[Imc] (Print) Editor's Meeting Minutes 7/5/2001
nancy dietrich
nancydietrich at juno.com
Tue Jul 10 02:27:12 UTC 2001
Hi, all. I'm not an editor, but I am an interested party who,
unfortunately, cannot attend a lot of Thursday meetings (hopefully, this
will change in the next few weeks). Anyway, I'm responding to this,
because, as I recall, we said at a meeting some time ago, that we
_wanted_ to leave stories open to items of international/national
interest. Perhaps this has changed, but I reallyhope it hasn't. I
haven't read Mike's article, but I think international/national news IS
relevant to us locally, and like Mike is also referring to, we need to
give the locals a different spin than the N-G does on
international/national issues.
On Mon, 09 Jul 2001 19:30:37 -0500 Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net>
writes:
> 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)
>
> Ellen Knutson wrote:
> >
> > The Public I
> > Editor's Meeting 7/5/2001 8pm
>
> > "We prefer articles written on topics of local impact by authors
> with local
> > ties."
> >
> > Further, we came up with a process for how an article makes it to
> print:
> > 1. writers, editors, citizens suggest ideas
> > 2. editorial board considers the ideas
> > 3. editorial board makes assignments (either to person who
> suggested idea
> > or if they do not want to write to another writer)
> > 4. Feedback to authors,
> > 5. Issue finalization
> >
> > We did not agree that this was a final version of the actual
> process but
> > did agree to revisit it at a later time.
> SNIP
> > At the end of the meeting, Belden voiced his concern about the
> length and
> > frequency of meetings. He did not feel that he could commit to
> being an
> > editor if it required a weekly commitment of TWO 1+ hour(s)
> meetings.
> > There was a general consensus that no one in the group felt they
> could make
> > such a commitment, and although it was necessary due to the amount
> of work
> > to do for the first issue, it is our goal that the print and
> editorial
> > meeting become one and perhaps even go to every other week rather
> than
> > weekly. Also, part of the goal of having two editors per section
> was so
> > there could be some flexibility if one or the other could not make
> all the
> > meetings.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Imc mailing list
> Imc at urbana.indymedia.org
> http://lists.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
More information about the IMC
mailing list