Fortunately, theyre using popguns, which is about all the intellectual firepower the Minneapolis paper can muster.
I googled the author, Tamara Baker, otherwise unidentified by the Star-Tribune. In her piece, she poses as a defender of an independent and free press, against the attacks of the vicious right-wing blogosphere. In her other life, which you can glimpse here, here, here, here, here, and here, she constantly insists upon the right-wing corporate bias of the MSM. Indeed, she even accuses Maureen Dowd (!!) of being anti-Clinton and asks:
"The real question is "Why has the US corporate media, ever since 1999, treated Bush far more gently than ANY Democratic candidate of the last thirty years?"
Whew! Outside of her and her friends, there apparently is no genuinely free press.
Did the folks at the Minneapolis paper know what they were getting when they accepted this op-ed, which tells us one thing, or did they not dig at all into her background, which tells us something else? Are they malign or negligent? Or both?