|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
IMC Print Meeting Notes 5-31-01 |
Current rating: 0 |
by P. Riismandel
Email: paul (nospam) mediageek.org (unverified!) |
31 May 2001
|
|
These are the meeting notes for the IMC Print Group meeting 5-31-01. |
IMC Print Media Meeting 5-31-01
Start 6:35pm
Notetaker: Paul R.
Present: Sascha M., Dave Y., Russ R., Mike B., Brent, Darren D., Brian H., Ellen K., Paul R., John, Maiko C., Lindsay
Sascha asked for people to identify their interests in editing:
Interested Editors: Dave, Nancy, Mike B. (maybe), Brent (media or arts), Darren D. (layout, arts), Paul R. (media), Ellen (layout, design), Brian (layout and design)
Agenda Items:
2. Updates since last meeting: Sascha found his book, allowed him to type up editorial proposal
3. Editorial Structure Proposal, by Sascha M. and Sarah K.
Outline of structure proposal was passed out.
Brian is concerned about having an editorial and comment section. Says it divides readers and the producers--the articles are the truth and the letters are the community voices.
Sascha responds that the name may not mean what they typically mean. Discussion ensues...
Discussion about difference between commentary and articles/news. We begin to coalesce around a divide between pure unresearched commentary and researched articles and commentary, which rely on second/third-party information and facts.
Discussion about how to represent this difference. Brian believes that these should be set apart by appearance, not section.
John, who just entered, believes this is part and parcel of the argument over editors. Darren sees the need to establish a level of credibility, keeping editorial separate. Mike sees the commentary section as useful for a place to place articles about past articles and issues. Maiko sees commentary as being more off-the-cuff, and therefore seems more accessible, due to not requiring as much investment to do--one of two ways to contribute. Mike says we should constantly be encouraging people to write.
Further discussion of fact vs. opinion. Is fact just other peoples' opinions agglomerated?
Maiko: doesn't see that there's a real division if anyone can publish. Russ frequently likes to read the opinions first, doesn't necessarily value them less, and likes the clarity.
Sascha, moderating, notes that Brian appears to stand alone in his concerns, asks is Brian is willing to stand aside, Brian isn't sure. Paul suggests that proposing an alternate plan that attempts to compromise between Brian's ideas and those of the rest of the group would be a way for Brian to not be steamrolled. Ellen suggests that each section could have it's own editorial & comment section rather than having a discrete editorial and comment section.
John wants to remind that the newspaper will have an identity apart from the individuals who write and contribute, and that identity needs to be consistent.
Brent notes that while editors seek out writers for investigative pieces, while commentary and opinion tends to be unsolicited.
Mike sees a need for separation in some cases.
Linsday sees that we don't want people to think that they're opinions don't matter, so how do we encourage them to write articles if we just have a little section for it? She doesn't think that people just have opinions, due to experience. Paul says that the idea of comingling "news" and commentary is not revolutionary, and does happen all the time in mainstream newspapers, in addition to liberal-left news magazines. In essence, he says that breaking down the barrier means that commentary is not its own section, but part of any section.
Darren advocates sticking with the most run of the mill section division, so that we're consistent and people know what to expect. John asks the hypothetical, what if his hard-corelibertarian friend writes a well-researched article about health care and the free market? He proposes that the editorial board be able to filter it out or as commentary.
Russ says the crux of the debate is, are we going to be a left-leaning paper or will we publish anyone who wants to write.
Ellen offer a proposal, regarding the separation of comments and opinion: there should be a general letters section ("Community Forum"), but that other opinion pieces are not separated into their own section, but included into the section of the appropriate topic, but clearly labeled as commentary and signed.
A little bit of discussion about the fact that, in order to preserve 501(c)(3) status the paper cannot take an opinion itself, but can publish signed commentaries, with a disclaimer.
The group finds consensus on Ellen's proposal.
We consider the rest of the Editorial Structure Proposal
Brian finds a concern with the editing of articles. Paul suggests that we make a clear editorial policy that clearly defines what editing means. Mike suggests changing the word editor to facilitator. Paul likes this change, because it makes
Paul proposes: Editorial board is minimally composed of the 7 area facilitator/editors + 2 at-large facilitator/editors, and operates under open consensus, where anyone may participate in meetings, specificially inclusive of writers and contributors.
Brian: alterations to article must have permission from writer. Sascha questions how we get permissions. Ellen also questions this. Perhaps a writer needs to check - off on a final printed version.
Paul proposes: a policy/statement that says that the editorial board will work as peers with writers, making all reasonable effort to see pieces into print in a form and intent closest to the writers original piece and intention. Brent offers an amendment, Paul accepts: a statement to this effect should be published in the paper. (Add as number 5 to the structure).
Consensus on the idea of it, perhaps rewritten.
Brian is still concerned about editing for content, Paul notes that we still have to worry about libel.
Will anyone rewrite the draft for next week's meeting? Paul will.
Sascha asks: do we want to have a Board -- core people? There is consensus on the idea.
Sascha: what about content areas?
Ellen has some concern about laying out content areas, would somewhat prefer that these areas emerge from the submissions. What if we don't have stuff written for an area, and what if we have items that don't fit into areas?
John says that they're arbitrary, things will span, but they help us delineate responsibility. Brent agrees.
Paul proposes that the board be defined as 9 people, with 7 subject areas, to start under those categories as defined. Categories can change, be added or deleted by consensus amongst the entire print group.
John's still not crazy about the breakdown--too much overlap.
Sascha notes that this has been discussed quite a bit and a lot of time and thought has gone into it. John defers.
David suggest that if we can't find someone for a particular topic, can someone define a new one for herself?
Consensus on Paul's last proposal.
Next Meeting & Assignments:
Paul will rewrite Structure Proposal and facilitate.
Brent asks that people brainstorm about editorial/facilitation policy. Folks will put them out over e-mail, Brent agrees to put them onto a printed sheet to distribute.
Additional Topics for next meeting:
Who is on the Board?
Timeline?
Consensus that next meeting will be 1.5 hours 6:30-9:00pm.
Sascha says the following people may be interested in being facilitators: Mike L (labor & econ), Pauline B. (art, media), Paul R. (media), Darren (editor at large), Maiko (Gov't)
Mike asks that these people be here.
John proposes that each content area have two facilitators, to enhance inclusion. Paul concurs, suggesting that perhaps we could run like the Steering Group, having two facilitators per area, requiring that at least one be present at a Board meeting in order to finalize the paper.
Ellen, Russ and John express a sense that the editorial board looks like the usual suspects.
Adjourn 8:15pm
|