New World from the Shell of the Old: Imagining a model to preserve journalism

Damn. The Star Tribune is in bankruptcy, the Christian Science Monitor ended its print versions, and online media struggles to break even through ad revenue (an understatement), or scraps with social service organizations for non-profit funding.

It's really just time for me to announce my plan to preserve journalism to my audience of dozens.

Number One: Newspapers are a format.
They're failing because another format, the internet, makes them redundant or difficult for people to justify as a separate purchase. That's o.k. They waste trees and pollute anyway.

Number Two: Journalism isn't about newspapers.
The idea behind journalism, although mixed with years of gossip and TV junk, is that it holds authorities accountable to people. That's the only purpose to justify shitty puff pieces about American Idol (looking at you: every fucking paper in the world!). I don't think all journalism needs to be high-minded, but without that enterprise reporting the people lose an important voice.
If journalism has fallen in the public esteem in recent years, I'd attribute it to the fact that the powerful media interests were shown to be too often in the pockets of the wealthy or powerful.
Somewhere I read that the American press differed from any other in it's origins because it took this responsibility to inform the public to heart. Newspapers here were named things like The Spokesman and The People's Defender and The Liberator. Let's get back to those roots and away from names like the Tribune Press Herald Daily that speak of corporate consolidation.

Number Three: Online isn't the problem
Media online competes with blogs, commercials, and official areas of information. Even good media, for instance Minnpost here or the Voice of San Diego, have trouble thriving in this information deluge. Not to mention that they compete for hard-fought and temporary non-profit dollars. They certainly can't hope to compete with porn or blogs that update a million times a day for commercial dollars brought in by ads. It doesn't matter. The internet could serve as a teaser for what I'm imagining.

Number Four: Journalism's I-Pod
People like newspapers and magazines. They like the portability and the self-enclosed format.
There are already the stirrings of this idea in Amazon.com's Kindle. The Kindle is, however, still bulky compared to a magazine.
The future, and I can't believe it's that far, will be flexible e-paper that automatically downloads a complete local package every day -- like a daily magazine. Maybe it would have to start by downloading from a dock every morning and afternoon (Yes! Afternoon and evening papers again!). Take it on the bus, take it to the cafe. I imagine the technology would develop. The readable format could be relatively cheap, while the dock was the expensive component. Who knows, but the I-Pod has shown that platforms can be important. Rather than going to high-functioning bulk, why not go towards low-functioning accessibility, meaning no video or trying to be the internet?
Look at this or this and tell me you're not excited.

Number Five: Money is Filth
True, but as I said before, reporters need to be employed full-time in order to serve our public good and get into all the nefarious schemes our authorities have their fingers in. The business model could be based on newspapers' local monopolies, or it could employ freelancers in local areas and just consolidate the content. We need editors though, and we need reporters. I would like a decentralized and fiercely independent co-op model to take journalism away from the Masters programs and unhealthy relationships with the powerful; Why not give it a shot? This imagined model could use ads in its format and give the e-paper away for free, or it could be based on subscription or a hybrid model.

That's it: Maybe there's not much reality to this imagined scheme. I am writing this on an empty stomach before a long workday, but it seems like journalism needs some new developments to avoid worrying itself to the grave so I'm happy to throw something into the interweb and see if it sticks.
This would appeal to me, and I read newspapers. You?

Monster Jam in Minneapolis- Did you find a date?

How is this not kindof awesome? Even for pinko environmentalists?

Hate Crime in Uptown

A woman told KSTP that she got beat up by two men outside the Rainbow in Uptown at 11 p.m. Thursday.

She said they repeatedly made homophobic comments, called her a "dyke," then punched and kicked her in the face and stomach until she passed out.

Police are asking that anyone who saw anything give them a call.

Common sense bike traffic one step less distant in MN

The Star Tribune reported yesterday that Phyllis Kahn's proposal to allow bikes to glide through red lights and stop signs won't be opposed by the city of Minneapolis. A resolution to oppose the legislation by the Minneapolis City Council barely failed, just 7-6.

Those who opposed it were Paul Ostrow, Diane Hofstede, Barb Johnson, Don Samuels, Colvin Roy and Betsy Hodges.

I wonder what their reasons would be? Do you think it's based on bikers' safety or something else? Here's the link to their contact info.

In support of the bikers, or at least not in opposition, was Cam Gordon, Gary Schiff, Robert Lilligren, Elizabeth Glidden, Ralph Remington, Scott Benson and Lisa Goodman.

I was reminded of the sense of this proposal just the other day. Usually I'll stop at stop signs and let those who have right of way have their right of way. However, getting to a stop sign first as a bike isn't the same as in a car. There's no guarantee that cars at a four way stop will see or respect your right of way, so if you run the stop sign before they get there, you're safe from being run over when they don't notice you. It just makes sense from a safety perspective.

In my opinion, it would behoove legislators to treat bikes as a different animal than cars. After all, under the law now, we should have an entire lane if we want. When do you ever see that? Instead we're relegated to icy curbs, used mostly for parking.

Common sense though, who expects it from ambitious politicians clamoring for an easy wedge issue?

Joe Bageant on the election

Appalachian rabble-rouser Joe Bageant, author of Deer Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from America's Class War, talks about how liberals have alienated themselves from the working class in this coming election.

Barebones Halloween celebration grows, but stays true to its roots!

I tend to bookend my year between two events: Heart of the Beast's Mayday Parade and the Bedlam Theater-connected Barebones Halloween. The Mayday parade is the perfect event for spring; the whole neighborhood is out and it's bright and loud. Whereas Barebones, which usually takes place down by Hidden Falls just as the chill creeps into the air, is the best conceivable venue to watch people on stilts battling with fire-- a sign of autumn after all.

Both events make you realize that there are tons of good people that live in Minneapolis. Both events give you a sense of community.

With Barebones, you sit outside and take nips from a flask so you don't freeze. You watch huge puppets meander around and barely follow the plot. It's an addictive ritual. This year, there seemed to be much more spoken narration, and a shorter but more action-packed story. I can't accurately describe it, but the fire stilts battle behind a backdrop of smokey burning leaves was one of the coolest things I've ever seen.

Usually being there gives you a sense of community with the hundreds of people who somehow knew of it. In recent years it's grown much larger, this year even the Star Tribune and KSTP promoted it. I was a little worried that it might dilute the intimacy of the event with ringing cell phones and suburbans, but it turned out all right.

Barebones still has its DIY, community-based, aesthetic. It still has its politics and creepy music. I'm happy to report the event is intact.

The only problem I have, however, is that at my favorite part, at the end where people shout out the names of their recent dead, more idiots yell Tupac every year.

Is Star Tribune purposely burying lawsuits implicating Norm Coleman?

On Wednesday, the Pioneer Press reported that Norm Coleman canceled a campaign event after being confronted about a recent lawsuit accusing Coleman friend Nasser Kazeminy of funneling money to Coleman's wife Laurie through a business he owns.

The questioning, initiated by investigative journalists Paul McEnroe and Tony Kennedy of the Star Tribune, broke the story on the internet as the Minnesota Independent and others quickly figured the basic facts out. The Star and Tribune, although breaking the story, have generally buried in it their newsprint and online versions, as well as inaccurately titling the pieces to reflect Coleman's perspective rather than the news, and shutting down the comment boards. All this while Politico and other national news sources were overflowing with interest in the story.

Could the editor's approach have anything to do with the Star and Tribune's endorsement of Coleman last week, which they really hyped with graphics and a prominent place in both newsprint and online?

Friday I opened the paper expecting the Coleman news to have made front page, only to find it in the lower right side of the Metro section. Online, the headline was changed from "Suit alleges ally funneled $75,000 to Colemans" to "Coleman calls lawsuit sleazy politics," according to the Daily Kos.

The next day, it was the same deal, in the same weird location, with the second article being titled "Coleman calls on foes to 'stop attacking my family.'" To use a quote for a headline, wouldn't it have to be the basis of the story? The new story is actually about a second suit that was filed for the same reasons.

Neither article was given A spots on the website, the only way to find the first one for awhile was to look at the 'most viewed' box. The second article is represented only as a link under a story about Obama and McCain.

According to other bloggers, the Star Tribune first erased, and then began reviewing the comments to the article, many wondering why it was being given such short shrift.

"Due to the sensitive nature of this story, comments will be reviewed before being published."

As of now, no comments have been updated since early 4 p.m. on Friday.

As a side note, the footage of McEnroe confronting Coleman was made into an ad by the Franken campaign and the Star Tribune felt the need to explain that it didn't approve of the ad in a sidebar, both in the paper and online versions of the second story.

"The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee is running TV ads featuring a Star Tribune reporter questioning Sen. Norm Coleman about a lawsuit noted in this report. The video in the ad was filmed without the knowledge or consent of the Star Tribune."

Why the quibbling by Strib editors on such a big story with so many documents?