[Imc] Re: [UCIMC-print] re:another edition of the Public i?

[John Wason]

Thank you for your lengthy and detailed input, Orion.


At 01:32 PM 04/25/2002 -0500, L. Orion Weill wrote:

>On a similar note, as the newest editor, I have tried to solicit 
>articles from the community to be included "as is", the best example 
>being Andy Trull's (of SDS) article on Eco-living. The article, more 
>of a cartoon, was not posted in last month's edition, due to other 
>editors' reservations of its "lack of professionality" and inclusion 
>of words like "poo". The unwillingness of the "hierarchy" to include 
>such articles is, I believe, an important issue to tackle, and I long 
>for such a debate to spawn.

It already has, since the public i's inception.  I would merely point out
two things here:

1) The decision not to run the totality of Andy Trull's submission was a
group decision, after quite a bit of agonizing, and not a decision by any
one individual.  And we did in fact include Andy's poem.  As far as I'm
concerned, that was the process working, not failing to work.
2) The public i is a unique medium, in that we're limited by space and
monetary considerations, and by the fact that it's ink on newsprint.  There
are other venues, through the IMC and elsewhere, for anything that Andy
Trull, or anyone else, wants to say.


>That said, I will not be attending the meeting today, having already 
>scheduled an important meeting (I am facilitating) more than two days 
>in advance of the town meeting, as it were, being announced (not 
>requested). Had I not had previous engangements, I probably would not 
>have attended anyway, in protest of this "process" of establishing an 
>outside meeting regarding a group who seems to be unable (or 
>unwilling) to attend, subsequently naming yourself the facilitator of 
>the meeting. Such a "procedure" is the antithesis of the democratic 
>structure you seem to be espousing is lacking within the publici, and 
>quite frankly, sucks.
>
>Help us make the publici better. Change the format and content for 
>the better, to remove its uneventfulness. But, for the love of God, 
>do it in such a way so as not to further divide a struggling local 
>movement. Join together and attend a Sunday meeting. Write a proposal 
>and submit it to the Steering Group. Don't badger us and belittle the 
>hard work those of us who DO care [I suggest if you don't care if 
>papers are distributed as (the former?) Distribution Coordinator, 
>quit wasting our time and write your own paper], concurrently 
>dictating a coup-esque takeover through an unofficial meeting that 
>you've established at your own convenience.

I have mixed feelings about this.  Sandra is a take-charge person, and we
need people like her.  Democracy as we know it has not been seriously
compromised in any permanent sense.  On the other hand, more advance notice
would have been nice, and I still see no reason why this discussion couldn't
have taken place at a regular meeting of the print group on Sunday.  It has
in the past, in fact.  If we need to change the print group's regular
meeting time back to a weeknight, then that's what we need to do.

I would also say that Sandra has made similar proposals in the past, as did
Ellen, but they didn't really get off the ground.  I don't see how it's
going to be dramatically different this time, but I'm certainly willing to
listen.  I encourage the participation of anyone who is interested.


>I am on your side. I want this to be a community paper, where 
>submissions are left intact, minus spelling errors and layout issues. 
>My first article about the hybrid car was boring as hell, as I 
>adhered to the desires of the collective wanting to keep the article 
>an announcement of the car itself, not relating it to other, 
>larger-scale issues. Even after having done so, the article was 
>butchered and restructured at the last minute, begrudgingly to my 
>approval. Let's prevent this from occuring again. Let's empower 
>writers, and those who don't even consider themselves writers, to 
>contribute compelling, interesting, avant-garde, off-the-wall, or 
>plain fucked up articles to generate more response from the 
>community. After all, isn't that the purpose of the paper? Let's be 
>the community's paper, not a community paper.

As you know I disagree here, and don't need to elaborate too much.  I will
say that I personally thought that the article about the hybrid car was
reasonably interesting, and have failed to understand what else you thought
it needed.  Common sense tells you that you can't explore the entire
universe of environmental issues in one 1,000-word article.


>>>  So here are some ideas.
>>>  The print group provides the mechansim to publish what a group of
passionate
>>>  people want to print.
>>>  ie. SDS groupies
>>>  AWARE volunteers
>>>  WEFT women
>>>  YOGA teachers
>>>  ARTIST whose last name begin with W

>I've got an idea (are us editors allowed any?), why don't you attend 
>an AWARE meeting, get someone who is interested in writing an 
>article, and have them submit it to the publici with whatever content 
>they desire. If the article is scoffed at, then we have one of these 
>meetings to tackle the issue, the most pressing one to me.

And that's precisely what we do right now.


>>>  We do the work... but their group would dictate the content.

>To me, that's what we are supposed to be doing. This is a valid issue 
>that should be discussed.

But what is "the work" that "we" are supposed to be doing, if not evaluating
story ideas, working with the writer to flesh out those ideas, copy editing,
etc.?  And who is the "we" who are doing "the work"?  Does "the work"
consist "merely" of doing the layout, the distribution, and the fundraising?
I personally don't care to do "work" on which I have no substantive input.
We've been having trouble finding enough people to do "the work" even when
they DO have all sorts of opportunities for substantive input.  I'm
thoroughly confused.


>>>  WE GET RID OF THE 7 divisions/ editors as we know them.

>If you are worried about the lack of dynamic, having no established 
>set of subject headings, no one to make sure certain topics (whatever 
>those topics are decided to be) are covered, how does that contribute 
>to a dynamic? How is having one or two different individuals each 
>month (if we're having trouble keeping 7-actually more like 4 with 
>the overlap of sections to a single editor- editors in the publici, 
>is it realistic that we'll find someone capable, willing, and 
>dedicated enough to have sole responsibility for the publici every 
>month) soliciting any articles they so desire, in any format that 
>they can put together, anything resembling a dynamic? If we decide on 
>this format, I propose that we change our name to "The Jokesta' 
>Position".

Here I agree.


>>>  We print on demand.  When we get enough articles that enough people really
>>>  care about... instead of articles that are forced out by deadlines.

>How will this happen if there is no deadline? If we do it whenever it 
>is convenient or someone thinks it has enough to be printed (how will 
>that be decided with no subject areas, no reference point for when 
>the issue is nearing completion?), I foresee six-month gaps between 
>issues. How will we increase readership if people don't know when it 
>is coming out? Would we mail everyone when the issue was finally 
>going to be printed? I don't think our sustaining contributors would 
>like the idea.

I tend to agree here, too.  Most people function best with some sort of
deadline.


>>>  We stop worrying about printing our own paper and instead start
figuring out
>>>  how to get information into people's hands, hearts and heads.

>Umm, I think that is what the paper is trying to do. There are folks 
>who read the paper that won't go to the website (one reason being the 
>lack of oversight on what is posted). The information we do provide 
>(whether you believe it to be the right information is another 
>debate) DOES reach people's hands, hearts, and heads, as evident from 
>eyewitness accounts (including my observation several days ago) of 
>non-IMCistas reading the publici in public places (I saw someone 
>reading it at the Iron Post).

Agree again.  I'm firmly convinced that we ARE reaching SOME people's
"hands, hearts, and heads".


>>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 would point out that we only have four. We need much more outreach 
>and fundraising. Do we only have four because of the format? Content? 
>Let's talk with them and get their input on improvements that could 
>be made.

Not a bad idea.  I've received input from one of the four.


>>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.

>Do we have a mission statement? Where is it? Should we redraft it? 
>Should we revisit it if people feel we aren't adhering to it?

It's on page 2 of every issue of the public i, at the top of the column that
lists the editors, etc.  Drafting the mission statement is one of the first
things we did when we were planning the public i.  It was drafted and
approved by the consensus of those present - about 20 people at the time, if
memory serves.  Though we spent a lot of time on it, perhaps it should be
revisited.  There has certainly been some disagreement as to what it "means".  

I personally think that there's no mission statement on earth we could come
up with where we could find 10 people who agree on what the words mean.
That's why we have our weekly consensus-based meetings, and why we have
"creative conflict" at those meetings and elsewhere.


>>We really have yet to definitively 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?

>You're assuming that what Joe off the street has to contribute will 
>not be vital information for citizens, despite being A CITIZEN, 
>rather than a group of white men sitting on couches in downtown 
>Urbana dictating what is news and what isn't.

Interesting that you chose "Joe" rather than "LaKeisha", and then railed
against white men.  No, I'm not assuming that at all.  Any citizen - or
non-citizen, for that matter - can attend our meetings and have input.  But
all we have available to us is the input of the people who are actually
present.  If they happen to be mostly white men, I don't know what to do
about that.  I don't control who walks through the door.  Nor do you, to my
knowledge.


>>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.

>If quality control means not printing an article due to personal 
>bias, that's a separate issue.

You can never keep personal bias out of anything.  I thought we 'indymedia"
folks, of all people, understood that.  But there are controls.  One of the
main controls is that most decisions, other than relatively minor things
like copy editing, are made by consensus or compromise involving more than
one individual.  Even copy editing itself is a constant dynamic between the
writer, a subject area editor, and an editor at large.  

I don't see why this dynamic seems to be so invisible to so many, or why so
many people seem to somehow feel threatened by it.  It is precisely
democracy at work.  It may or may not be anarchy at work; we'd have to agree
on a definition of anarchy, and then decide whether we wanted the public i
to be anarchic.  

This, as I have said repeatedly, is the main question we need to answer.  Do
we want consensus-based democracry, or anarchy?  And if anarchy, how is
anarchy to be defined?


>>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, if you feel that you are "not leading" the publici, that IS a 
>problem. The paper belongs to no one. The editors should rotate 
>whenever needed. It's a community paper, and editors, unless we want 
>to be like the CU Shittyview, should not dictate the important issues 
>of the community.

I don't think we dictate them.  I think we DECIDE what they are, and how to
approach them, at consensus-based meetings that are open to all.  Perhaps
the editors should rotate, but who decides when it's "needed", and what do
you do with an editor who doesn't WANT to rotate?

I continue to ask what the REAL problem is.  Why is it, for example, that no
one cares whether members of the IMC Tech group "rotate" or not?  Why are we
not clamoring that the IMC librarians get "feedback from the community"?
I'd genuinely like to have someone explain these things to me.


>>The Public i collective does not purposefully write a paper the choir
>>neither needs to nor wants to read?
>>
>>Do you ask different people than the choir if they are bored by the paper?

>Great questions. We need to be getting more feedback from our 
>READERS, not the movement. I've gotten positive feedback from 
>strangers, from Bruce Walden regarding the hybrid article, and from 
>just seeing locals go to the stand to pick up the latest issue. I 
>agree that there are issues that need to be addressed, including the 
>lack (and frustration) of women, what parameters we want to establish 
>for what is "acceptable", whether we want to hold elections for new 
>editors, how to get more regular writers and contributors, 
>minorities, and others into the group, how often we want to put out 
>the publici, how to be more responsive to the community, and how to 
>give ourselves credit. The IMC has put out seven issues, worked 
>really hard, and often publishes articles prior to the DI (i.e. GEO), 
>making it a good source for the community. Let's work together, not 
>setup an ad hoc, replacement group that will make important decisions 
>without complete input. Let's announce a meeting in the next issue 
>soliciting input from community members, with a specified date and 
>time in a community location.

Interesting idea.  How would that be different from announcing - in the
public i, as we presently do - that meetings of the IMC print group are open
to all members of the community, and that we desire community input and
participation?

Thanks again for taking the time to give us your own input, Orion.

John