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

[nancy dietrich]

Hi, all.  I'm not an editor, but I am an interested party who,
unfortunately, cannot attend a lot of Thursday meetings (hopefully, this
will change in the next few weeks).  Anyway, I'm responding to this,
because, as I recall, we said at a meeting some time ago, that we
_wanted_ to leave stories open to items of international/national
interest. Perhaps this has changed, but I reallyhope it hasn't.   I
haven't read Mike's article, but I think international/national news IS
relevant to us locally, and like Mike is also referring to, we need to
give the locals a different spin than the N-G does on
international/national issues.  

On Mon, 09 Jul 2001 19:30:37 -0500 Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net>
writes:
> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Imc mailing list
> Imc at urbana.indymedia.org
> http://lists.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc


________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.