[Imc] Re: [UCIMC-print] Rethinking My Role...

[John Wason]

At 11:19 AM 03/19/2002 -0600, mfeltes at ucimc.org wrote:

>Every criticism here is completely justified, Sandra.  My stewardship of the 
>distribution routes has been a signal failure.  I should never have taken it 
>from you in the first place.  I'm sorry.

I don't think you really took it away from Sandra, Mike.  She was gone for a
month, and there was some consensus that there should probably be a bit of
redundancy in the process - i.e., a copy of the database at the IMC.  You
showed a bit of initiative, that's all.


>I would like to remind the group, however, of my early efforts to build up 
>the distribution system into a less taxing entity.  Remember the flyers 
>that I designed?  The ones that I paid to have photocopied out of my own 
>funds?  Do you remember how I set up the front table with these flyers 
>and asked you to post them at your stops?  The entire idea was to take 
>the burden of distributing the papers off the editorial collective and
bring in 
>new blood.  The initiative met with stony indifference from the Print Group, 
>and I'm using my flyers as printing paper.  Now, this certainly does not 
>excuse my neglect of the basics of the job, but you can understand how 
>my enthusiasm might be dampened.

I'm sorry your enthusiasm is dampened, Mike, but every one of us has had the
experience of some suggestion or innovation of ours not being implemented by
the group.  We go on, some of us.


>My enthusiasm is dampened.  That's a good phrase, and accurate.  I'm 
>doing a LOT of work right now at the IMC, but very little of it is related to 
>what I really enjoy, and what I thought we were about in the first place, 
>producing news.  I haven't written a story since my Firestone article.  I 
>haven't produced an audio piece since the Pacifism in Action Newshour, 
>and that wasn't really news.  I've gotten sucked in to the maintainance of 
>the IMC and its parts as organizations because I perceive such need 
>there, but they are sapping my energy and passion because I have no 
>love for them.  
>
>I did not want to be an editor of the public i.  John pestered me about it for 
>two months.  My name was actually put on the masthead without my 
>consent before I gave in and let de facto become de jure.  However, you 
>will notice that I have been Labor Editor in name only.  I haven't solicited 
>any articles for the public i, except for the GEO article from Laura Neil, and 
>I didn't pursue that lead with any vigor.  Why?  I don't like to do it.  I
have a 
>problem asking people who I do not know to invest time or money for me, 
>a perfect stranger; it's the same block that has made me uncomfortable 
>about approaching businesses for underwriting support, and it's the 
>same feeling that made me a bad popcorn seller in Cub Scouts and a 
>bad candy bar seller in a Catholic grade school.  

This I understand.  I hated selling candy for the Little League, and I sold
very few boxes.  Selling "stuff" is not at all my personality.  My dad took
some to his job each year and sold them there.  I never won any selling
contests.

However, I seem to have no problem whatsoever in soliciting people to write
articles for the public i.  I view it as encouraging them to write about
things they're already interested in, and providing a forum for their words
and ideas.  A very different thing from selling candy, in my view.

By the same token, I thought I was "encouraging" you, Mike, to be Labor
Editor of the public i. I wasn't aware that you interpreted it as
"pestering".  I'm heartily sorry.  I thought you'd be good at it.  I also
"pestered" Sandra, I guess, to remain as editor of the Arts section, because
she's so doggone good at it, such an asset to the public i.  

I do agree that things work best if we all do what we're best at and
comfortable with and passionate about.  I don't understand, though, Mike,
why if you want to "produce news", you as Labor/Economics editor couldn't
simply write most of your own articles for your section, while meanwhile
utilizing others that "fall into your lap", so to speak.  Soliciting authors
doesn't have to be a full-time job.  

I personally find that it's easier to encourage someone else to write an
article, and then work with them, than it is to write the article myself.
And of course in the long run the former approach results in a larger pool
of reporting/writing talent, and a truer exemplar of "community journalism".
But it's a fair amount o' work either way.


>Effective immediately, I am stepping down as Labor/Economics Editor, 
>Spokesperson from the Print Group to the Steering Group, and 
>Distribution Coordinator.  
>
>I hope that I will feel comfortable at some point in the future in
returning to 
>the public i in the role that I envisioned originally, that of a writer,
and that 
>my enthusiasm for this alternative media will return.

Well, I hope so, too.  In my opinion you're overreacting just a bit, but of
course I don't know all the facts and circumstances.

Meanwhile it looks like we as a print group have some serious reassessing to
do.  We've made a good start, with a generally high-quality publication, a
line item in the IMC budget, four sustaining contributors, something like 5
or 6 subscribers, and an increasing presence in the community.  I've been
greatly encouraged by the recent appearance of such promising writers as
Liam O'Donoghue, Jason Butler, and Laura Stengrim.

At the same time we've been screwing up pretty badly on distribution, we
(apparently) don't have any spokes to the Steering Group, we've lost several
key editors, and we're stretched pretty thin.

I've enjoyed doing the public i, and I continue to think it serves a
valuable function in the community.  But I too have felt overburdened quite
often, and I know that it can't just be my vision if it is to succeed in the
long term.

I've done a lot of thinking about why it seems that we of the public i have
more problems and greater dissension than any of the other IMC working
groups.  I don't think we're different as human beings in some fundamental
way.  The only thing I can conclude is that producing a newspaper is simply
more resource-intensive, both in terms of money and in terms of people, than
anything else that the IMC does.  While a single individual can post an
article on the IMC newswire, and it takes maybe 2 people to produce a radio
show, we seem to need a core group of at least 10-12 people to produce and
distribute an issue of the public i.  It's a complex, multi-layered process,
and we have to do it month after month.

Maybe the IMC shouldn't be in the newspaper business.  Maybe we need to
publish more articles off the web.  Or maybe we need a new paradigm.
Perhaps it's time to try something like what Sandra suggested a few months
ago - instead of having section editors who remain the same every month,
perhaps we need to assemble a "team" each month that puts out that month's
issue of the public i.  The team could have different members or components
each month, though some would remain the same.  

I personally think it would be more trouble to assemble a new team every
month, and I think that most people would tend to end up falling into
comfortable, familiar patterns anyway, but maybe it would work better.  I
don't know.

Some constants remain, at any rate.  We would still need continuity in terms
of distribution.  And there is still the human factor - that people would
have to occupy roles that they feel comfortable in and passionate about.

I'm certainly open to suggestions.  Whatever we do, we need to do fairly
soon, if we're to remain viable.

John