Digitized Index Cards to Minneapolis Newspapers
Van Houlson, Journalism Librarian, University of Minnesota Libraries
For many years, the index cards to the Minneapolis Star and the Minneapolis Tribune at the Wilson Library on the University of Minnesota campus gave researchers a unique tool for locating articles on local people and events. This index was recently scanned by the Digital Collections unit at the University of Minnesota Libraries and is now available for searching as a public access website called the Minneapolis Newspaper Index (https://www.lib.umn.edu/newspapers).
Use this search engine to find articles from the Minnesota Daily (1900-1922, 1963-1977), Minneapolis Tribune (1940-1945,1950-1954) and the Minneapolis Star (1964-1970). Search for keywords found in the headlines of articles or among the subject headings used to organize the card file. This is a fascinating resource for anyone interested in Minneapolis history and will also display the actual image of the original card, revealing the work of dedicated library staff over decades as they added citations about local people, architecture, events and other developments. The Minneapolis Newspaper Index opens up new possibilities for researching local Minnesota history in the 20th century that is currently not possible using any existing newspaper content in print, microfilm, or online.
I can personally vouch for Van’s commitment to thinking creatively about ways these types of valuable resources can be preserved.
Digitization is changing historical research in profound and important ways (some potentially good, others potentially bad) but it is thrilling to see the University of Minnesota Libraries carry on a long commitment to preserving newspapers as a key part of the historical record.
Fourth Estate, July 22, 1905.
“The Pentagon Papers episode was hailed as a huge victory for press freedom and prompted new skepticism about government. But before any of that, somebody had to do hours of laborious, exacting work preparing articles about, and excerpts from, the papers for publication. Mr. Gold, an assistant foreign editor, shouldered much of the burden.”
Literally, a dying breed.
An earlier version misstated the term Mr. Vidal called William F. Buckley Jr. in a television appearance during the 1968 Democratic National Convention. It was crypto-Nazi, not crypto-fascist. It also described incorrectly Mr. Vidal’s connection with former Vice President Al Gore. Although Mr. Vidal frequently referred jokingly to Mr. Gore as his cousin, they were not related. And Mr. Vidal’s relationship with his longtime live-in companion, Howard Austen, was also described incorrectly. According to Mr. Vidal’s memoir “Palimpsest,” they had sex the night they met, but did not sleep together after they began living together. It was not true that they never had sex.
“Our favorite correction letter ever, from 5th graders @ Burning Tree E.S. in Bethesda MD.” - @RonCharles, Washington Post
Awesome.
COPY. EDITORS.
In a decision released this morning, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the University of Minnesota did not violate a student’s free speech rights when it punished her for Facebook posts related to her coursework in the mortuary science program.
It is an important ruling for student freedom of speech, especially as the line between what counts as “on campus” and “off campus” blurs. Like most big rulings, we’ll have to wait and see what other courts do with it before we really know what to think. But here’s why I think it raises more questions than it answers, and could be deeply troubling for all students’ First Amendment rights:
It is particularly fortuitous that the very object of this particular first amendment fight can be used to celebrate its protection.
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press:
Judge Trey E. Loftin of the 43rd Judicial District Court in Weatherford, Texas, found that Wilson is not protected under the state’s shield law because “she did not create her blog for the purpose of making money.” The judge also noted that Wilson had no formal education in journalism and made no claims of total objectivity.
When we pass shield laws, we have to decide who’s in and who’s out. As Justice White put it in the 1972 case Branzburg v. Hayes, this type of line-drawing presents “practical and conceptual difficulties of a high order.”
“Sooner or later, it would be necessary to define those categories of newsmen who qualified for the privilege, a questionable procedure in light of the traditional doctrine that liberty of the press is the right of the lonely pamphleteer who uses carbon paper or a mimeograph just as much as of the large metropolitan publisher who utilizes the latest … methods.”
