[lbo-talk] Circulation Plunges at Major US Newspapers

[Julio Huato]

The kind of unity required to publish a functioning newspaper is not
identity in thought or even in politics.  It's simply cooperation to
publish media that allows for a spectrum of leftist views -- where
"leftist" is broadly defined -- to be aired.  Debate and practice are
not separated by a Chinese Wall.  The medium could lay out this
so-called "divide" for people to decide which views to ponder on the
basis of their prior beliefs and own experience.  They do that anyway,
but then they'd do it with the benefit of more and (hopefully) better
information.

Carrol, think of this daily as a more presentable form of lbo-talk.
In the lists, you're promiscuously "united" with us and yet still
being yourself.  And tfast is giving you a weekly column already,
where you could set out to demonstrate why the existence of the paper
is impossible.

E-zine, or rather e-daily, vs. dead-tree daily may be a false choice.
The NYT, the WP, etc. -- perhaps clumsily from a sheer technological
point of view -- are moving in the direction of integrating several
NYT formats, each with its own personality: deadtree, online,
something like TV (there's something like a youtube or Google Video
included in the online format of the NYT), etc.  La Jornada, for
example, is experimenting with TV reporting online.  They call it "La
otra tele."

Chuck wrote that "Distribution costs are what keep new publications
from challenging
existing newspapers.  You've got to fight for rack space in bookstores and
newstands."  Okay, so we need serious money to carry the overhead
during the first year of publication.  But, couldn't we get around the
distribution problem by going Metro?  Metro, a free (ad-funded) daily
published in NYC and other metro areas, has its own little racks
outside subway stations, etc.  I don't mean making it free, but making
it cheap and perhaps distributing it through some alternative channel.
 Another example: In Mexico, Reforma was sabotaged by Carlos Salinas
when it was first published in the 1980s.  Salinas, through the PRI
controlled the union of the organization that distributed newspapers
and magazines.  Reforma created its own personnel (paid on
commission).

Also from Chuck's information-rich posting: "I think the numbers are
there, but I think the culture of the left needs to change."  Is that
it?  Then it's more feasible than I thought.  We are the left.  We can
change our culture, can't we?  A bit of mutual tolerance (it's hard, I
know) will go a long way.

Joanna wrote that the daily "would have political articles....but it
would also be full of
life stuff: parenting; tenant rights, recipies, health advice, sports,
movie reviews, etc."  Absolutely!  Cartoons too.  I'd suggest
integrating the Funny Times into this newspaper altogether.  We would
acquire the Funny Times or get content from them -- we'd make them an
offer they couldn't refuse.  The Sunday issue of the LBO-Talk Journal
would be a blast.

On tim's comment, I believe the Taz is a co-op, somewhat similar to La
Jornada.  One of my neighbors (I live in a co-op in Brooklyn) is one
of the social engineers that keeps the Park Slope Food Coop running.
We'd recruit her.  She'd keep our operations smooth and our finances
disciplined.

Chuck again: "On the on hand, there is Democracy Now, which is a
wildly popular left media project which is heard on dozens of radio
stations."  I'm sure I'm wrong on this, but I envision this daily
resulting from some sort of synthesis or remix of what already exists.
 And the baby doesn't have to kill its parents -- it can be leveraged
from them, but then keep a separate identity, because it'd feel a
different niche/need.

Possible, it is.  The more philosophical question here, the way I see
it, is whether or not -- in this day and age -- a daily newspaper
(with some online and dead-tree existence), distributed nationally, is
*necessary*.  Aren't readers already meeting that need somehow through
all the existing channels, including what's on the net with its
mushrooming of outlets.  (I, for example, use the lists, to some
extent, as my news filter.  If the link or some note makes it to the
lists, then it's probably newsworthy.)  If so, wouldn't the task be
instead to give some structure to what already exists out there, to
enforce some factual discipline and editorial quality in its content?

And I'm totally with Chuck (how many Chucks do we have on lbo-talk?)
as to the importance of the look-and-feel of the newspaper.  I like
the Funny Times a lot (as you know already), but I hate its horrible
format and physical feel.  After I finish reading it, I have to wash
the ink off my hands. Same with the Village Voice (I can't miss the
cartoons or Savage, the sex columnist.  I don't like the female
columnists as much, because they tend to plug commercial stuff
disguised as alternative).  Physically, reading the Village Voice is
an experience akin to cleaning your bike after you used it in muddy
terrain.  I like Metro's format and wouldn't mind getting some
inspiration from its look and feel.

Julio

PS: By the way, how does the Onion make it?