[Imc] (Print) Editor's Meeting Minutes 7/5/2001

[Mike Lehman]

I'm glad to see the Print minutes posted to the IMC mainlist. Thanks.

Not being there to comment during the meeting about the preference for
local articles expressed below, I think it is important to remind people
that we are presently going to the well again with much the same group
of people who are already overcommited at the IMC to get the Print
project off the ground. While I would also like to see as much local
tie-in as possible, I think there seems to be an excessive amount of
handwringing over the fact that some of what we have is not.

While I don't want us to be like the dominant media, it is important to
point out that they use nationally-originated stories and commentators
to frame news of a more local character many times. The powerful example
of having the "experts" on your side is something that we should NOT
forego. Besides, I have taken a lot of time and trouble to cultivate a
stable of excellent columnists that have given us permission to have
their work appear regularly on the webpage.

It is also a practical matter. I don't know what people were thinking by
inviting a bunch of already over-committed people to be editors, but I
personally will have very limited time and interest in writing anything
seperate from what I already do on the website; I think that I have made
that clear, but I repeat it here for emphasis.

If there is a desire to concentrate on local, original content, there
will have to be a much greater effort made to recruit new writers for
Print in particular and the IMC in general. I say this not to be testy
about the situation, but to be both pragmatic and starightforward about
what challenges you face if you intend to hold to a strict standard in
this regard.

Furthermore, the column of Mark Weisbrot's that I submitted was a much
better piece than anything I could have done within the limitations on
my time and on a very timely subject where the dominant media have been
failing to address large parts of the issue. He has been occassionally
published in the past by the News-Gazette, but I feel strongly that the
public needs to hear more from him, rather than the latest insipid
George Will/Cal Thomas/Right-wing trash of the day. We need to have our
experts going head to head with those folks on a regular basis. Limiting
ourselves to purely local writers and subject matter leaves us with one
arm tied behind our backs in the department of public opinion.

I will defer to the wishes of the majority on this, but be advised that
being constantly second-guessed about the nature of a section that I'm
supposed to be using my best judgement on is liable to lead to more
discouragement and less interest from whoever may be the editor(s) of
this section (or any other.)

I think it is rather pointless to delegate tasks to people and then to
call more meetings to overrule their best judgement because the decisons
they make might not fit the precise vision of the general editors.
Hence, I note yet someone else pointing out that, whatever happens, if
it takes another round of meetings, it is probably not a viable way of
approaching the subject.
Mike Lehman
(not really pissed by any of this, but wondering where all the help that
it will take to realize these visions of community journalism will be
coming from)

Ellen Knutson wrote:
> 
> The Public I
> Editor's Meeting 7/5/2001 8pm

> "We prefer articles written on topics of local impact by authors with local
> ties."
> 
> Further, we came up with a process for how an article makes it to print:
> 1. writers, editors, citizens suggest ideas
> 2. editorial board considers the ideas
> 3. editorial board makes assignments (either to person who suggested idea
> or if they do not want to write to another writer)
> 4. Feedback to authors,
> 5. Issue finalization
> 
> We did not agree that this was a final version of the actual process but
> did agree to revisit it at a later time.
SNIP
> At the end of the meeting, Belden voiced his concern about the length and
> frequency of meetings. He did not feel that he could commit to being an
> editor if it required a weekly commitment of TWO 1+ hour(s)  meetings.
> There was a general consensus that no one in the group felt they could make
> such a commitment, and although it was necessary due to the amount of work
> to do for the first issue, it is our goal that the print and editorial
> meeting become one and perhaps even go to every other week rather than
> weekly. Also, part of the goal of having two editors per section was so
> there could be some flexibility if one or the other could not make all the
> meetings.