[Imc] another edition of the Public i?

[John Wason]

At 02:46 PM 04/23/2002 -0500, Sandra Ahten wrote:

>Does anyone have an idea about how to put some fire into the public i?  Does
>it start with firing the current editors?
>
>OH my did I get your attention?
>
>Most people I know can't get through an edition of the public i.  I don't
>know why it is so f'ing boring... but it is.  It's about as boring as the
>meetings are.
>
>When people talk to me about it... they always apologize for what they are
>about to say... so they don't hurt my feelings.
>
>I thought it was just me.  But others say zzzzzz too.
>
>BTW... this is not to knock the individual efforts and writing that were in
>this last issue or any previous issue.  Individually there was merit there.
>But somehow it just does not come together with any kind of dynamic.

I'd like to suggest that those who think the public i is boring, or whatever
term they want to use, make a serious attempt to figure out precisely what
it is they don't like, and what if anything they DO like, about it prior to
these meetings.  Otherwise attempts to change it will just be groping in the
dark, pissing in the wind.

I'd also like to suggest that our four "sustaining contributors", not to
mention those who paid for subscriptions, did so at least in part on the
basis of what the public i looked like and consisted of when they made their
financial contribution.

I'm wondering if those of us who are currently involved with the public i
should come to this meeting, or stay away.  It already feels a little like a
coup or a mutiny - but of course that's hierarchical thinking, isn't it?  It
just strikes me that the concerns being raised here, which certainly may be
legitimate, could just as easily be raised - could have BEEN raised all
along - at our regular Sunday afternoon print group meeting. Then maybe
those Sunday meetings would be less "boring".

I know that if I come on Thursday, being me, I'll say pretty much the same
things I always say about "quality", about "consistency", something about
"being taken seriously in the community as a venue for alternative news and
commentary".  I will still be unable to understand how a newspaper can be
taken seriously without some form of consistency and quality control, which
always ends up seeming hierarchical to those who fail to grasp the concept.
Since everyone already knows where I stand, perhaps I should just stay away?

I had thought that we were going to make a very serious effort to be an
alternative news source for the community of Champaign-Urbana.  While we
obviously can't make everyone happy, I had thought that we were achieving
some success in that area.  To me all this discussion about "hierarchies"
and about "contributors doing self-editing", which has gone on since the
very beginning, is in large part ego-driven, and seriously detracts from
what I thought our basic mission was.  This whole debate strikes me as the
same sort of thing that divides political movements and parties, churches,
and just about every other organization of human beings that professes to
want social change and to practice "love".  I was probably foolish to think
that we would be able to somehow trascend it.

We really have yet to decisively make the same basic decision we've
struggled with all along:  Is the public i a venue for anyone who wants to
express himself or herself, without regard for what the subject matter is or
how articulate or inarticulate he/she is?  Or is it a venue for the widest
possible dissemination of information that is vital for citizens in a
(supposed) democracy to be aware of?

To me the two are not mutually exclusive, and it's a constant tightrope walk
to try to strike a balance between them.  I had thought that we were walking
that tightrope reasonably well, though of course not everyone was perfectly
satisfied.  I know, and the Deity knows, that I've struggled might and main
to "give everyone a voice" within the parameters of some sort of quality
control.

Ah, well, I'll shut up now.  Maybe it's time for someone else to have a go
at "not leading" the public i.

John