - Pretty much the same, with maybe a little more muscle, particularly around the neck.
iii. richer or poorer? - A little richer. Although, I wouldn't call it "rich."
32. What do you wish you’d done more of in 2006?
More travel.
33. What do you wish you’d done less of?
Stressing about work. Watching television.
34. Did you fall in love in 2006?
Just more with my girlfriend, and with myself, of course.
35. What was your favorite TV program(s)?
Big Love. Weeds. Oh, and I'm majorly gearing up for the second season of Rome! But that's in 2007, so nevermind.
36. What song will always remind you of 2006?
That one about some sort of black horse and a cherry tree.
37. How many concerts did you see in 2006?
None.
38. Did you have a favorite concert in 2006?
What part of "None" don't you understand?
39. What was your greatest musical discovery?
I discovered that 99.999999 percent of Hip-Hop continues to suck.
40. What was the best book you read?
I read the entire Harry Potter series up to this point, which was very, very good. I'm hooked. Also enjoyed "Memoirs of a Geisha," "The Kite Runner," and "Princess Orchid."
41. What was your favorite film of this year?
Little Miss Sunshine. Hands down.
42. What did you do on your birthday, and how old were you?
Ate at a Japanese steakhouse as I absorbed the reality of being 31.
43. What did you want and get?
New shoes.
44. What did you want and not get?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
45. What one thing would have made your year immeasurably more satisfying?
Salma Hayek.
46. How would you describe your personal fashion concept in 2006?
Levis jeans and assorted decent looking shirts.
47. What kept you sane?
Who says I'm sane?
48. Which celebrity/public figure did you fancy the most?
Salma Hayek.
49. Tell us a valuable life lesson you learned in 2006.
No matter how much you have built up in your savings account, you can imagine 12,000 simultaneous disaster scenarios that could wipe it out in under 30 seconds, thus making it almost impossible to actually spend any of it, on anything.
50. Quote a song lyric that sums up your year.
Sometimes the world looks perfect,
Nothing to rearrange.
Sometimes you get a feeling
Like you need some kind of change.
No matter what the odds are this time,
Nothing's going to stand in my way.
This flame in my heart,
And a long lost friend
Gives every dark street a light at the end.
Standing tall, on the wings of my dream.
Rise and fall, on the wings of my dream.
The rain and thunder
The wind and haze
I'm bound for better days.
It's my life and my dream,
Nothing's going to stop me now.
And vote for Yossarian's 3rd entry, dammit.
I'd like to win SOMETHING this year.
UPDATE: Oh, yeah. . . PLEASE.
Without revealing the dollar amount I received in the form of a Christmas bonus this year, I'll simply say it was a nice chunk of change. Okay, it didn't come in the form of a chunk of change, which would be unweildy and inconvenient. Rather, it came in the form of a Wells Fargo gift card.
We received similar gift cards last year, by and large they worked pretty well. Oh, sure, there were some retailers that had trouble processing the card, but for the most part it worked just fine, until I got down to a 38 cent balance, at which point the card was basically useless.
Well, this year's gift card was pretty much spent, at least mentally, before I even had it in hand. This being the Holiday season, I had my Christmas bonus largely earmarked for gift purchasing.
Now, the primary purchase I had slated for the gift card was a stationary exercise cycle for my girlfriend. It is not a particularly cheap item, so we waited until after Christmas to buy it, as it went on sale for two short days.
On the first short day, I went to Sears to purchase the exercise cycle using my gift card. And things seemed to be going quite well at first. The current model of monetary exchange for goods and services was clicking along as expected.
Then, just as I was about to sign the receipt for $427, my girlfriend noticed a coupon for $5 off. Now, this being a large purchase, $5 didn't strike me as being much of a discount, but whenever my girlfriend gets it in her head that she can save money on something, she's kind of tenacious. Still, I hesitated.
I hesitated because I knew that, in order to get that $5 discount, the Sears salesperson would have to reverse the previous sale, and then re-ring the sale at $422. It was the reversal of the previous sale that had me worried. My experience with the gift card from last year told me that--while gift cards are great for deducting money--they tend to hiccup when it comes to putting money BACK IN. I'm not sure what the reason is for this deficiency, but it can be a most irritating drawback.
So, even though the reversal showed as successful on Sears' end, I had dark suspicions that I was still down $427 in my gift card balance. Sure enough, when the Sears salesperson tried to ring up the exercise cycle again, the message that came back indicated insufficient funds. So, we left without the exercise bike, hoping that the reversal would just take some time to take effect and that we'd be back to try again the next day.
Well, here it is the next day, and my balance is still down $427, and I'm starting to get a little nervous here.
Yesterday, which would be Christmas, Melissa and I went to a local movie theater which happened to be open and watched "The Pursuit of Happyness."
Overall, a decent movie. It laid on the whole "pursuing happiness" angle a bit too thick (but then, it IS the title), and the Rubik's cube thing was a tad overdone, but whatever. As I said, overall, a decent movie. That said:
So, when the main character realizes that maybe, just MAYBE, his bone density machines aren't selling like medical hotcakes, maybe, JUST MAYBE, he should have been working another job LIKE HIS WIFE WAS. I mean, he could have still gone out selling his useless machine on Saturdays, while working at the local Pamida. Just a thought.
Second, how sweet is it for brokerage firms to be able to leverage, in essence, slave labor for six months? Bring in 20 applicants for a six month course, don't pay them, and waggle a carrot that ONE OF THEM will be selected to be a broker. In that six months, you have free labor basically making your firm money. Sweet scam if you can pull it off. Maybe I was missing something, but that pretty much seemed like what was going on.
Anyway, decent movie, overall.
