[Imc] Editors' preferences & our Paper

[Paul Riismandel]

I think it's important to not read into the editors' statement on the type 
of material that is preferred for the newspaper.

The statement is: "We prefer articles written on topics of local impact by 
authors with local
  ties."

This statement does not say:
"We don't want international or national news."
"We don't want articles by people outside the area."
or any such thing.

Simply, this statement says that we want stuff with a local bent.  When we 
cover a national or international story, it is important for us to make 
this relevant to our readers-- to give it "local impact."  As John pointed 
out, this can mean getting a quote from the Health Care Consumers on a 
Nat'l health care story.  If we do a story on the middle east, then it is a 
good idea to get quotes from local folks who have knowledge or experience 
with the topic.  This sort of thing can easily be _added_ to already 
existing story--something that is common practice in mainstream newspapers 
using wire copy.

We also want to emphasize local writers, or stuff from people, like 
Weisbrot, who have ties.  Otherwise, we can hardly call ourselves a local 
paper.

But this preference in no way rules out or causes us to reject articles of 
an extra-local nature written by folks with no local ties.

With specific regard to the labor issue--my take on it is, if we cannot 
find local people to write articles without also burning out the core group 
of IMC volunteers, then we have no business trying to publish a paper.  If 
we can't find local writers, then that indicates to me that people find the 
News-Gazette and Daily Illini to be sufficient and do not feel the need to 
be published.   However, I'm pretty sure this isn't so.

I agree that we need to recruit folks from outside the IMC to be 
editors--I, myself, have had reservations with tapping the same core 
volunteers, even as I stepped forward to edit the media section (primarily 
so that this first issue would get off the ground). But it's also a 
chicken-and-egg situation.  We have to prove that we actually have a paper 
before a lot of folks will take us seriously and lend their 
efforts.  (Similarly, it was a relatively small group that got WEFT off the 
ground, but now that it's viable, it's much easier to add people to the fold).

With specific regard to the Weisbrot article--John pointed out that the 
editors decided to keep it, based on the very grounds that it is a good 
article and that it is by someone with local ties.  I don't think it is 
wrong, however, that there is desire to have as much local content as 
possible for our inaugural issue.  But I am happy with publishing 
Wesibrot's article.

I understand how Mike may not appreciate being second-guessed, and the last 
thing I want is for people to put in work only to have it be undone.  But I 
also want to point out that from the beginning the Print group's editorial 
board was conceived of as a collective, and therefore makes decisions as a 
collective--including choosing the topics for articles that end up in the 
paper.  For instance, the idea for article for the media section got the 
approval from all the editors--not just me.  And I'm glad, because then no 
time was wasted writing an article that other people would have found 
inappropriate.  This structure was debated long and hard, so as to both 
help relieve the overburdened and also make sure that no one person could 
skew the paper or keep a voice out.  I think that presence at the 
collective meeting is necessary for things to work out this way. It's 
fundamental to cooperation.

Yes, the meetings have been long and too numerous thus far, but frankly 
they have been necessary in order to work out the details of what it takes 
to put out a newspaper.  This is not a simple thing, and the time has not 
been wasted.  But there is also the intensely shared desire and belief 
amongst the Print working group that after this first issue, the meetings 
can and will have to be shorter and less frequent--burn out is not an option.

I appreciate the time and work that everyone associated with the Print 
project has put in, and I really hope that the paper brings the IMC to a 
new level of visibility and outreach to people outside our usual sphere.

--Paul