[Imc] Editors' preferences & our Paper
Paul Riismandel
p-riism at uiuc.edu
Tue Jul 10 16:59:06 UTC 2001
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
More information about the IMC
mailing list