[UCIMC-print] Re: [Imc] (Print) Editor's Meeting Minutes 7/5/2001

[John Wason]

At 07:30 PM 07/09/2001 -0500, Mike Lehman wrote:

>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)

As the "general editor" who volunteered to brave your certain wrath by
calling you to discuss the consensus we reached at the editor's meeting
after you left, Mike, I can disagree with very little that you say above.  I
think Mark Weisbrot's article is an excellent one, and I look forward to
more by him.  I'm delighted that you've cultivated writers of national
stature who are willing to contribute the fruits of their labors to our
little paper.   I agree that a few overcommitted people can't keep the paper
going unless we are able to recruit more writers/reporters.

It's just that a balance must be struck.  We can't all just go and grab
something off the web and call it a day, without making at least a token
attempt to contextualize the story in such a way as to make it clearly
relevant to a local reader.  (Well, we can, actually, but what would be the
point?)  In the case of Mark Weisbrot, it might be as simple as doing what I
ended up doing, a brief biographical sketch in which his ties to C-U are
emphasized.  Or it might be a brief interview with someone local, like the
woman (Claudia Lenhoff?) who runs the Champaign County Health Care
Consumers.  I've certainly indicated my willingness to work WITH other
editors and writers to give a story local relevance.

I'm hoping that the paper will build some momentum over time which will
encourage more and more people to contribute to it.  But that's not going to
just happen by itself.  In his final year of publication, Jamal Maatuka of
Black Thought had NO local contributors other than himself.  I suggest that
if each of us spent as much time in trying to recruit LOCAL writers as you,
Mike, have spent in recruiting national writers, we might have a group large
and diverse enough to keep a paper going.  I've been trying, but so far no
luck.  It just seems to me that there is a tremendous number of intelligent,
committed people in these twin cities, and that they could without great
difficulty simply write about things they're already involved with.  But
maybe I'm being naive.

In any event, I applaud your efforts and your commitment, Mike.  At the same
time, I perceive my role as editor at large as sometimes requiring me to
say, "This story is poorly written," or "This story has insufficient
relevance to C-U."  I suppose you guys could fire ME as editor at large if
you perceive my role differently or resent my criticism, however
well-intentioned and constructive.

Well, I guess the editorial collective will decide something or other.
Thanks for your input, Mike.  It was well thought out and well-expressed -
AND relevant to C-U.  :)

John