When buyouts are announced next week at the Star Tribune, the list is likely to include names of several long-serving staffers who are approaching retirement (columnist Al Sicherman and reporter Bob Franklin, to name two). But one surprise, confirmed on Wednesday, will be that of veteran political reporter Dane Smith. A 20-year fixture at the “Eastern Front,” what he jokingly dubs the paper’s Capitol office, he admitted the climate at the paper following the Dec. 26 announcement of its sale to Avista Capital Partners cemented a move he already was considering, but insisted, “I’m not making a statement here.”

Smith started at the Minneapolis Star in 1977 covering Anoka County and the northern suburbs before getting hired across the river, where he reported Ramsey County news for three years and served as the Pioneer Press’ Washington correspondent for another three. He’s stayed put as legislative reporter for the Star Tribune since 1986, spending two decades working to maintain “slavish balance” in his reporting (case in point: he co-wrote a book on Sen. Paul Wellstone, and Taxpayers’ League president David Strom counts him as a friend). As he prepares to leave — hopefully, he said, to do more writing and teaching on politics, as he’s done at Inver Hills Community College for three years — he agreed to discuss the future of political coverage at the Star Tribune, his “eat-your-spinach” take on journalism, and the “media jackals” he’ll miss when he’s gone.PS: These are uncertain times at the paper. Was that a factor in your decision — like, maybe you should get out while a good buyout offer was available instead of waiting it out?

DS: It was a factor. I have to say it was. I’m concerned about the increasing pressure to do more with less. When you’re feeling a little like you’d like to do something else anyway, that doesn’t help.

PS: The paper’s two Washington, D.C., bureau reporters, Rob Hotakainen and Kevin Diaz, are staying with McClatchy, and until their replacements are hired, the Star Tribune will have only an intern covering D.C. How do you think political reporting will fare after your departure?

DS:  I think they’ll be OK, if they replace Diaz and Hotakainen and they replace me — I’m urging them to do so. The word is they’re not going to replace any of these people — net — but they might move people around. I’ve been making a pitch that they get somebody (at the Capitol), because this is really the news fountainhead here. This is all very traumatic and unexpected, but there’s been a sort of sky-is-falling mentality in the newspaper business ever since I started. I remember going on strike in 1980. That whole strike was about fears of what electronic journalism would do to our product, whether they’d take our product and sell it in some way. I never did really understand the issues.

The profits are really still substantial. I don’t know the new owners are interested in losing circulation any further with obvious cuts and diminution of quality. But that isn’t what’s really driven my decision here. It’s purely wanting to do something else.

PS:  Does the fact that this is Avista’s first newspaper give you pause — that they’re more experienced at investing than journalism?

DS: Sure, it’s a concern. But I think there’s broad and high regard for the Star Tribune. David Carr, who writes about media for the New York Times and has roots in the Twin Cities, wrote about the Star Tribune’s coverage. He talked about how its real strength was its political coverage and its community coverage. This is a very civically involved, civically aware, civically healthy state and community, and I think everybody’s hoping the new owners get that as soon as possible and continue to provide the meat and potatoes people need to make the democracy work. I think the fact that we’ve got some newspaper family leaders in Chris Harte and Par Ridder may be a good thing. They understand those traditions.

PS: The push for profits is interesting, but both former publisher Keith Moyer, when he left, and new editor Nancy Barnes, when she took over, said a newspaper is a “public trust.” Then there’s this move to give readers what they say they want. In some ways are these goals at cross-purposes?

DS: That tension has always been there: do we give people what they say they want or do we give them what’s good for them? Eat-your-spinach journalism versus titillation and sensationalism. That’s not new, either. I’m an old-school eat-your-spinach kind of guy, so naturally I think we should do more of what I’ve done and less of the flashy stuff. But I also buy into the idea of trying to make our material more palatable and easier to read and easier to digest and adding in layering elements.

PS: Any regrets?

DS: Not really. I’ve made some mistakes, but I’ve avoided any hugely controversial errors or ethical controversies. When you’re covering a game as rough as this, that’s always something. On both sides — all sides, there’s not both let’s always remember that — pretty much everybody involved thinks I’ve been fair. I’ve tried hard to be complete in coverage and human in treatment of people. I don’t have a reputation as a cheap-shot artist. Probably the opposite: probably that I’m too soft.

PS: Your advice for your successor?

DS: It seems obvious: Always pay attention to who’s getting what and why. I’ve always liked the old saw about comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable. That’s something I think journalists should always keep in their minds as a founding principle of American journalism.

PS: What will you miss?

DS: The camaraderie with the “media jackals” down here. We were so named by Jesse Ventura, you know. It’s a pretty close-knit group. And having a front-row seat all the time. I can’t imagine I won’t miss that a little bit. Literally, you get to sit in the front row at the governor’s press conference and ask impertinent questions. It’s an incredible license, and it’s kind of fun. You sometimes hear the analogy: People who do what we do talk about getting a grown-up job some day.

PS: Is that what’s next for you?

DS: Right. Enough of this fun. It’s really pretty stressful. Deadlines every day, and the kinds of stuff we report on is always controversial. You sweat it every morning when you log on that you made a big mistake and it’s going to have terrible consequences, you’re going to cost somebody the election because of something you got wrong. It’s a heavy burden, really. I won’t miss that part.