Speed Gibson

Brian at Fraters Libertas called the sale of the Minneapolis Star Tribune "A New Hope" as in maybe they might now change their far left spots. I suspect "St. Paul" was being largely facetious, but could it happen?

The business case for at least a little moderation seems obvious enough. How can you grow a business when you go out of your way to insult half of your market, almost daily? But such scenarios - management or ownership changes of a major daily - have happened many times in the past twenty years, with no significant change in editorial posture. Why not?

I recalled an article titled "Why Americans Don't Like Soccer" that asserted:

In my opinion, a lack of scoring is not merely an incidental aspect of the game of soccer —— it is its essence. That is, the ultimate purpose of soccer is to engage in lots of furious activity to accomplish . . . absolutely nothing. Not surprisingly, when that elusive goal is scored (if it is scored), ear—shattering howls of euphoria erupt from players, announcers, and spectators alike, as if their very souls were being released from the depths of hell.

Goals are indeed a rare commodity in soccer, so much so that soccer is, essentially, a zero sum game. The "pie" of goals not only is meager, it never grows. So it is fought over with an intensity that is almost never found in American sports.

In other words, if soccer appears boring to us Americans, it's by design.

Is liberal dominance in print also by design? No, not by leftist editors and staff, but intrinsically? Is there something about this business we're not seeing that would doom even a moderate newspaper? Is the lack of balance not merely an incidental aspect of the newspaper game —— is it its essence? Empirically, doesn't the answer have to be yes? Why might this be?

I have a theory that I post in a day or two.