The Minnesota Star Tribune is abundant in many things, including self-regard. It has a large staff and the resources of a billionaire owner on which to draw. As for self-regard, publisher Steve Grove — a former Commissioner in the administration of Governor Tim Walz — thinks taxpayers should be forced to support the Star Tribune.
Speaking of “support,” I should reiterate the Star Tribune’s incessant support of illegal immigration in a flood of stories and columns it has published this year. It will undoubtedly submit them in a bid for a Pulitzer Prize. The Pulitzer Prizes, of course, form yet one another pillar of the left’s establishment, or of the establishment simply.
Over the weekend I received a pitch for the Star Tribune by an email dated May 3 in which it highlights a recent story on threats of violence against Minnesota public officials. The email makes this pitch (emphasis in original):
This kind of reporting doesn’t happen by chance.
It takes time, resources, and a deep commitment to public service journalism that holds power to account, sheds light on hidden dangers, and helps communities understand what’s really at stake.
And it’s made possible by readers who believe strong, independent local news is worth supporting. Readers like you.
Readers like us think the Star Tribune should have covered the recent motion by the United States Attorney for Minnesota in which the Star Tribune features as a protagonist. The government filed the motion in the cast of convicted Feeding Our Future fraud ringleader Aimee Bock. The Feeding Our Future fraud and the related frauds exposed in connection with the case are of course of great interest to Minnesotans.
We learned at the hearing on the motion — a hearing that the Star Tribune failed to cover despite the presence of one of its reporters at the hearing — that the government has notified the Star Tribune that the mass of FBI 302s in its possession are subject to Feeding Our Future Judge Nancy Brasel’s protective order.
The Star Tribune isn’t covered by the protective order, but the government’s motion sets forth the destructive impact of the Star Tribune’s use of the 302s in connection with a reporter’s work on a forthcoming story. The government’s notice to the Star Tribune amounts to a plea for civic reponsibility.
In the meantime, readers who get their news from the Star Tribune have been left in the dark. To borrow a thought, this kind of nonreporting doesn’t happen by chance.
Star Tribune readers could learn something from the motion and the hearing in the Bock case if the Star Tribune had covered either one. The Star Tribune’s competitors in the local press work in the shadow of the Star Tribune, but they all got around to covering the motion and the hearing.
The government’s motion and hearing are wrapped up in the massive epidemic of public-programs fraud that casts an unflattering light on Minnesota’s left establishment, or Minnesota’s establishment simply. It is an establishment of which the Star Tribune is itself a pillar.
Readers like us hate the Star Tribune.
