I read both papers everyday and almost choked on my lunch when I read Nick today.
I'm kind of working on a theory here.
I've met his brother Chris, the former St. Paul City Councilman. Chris is a solid guy, who was a responsible councilman. None of this no-smoking nonsense would even be considered if he were still around.
As Nick said, his dad was the president of the state senate. I'm too young to remember him but I do recall Nick once writing about his Dad and 35E. Ridiculously, 35E didn't run from the river to downtown. Nick's dad who represented the West 7th neighborhood said 35E would be connected over his dead body. Which of course it was, as a deal was reached allowing its construction and turning into a practice freeway soon after his death. Kind of funny, solid populism.
When Nick wrote in the PP, it wasn't that awful. Old St. Paul, Swede Hollow, St. Paul characters kind of stuff. Not that great not that bad as I remember it. Not as bad as the ear-bleeding screeds these days at least.
It only got really bad after he moved to Star-trib which kind of neatly coincides with... his marriage.
I don't think the real problem here is Nick. He's just the symptom. The real problem here of course is Laura.
Just a thought.
Pat

Mitch, I know Nick quite well from his KSTP days. I'll be the most surprised guy on earth if he accepts your invitation. He thinks he's above talk radio banter. We used to do a feature called "Thursday Night Fights" I kindly invited him several times and declined. He'll probably give an excuse like "With 2 young kids his Saturdays are busy" trust me.

Doesn't Nick ever talk to Lileks?

Mitch,

If he can't spare the time for the NARN thing, let him know I'll be happy to interview him (with or without the "Ums") anytime his schedule allows. I'd be happy to present any questions from NARN bloggers in that format if he prefers.

Letter to Coleman:
I too am employed by the publisher of 2 semi-major newspapers whose only struggle is to see which can be the farthest left of Ted Kennedy. Unlike you however, I am not blind to the current state of mainstream news source credibility. Since forever, newspapers have all had a bias. Historically when towns had several newspapers, the need to compete often drove them to assume alternative points of view on issues.

Today with consolidation in the industry and most cities reduced to a single paper, the editor’s bias has been allowed to moved from the editorial page to above the fold on A-1. NYT, LAT et al and stories picked up from AP have gone beyond a little bias to the printing of half truths and selective quotes to advocate causes.

While you praise the structure of our industry in screening stories, it is in fact this screening process that risks reducing or define each story to the editor’s personal narrow perspective.

The bloggers freedom to analyze and report is something that the traditional reporter is denied. You as a columnist however, are not restricted to such trivial constraints as either facts or truth. Ironically, the bloggers that you disdain approach their craft both with the independence that any true reporter would crave and the knowledge that he takes a personal hit if the credibility of his facts can not be documented.

Accordingly, most of the legitimate and respected bloggers have advanced degrees such as law and approach every post as if they are presenting a case for the prosecution. Despite the attempt by hack writers and columnists that attract a crowd by inflammatory collections of words to look down their nose at bloggers, their attempts only reflect their personal jealousies.

Granted there are bloggers, that bring nothing credible to the table. Over time they attract a similarly insignificant following. Unfortunately, attacks on the group that has gotten under you skin by scooping your peers and challenging flagrant lies of the established media has only confirmed the groundlessness of your fantasy.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black… a columnist accusing bloggers of being nakedly partisan and making things up!