Re: Digest for wmtminvestigate@googlegroups.com - 1 Message in 1 Topic
Miriam Widman
I agree with your disagreement on # 2 and am not sure where they got the impression that we de-emphasized the web component. But so be it. I do believe an integral video component is key --- I find myself often looking at videos imbedded in print web stories. Course it depends on how good the video is.
As for the political agenda — I don’t think they have any flaming Republicans on their side and find the point a bit amusing but rather baseless. What stories/coverage are they suggesting that they think we wouldn’t be interested in?
I think the groups will have to merge, as I do not believe funding will be available to support two groups and am not even sure there is enough money out there to underwrite even one. What potential funding sources have they identified that haven’t already been tapped?
Thanks for meeting with them.
Miriam
From: "wmtminvesti...@googlegroups.com" <wmtminvesti...@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: "wmtminv...@googlegroups.com" <wmtminv...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 03:03:57 +0000
To: Digest Recipients <wmtminvesti...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Digest for wmtminv...@googlegroups.com - 1 Message in 1 Topic
Today's Topic Summary
Group: http://groups.google.com/group/wmtminvestigate/topics
- PLEASE REPLY! - Lunch with Ron's group <#group_thread_0> [1 Update]
Topic: PLEASE REPLY! - Lunch with Ron's group <http://groups.google.com/group/wmtminvestigate/t/cb7910be631ced94>
- EHarris <eha...@opb.org> Feb 06 12:36AM -0800 ^ <#digest_top>
Hi everybody,
Tony and I met with Jim Swenson, Steve Suo and Michaela Santen
Thursday. We had printouts of mission statements, etc from both
groups, and talked about the different approaches so far and if the
goals were close enough to merge.
Here's the summary of differences with our group as Jim saw it:
1. Scope: the geographic focus of news coverage and audience should
be at least statewide, not limited to the metropolitan area
2. Technology: they believe there is not in our group an
understanding of and appreciation for the importance of web
technologies and the importance of producing a dynamic web product.
Staffing of this effort should be part of the newsroom and sufficient
to present news in a visually interesting and communicative way (more
resources).
3. Political agenda: There is concern that our group is driven by a
liberal urban political agenda, reflected by histories of people in
our group and by the potential funding sources discussed (same old
liberal donors). Safeguards would have to be built in.
I disagreed with #2 - I don't think anyone in our group believes the
others don't have an understanding of etc. technology; I just stressed
that was a major focus including structuring core editorial staff.
They also told us that while that group had started thinking it would
focus a lot on video, it's moved away from emphasizing that to be
medium neutral/ cross platform.
On #1 and #3, I think his summary of our take is accurate. Neither
seemed insurmountable however. My take at this point is that it makes
sense to plan to merge. I say plan to because if there turn out to be
major differences that can't be worked out, then who knows. I guess
the next step would be meeting together to air any issues/questions
and then plan. They have a pretty robust work program in place, in the
march toward putting something together to fund.
Your thoughts??
Thanks,
Emily
EHarris
assessment, so the "our" in that part of my email refers to his -
"the other" group - which I will call Ron Buel's group for the moment.
"Our" outside that 1, 2, 3, summary refers to our group - as in the
bunch of us that have met at backspace and Kells. Sorry that was
confusing! So, to respond to Miriam's notes (which indicated to me
that was confusing):
Ron's group:
1. Has been focused more on Portland. Partially, I gather, that's
because of a personal interest in news coverage of Portland by Ron.
and partially that the thought it would be easier to get funding that
way. In talking with the three people there Thursday, that seems
flexible. Jim talked about not wanting to exacerbate the urban/rural
divide, for example. Later another member of the group, Colin Lovett,
emailed to say he would "be in favor of expanding state-wide if it is
realistic to get the proper funding. I think it was always our goal to
start in PDX metro and then expand regionally as we got more funding.
We could do this out of the gate if the money is there."
So there may be some disagreement about whether to start with that
focus or expand, but I think it's bridgeable.
2. Felt WE had emphasized true interactivity as being a prime
consideration that should be part of the editorial process from the
start, and that was good.
3. The political questions were about the degree to which two
Democratic politicians have been involved, and whether Ron's history
as a liberal Portland Dem - and his funding sources - are too closely
tied to a particular political bent to affect either what this new
news organization would do or the perception of it. We talked about
some structural safeguards, but not in real detail. We also had a
short discussion about where the line of providing information ends
and any encouragement of action, especially specific action, begins.
That should be discussed further in a merging.
As far as potential funding sources they've identified, I don't know.
We didn't spend a lot of time on that. As mentioned above, I gather
Ron does have some potential sources, with, as mentioned above, maybe
some political bents, but I don't really know. They are pretty
organized about getting the pieces in place needed to ask for funding,
like bylaws and a board and etc.
I hope this makes things clearer. Thanks a lot, Emily
On Feb 6, 7:13 pm, Miriam Widman <mirwid...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well that was interesting. Do I take it from what you wrote that the other
> group is focusing on Portland only?
> I agree with your disagreement on # 2 and am not sure where they got the
> impression that we de-emphasized the web component. But so be it. I do
> believe an integral video component is key --- I find myself often looking
> at videos imbedded in print web stories. Course it depends on how good the
> video is.
> As for the political agenda ‹ I don¹t think they have any flaming
> Republicans on their side and find the point a bit amusing but rather
> baseless. What stories/coverage are they suggesting that they think we
> wouldn¹t be interested in?
> I think the groups will have to merge, as I do not believe funding will be
> available to support two groups and am not even sure there is enough money
> out there to underwrite even one. What potential funding sources have they
> identified that haven¹t already been tapped?
>
> Thanks for meeting with them.
> Miriam
>
> From: "wmtminvesti...@googlegroups.com"
> <wmtminvesti...@googlegroups.com>
> Reply-To: "wmtminv...@googlegroups.com"
> <wmtminv...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 03:03:57 +0000
> To: Digest Recipients <wmtminvesti...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Digest for wmtminv...@googlegroups.com - 1 Message in 1 Topic
>
> Today's Topic Summary
> Group:http://groups.google.com/group/wmtminvestigate/topics
> * PLEASE REPLY! - Lunch with Ron's group <#group_thread_0> [1 Update]
>
> Topic: PLEASE REPLY! - Lunch with Ron's group
> <http://groups.google.com/group/wmtminvestigate/t/cb7910be631ced94>
>
> > EHarris <ehar...@opb.org> Feb 06 12:36AM -0800 ^ <#digest_top>
Courtney Sherwood
Courtney
- PLEASE REPLY! - Lunch with Ron's group [1 Update]
EHarris <eha...@opb.org> Feb 06 12:36AM -0800 ^