Post-Par(tum) Ethics and More

Strib to adopt conflict of interest policy? Word on the street, says Charlie Quimby, is that the Star Tribune is working on an ethics policy governing conflicts of interest, but it has nothing to do with Par Ridder. It would bar ex-Stribbers from penning opinion pieces for the paper for a year after their exits. If true, is such a policy a post-Par attempt at an earnest ethics overhaul? Or, in Quimby’s words, is it “a way for conservative-leaning management to diminish the impression that Strib reporters are disproportionately progressive”?

Wonkette on The UpTake: Wonkette, linking to The UpTake’s video of U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman discussing the war with activists in his St. Paul yard, describes the clip as Coleman “inadvertently saying something about Iraq informed by reality.”

News is as news does: As a commenter chides Minnesota Public Radio for being “reduced to reporting what bloggers say” — that is, covering Eric Black’s story on U.S. Attorney Rachel Paulose — the station’s Bill Wareham defends Black as one who “slog[s] away in the honest pursuit of journalism” while Taylor Carik wonders which is crazier: “citing a commenter who can’t tell Eric Black’s Old Media blog from Perez Hilton or actually wondering whether or not to run with the Paulose story just because it was a blogger who found out that she was under federal investigation.”

Rather shortsighted: Power Line’s response to Dan Rather’s $70 million lawsuit against CBS for breach of contract and a “biased” investigation into its flawed 60 Minutes report on George W. Bush’s National Guard service? “This suit, for as long as it survives, should serve to reinforce Rather’s status as a laughingstock.” Maybe, but wouldn’t PL’s “liberal media” meme work better if they tagged it on the network instead of just one guy?

Got a tip for Media Monitor? E-mail us your media news.