Topic: Jim Souhan, Playing Fast and Loose

[PopeDirkBenedict]

Jim Souhan writes a column about the Vikings stadium situation, just trashing a state representative for asking, "Why should the state of Minnesota contribute to a stadium for a billionaire owner?" at the hearings regarding the stadium bill. Souhan basically calls the rep out as a pandering simpleton populist who doesn't understand how economic development works.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/147856875.html

Leaves out two pertinent facts:

-- The question was prefaced with, "Here’s a question I get asked most frequently, it’s on everyone’s mind, let’s get it out of the way."

-- The state rep in question voted in favor of the stadium bill and was a consistent supporter of the bill.

http://www.minnpost.com/braublog/2012/04/whos-dumber-vikings-stadium-dean-urdahl-or-jim-souhan

If you want to know why the public distrusts journalists, this column should be exhibit A.

[Uncle.Ruckus]

Always nice to see Shecky Souhan try his hand at humor.

[Zeke12]

Souhan can be good, but that was brutal.

I mean, maybe it's cheap populism coming from that guy -- I don't know.

Doesn't make the question invalid, and Souhan does nothing, really, to answer the question. Instead of the one-liners, how about a column answering the question: Why should Minnesota build the Vikings a stadium?

[Michael_ Gee]

The economic facts, demonstrated in many surveys, are that the economic benefits of public stadium financing, especially football stadium financing, range from very little to none. If Souhan doesn't know that, then he's not qualified to write about the issue, which he obviously isn't. The only arguments in favor of it are civic pride, which doesn't fix many potholes but is something, and "I like pro football." The column is an ignorant cheap shot. A pathetic effort.

[LongTimeListener]

Ruling out building a stadium that could benefit a billionaire is like ruling out building roads for all those elitists who own cars.

That is the worst analogy I have read in a long, long time. And this could be the most clueless column ever on the topic of stadium funding. Good Lord, that is absolutely terrible. If I were the politician who was the subject of the column, I'd be proud to be on the other side.

[Stitch]

The Strib sure likes to keep hack columnists around.

[PopeDirkBenedict]

Ruling out building a stadium that could benefit a billionaire is like ruling out building roads for all those elitists who own cars.

That is the worst analogy I have read in a long, long time. And this could be the most clueless column ever on the topic of stadium funding. Good Lord, that is absolutely terrible. If I were the politician who was the subject of the column, I'd be proud to be on the other side.

That's the worst part. He takes a question from a state rep, completely divorces it from its context and rips him to shreds -- and the state rep voted the way Souhan wanted him to!

[Screwball]

Well, he did try to get to the bottom-line question: Is Minnesota willing to lose the Vikings?

It is clear, as noted above, that stadiums and arenas are not worth the public investment, as measured in dollars and cents. However, if the Vikings move, would the public blame the elected officials and vote them out of office?

That does not mean the Vikings would get a publicly-funded stadium elsewhere. But they might, or they could try a privately-funded stadium in L.A.

[YGBFKM]

I don't know about a new stadium, but I like the direction in which the Vikings franchise is headed.

[Uncle.Ruckus]

I don't know about a new stadium, but I like the direction in which the Vikings franchise is headed.

Los Angeles?

[YGBFKM]

South.

[slappy4428]

The Strib sure likes to keep hack columnists around.

And to think you were a close personal friend.

[Versatile]

Jim Souhan can be very good, particularly on baseball, but when I read that column, it felt dangerous. I wasn't aware of anything about the state representative. But sports columnists need to be extra cautious when writing about politics, just as politics writers must be extra cautious when writing about sports (see Brooks, David).

[Joe Williams]

The Strib sure likes to keep hack columnists around.

LOL.

[Small Town Guy]

The Strib sure likes to keep hack columnists around.

And to think you were a close personal friend.

I remember when Sid falsely wrote that Stephen A. Douglas opposed statehood for Minnesota.

[mateen]

Souhan can be at least competent on baseball; he knows his stuff and has a lot of sources from his days as the Twins beat writer.  But as a columnist he's simply horrible.  He tries way too hard to be funny when he's just not, and also tries way too hard to stir the pot and be controversial just for the sake of being controversial. 

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

Souhan, a journalist (allegedly), is ripping an elected official for asking a question -- a question that the elected official's constituents likely ask whenever the stadium issue comes up. When a journalist rips someone for simply asking a question, that's a problem.

Why Souhan still draws a paycheck is mind boggling. I would rather read Sid than Souhan. Yeah, I said it.

[Zeke12]

Come on. No one wants to read Sid.

[britwrit]

At some point, some city or state is simply going to want to nationalize a team through the backdoor (i.e. shelling out lots and lots of cash.) You open up a whole new can of worms but at least there'll be no more blackmailing by the owner.

[lcjjdnh]

Souhan can be at least competent on baseball; he knows his stuff and has a lot of sources from his days as the Twins beat writer.  But as a columnist he's simply horrible.  He tries way too hard to be funny when he's just not, and also tries way too hard to stir the pot and be controversial just for the sake of being controversial. 

Always found it silly the "best" reporters got columns. Very, very different skills required. Even the Times falls into this trap--Friedman and Dowd, for instance, are horrible columnists, while Krugman, who was never a reporter, is a great one (even if you don't agree with him, you have to give him credit for being good at what he does).

[mateen]

The Star Tribune, to its credit, let the state representative in question have his say with an op-ed piece.  The result is not pretty for Souhan (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/148180475.html). 

Souhan hasn't said anything publicly about this whole thing, although he's not in hiding and is Twittering away about baseball and other topics.  I don't think this is something he can let go by without responding if he wants to preserve a shred of credibility.

[clutchcargo]

Souhan can be at least competent on baseball; he knows his stuff and has a lot of sources from his days as the Twins beat writer.  But as a columnist he's simply horrible.  He tries way too hard to be funny when he's just not, and also tries way too hard to stir the pot and be controversial just for the sake of being controversial. 

Always found it silly the "best" reporters got columns. Very, very different skills required. Even the Times falls into this trap--Friedman and Dowd, for instance, are horrible columnists, while Krugman, who was never a reporter, is a great one (even if you don't agree with him, you have to give him credit for being good at what he does).

Krugman is just a patsy for far-left nutjobs who exist only to offer contrarian viewpoints against conservatives. But the guy sells a ton of books, so I guess the ends justifies the means and therefore he is absolutely brilliant. I"m sorry I even had the gall to write this.

[Zeke12]

Without this being a threadjack, how is Krugman a patsy?

He knows his economics. I think he gets into the weeds on politics, but he knows his area of expertise as well as anyone in the world.

[Starman]

The Star Tribune, to its credit, let the state representative in question have his say with an op-ed piece.  The result is not pretty for Souhan (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/148180475.html).  

Souhan hasn't said anything publicly about this whole thing, although he's not in hiding and is Twittering away about baseball and other topics.  I don't think this is something he can let go by without responding if he wants to preserve a shred of credibility.

Urdahl in this piece is at least a Tea Party anti-taxer who is walking the walk rather just talking the talk.

I've always found it interesting (disingenuous concern-trollspeak) that the huge huge huge majority of teabaggers screech on endlessly about money being handed out to slovenly lazy funny-colored freeloaders (usually low-income families) but rarely even raise a peep about literally billions of tax dollars handed out to billionaire sports franchise owners in the form of essentially free stadiums financed out of the pockets of taxpayers.

You would think the teabaggers would be literally rioting in the streets when these nine-figure Santa Claus giveaways continue to be floated in the face of economic disaster. Yet they rarely seem to work up 1/1000th the enthusiasm they generate against the welfare mammas slugging vodka and eating Twinkies.

It has been proven consistently, repeatedly and monotonously that professional sports stadiums bring a very minimal overall return for anybody other than the franchise owners themselves (and high-paid athletes). On the other hand, welfare and food stamp money handed out to poor people goes right back into the economy, usually overnight. They don't sock it away in Cayman Island bank accounts.

Whether he realizes it or not, Souhan is just another nutbag-slurper for the Koch Bros. fraternity club, waving pom-poms for another taxpayer giveaway to billionaires.

[lcjjdnh]

Souhan can be at least competent on baseball; he knows his stuff and has a lot of sources from his days as the Twins beat writer.  But as a columnist he's simply horrible.  He tries way too hard to be funny when he's just not, and also tries way too hard to stir the pot and be controversial just for the sake of being controversial. 

Always found it silly the "best" reporters got columns. Very, very different skills required. Even the Times falls into this trap--Friedman and Dowd, for instance, are horrible columnists, while Krugman, who was never a reporter, is a great one (even if you don't agree with him, you have to give him credit for being good at what he does).

Krugman is just a patsy for far-left nutjobs who exist only to offer contrarian viewpoints against conservatives. But the guy sells a ton of books, so I guess the ends justifies the means and therefore he is absolutely brilliant. I"m sorry I even had the gall to write this.

Like I said, I don't think you have to agree with Krugman to accept he's good at what he does. People on the right like that, too. I personally think Rush spews vile commentary, but I can appreciate his qualities as an entertainer and see why people are attracted to him as a radio host.