The daily digest of Twin Cities culture | Secrets of the City

I realize I'm running dangerously close to being a two-trick nag on the Star Tribune's problems with; (1) Charges that publisher Par Ridder plotted abandoning the Pioneer Press for his primary business/financial rival for months before he actually did, allegedly cooking/absconding with executive non-compete contracts in the process, and (2) The paper's startlingly weak pursuit of provocative local angles on the US Attorneys scandal.

I really should spend more time watching the sweeps months features lining up on 4, 5, 9, 10 and 11. But damn, these two items are so juicy.

Anyway, a couple quick observations before I move on ... for a while.

While it was mildly gratifying to see the Strib's reader rep, Kate Parry, finally address The Ridder Problem in her Sunday column, I'm not sure the difficulty of covering an in-house scandal is the essence of the issue facing her. I don't doubt it is damn tough to get Ridder to discuss the accusations thrown against him, and I don't doubt the accusers have been more forthcoming. Nor do I doubt that reporter Matt McKinney, who was handed the assignment is a resourceful pro. And likewise, I'm not at all surprised the Ridder matter hasn't generated public interest.

From the public's perspective, why should they care about Ridder? He's a faceless executive. Unless there are other boots to drop, Ridder isn't sucking money out of the public's pocket and the whole thing is as inside corporate baseball as it is snicker-worthy and soapy.

The issue is credibility and the higher standard for recognizing and rectifying appearance problems to which newspapers regularly claim to hold themselves. When it comes to the grunt classes of newspapers -- the wretched pecking scribes -- there is no end of hand-wringing concern over the slightest appearance issues, with management regularly admonishing writers to step back from proximity to any perception of ethical dilemma.

So why not demand the same -- if not more -- from the publisher? You can certainly make the argument that his reputation puts a heavier stamp on the credibility of the paper than say, a sports writer who lets a player buy him a couple drinks. (Like THAT ever happens.)

Ridder dodges Parry's questions on the law suit with the stale ploy of respecting "the legal process", a process that, as every reporter knows, regularly obfuscates more than it clarifies. If that's what Ridder wants to say, fine. But at this point OUR reader's rep owes us at least a paragraph explaining how this dodge reflects rather badly on the paper's reputation for transparency and why much more -- a lot more -- is needed to avoid months of lingering suspicions.

One other thing: Parry is big on the rough and tumble competition between the two papers. But the Par Ridder matter has NOTHING to do with the competitive fire of the two newsrooms. This is an executive suite-to-executive suite affair, with the two staffs as bystanders. Far from being competitive, the two newsrooms are unified in preferring complete and satisfying answers to what in the hell has been going on behind the mahogany doors. (The two staffs are also unified in suspecting/knowing that the greatest threat to their continued survival is upstairs in their own buildings, not the reporters across the river.)

On Trick 2: I'm running out of expressions of righteous amazement. Late last week it was revealed that former US Attorney Tom Heffelfinger was in fact on a list of prosecutors ... someone in DC wanted fired. You'd think this would be the long-awaited green light for the Strib to put the pedal to the metal and start catching up on this story. Until now the Strib has been running like a soccer mom's mini-van in the NASCAR race that is the US Attorneys story. A race where its former McClatchy DC bureau has been playing Tony Stewart, denting bumpers and fenders.

So ... I fail to understand the value in constantly returning to Heffelfinger for yet another discussion of what he doesn't know. As I've said before, even if Heffelfinger knows something more, he isn't obligated -- yet -- to tell anyone, much less a reporter about it. More to the point, the scandal is such a godawful circus of incompetence and arrogance that any sane adult would want to keep a healthy distance from it.

Although by now, the prosecutors who were fired and/or were on a list to be fired are the ones assuming badges of honor. Suspicion is turning to those who MET with Bush administration approval and kept their jobs.

So here's a word of advice. Tom Heffelfinger's repeated expressions of surprise and annoyance are not the story. Nor, for that matter, are former Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Sandy Keith's testimonials for Heffelfinger's replacement, Rachel Paulose.