That mysterious Strib veteran, not for attribution
In "Our powers are greater than we knew," John comments on the pathetic not-for-attribution whining of veteran Star Tribune columnist Nick Coleman about his colleague Katherine Kersten and assorted local "right-wing blog voices." How hard is it to identify Coleman as the source of the not-for-attribution whining? Here is the fully plugged Nick Coleman whining to NYU's Jay Rosen of Pressthink in April 2005 after Kersten had been announced as the Star Tribune's new metro columnist:
Gosh. Do you THINK the press is being de-certified? Which side are you on? I thought that was your game plan. You ripped me last fall without even speaking to me because I had the poor judgment (or maybe the balls) to confront right wing wingnut bloggers who have my newspaper (and most others) in the crosshairs of a constant all-out partisan attack. And they are winning, prof. The Star-Tribune now has hired a by-god certifiable right wing activist and power megaphone. Funny, I haven’t seen you make any mention of that yet. Nor do I remember you defending me in December when I criticized the dudes at Powerline, who I called extremists while most of the academic press fakers of the world were bending over to kiss their jodhpurs. By the way, in case you haven’t paid attention, many other journalists have since come to the same conclusion. I could cite chapte and verse, but why bother.Rosen invited readers to help him out: "Coleman Watchers out there, send me an explication de text in a paragraph." Rosen obviously needed the help. When Coleman complained that he had sent Rosen his message in the strictest confidence, Rosen responded:Press Think? I’d like to see that some day.
Nick Coleman
Columnist
Star-Tribune
Coleman is now claiming his letter above was personal, intended only to start a dialogue with me. Alas, there was nothing in the letter about that. When a communiqué to my PRESSTHINK mailbox is not for publication what most people do is write “not for publication” or “personal” somewhere in it. And calling me an “academic press faker” is perhaps not the most efficient method of signaling dialogic intent.Rosen must have been confused because Coleman's "dialogic intent" is of the kind for which fellows wearing jodhpurs use a whip and apply to their steeds.
To comment on this post, go here.
