The Daily Peg: Pegasus News, Inc. Founder's Blog

Bespoken out

We've said before that we believe that the new transparency and interaction of a Journalism 2.0 world could eliminate both the need for advertorial and the ability to have ad-driven conflicts of interest in one's news coverage.

Hugh MacLeod offers a little fable that partialy illustrates those very points.

If we weren't all crazy,we would be insane

Two Gentlemen of Dallas:
A comedie in one act

Two men enter from opposite sides of the stage.

FIRST MAN:     Hail, fellow and well met!

SECOND MAN:  Hail.

FIRST MAN:     How now? News hath traveled that thou art leaving thy post.

SECOND MAN:  Aye.

FIRST MAN:     Was it disagreeable work?

SECOND MAN:  No. To the contrary, 'twas noble and fulfilling.

FIRST MAN:     Did they fail to reward ye?

SECOND MAN: No. The pay was right-regular.

FIRST MAN:     Then why, prithee, friend, would you flee your happy post?

SECOND MAN:  For an enterprise of mine own design.

FIRST MAN:     To what merry end, prithee?

SECOND MAN:  To pursue a new vision of that siren news; one that eschews monopoly; one that enables all to have a voice; one that is proclaimed by many-- not just the town crier; one for which we will nary see recompense unless we rightly calculate that our good customers have accrued boons direct.

BEAT....

FIRST MAN LAUGHS HYSTERICALLY FOR 30 SECONDS OR MORE

FIRST MAN: You are a right merry jester. Prithee, yank not mine leg.

SECOND MAN: I jest not.

FIRST MAN: I see. Um, OK...Sirrah, good day...

EXIT FIRST MAN, HASTILY AND WITH THE AIR OF SOMEONE WHO FEARS CATCHING A MANIA-INDUCING BRAIN FEVER.

SCENE REPEATS.        

Data!

The weekend's blog posting holiday was fueled by an encamped effort to finish our various propaganda materials. They're filled with data from the Project for Excellence in Journalism's State of the News Media study, among other sources.

Not done yet, but close enough for gummint work. So imagine my chagrin when I saw on Kimberly Reeve's blog that the 2005 update was just published.

The new data only helps our case, but means some more editing is in store.

All part of the sport of business, I suppose.

Speaking of sport, note to self: In the future, do not try to engage in crucial entrepreneurial activities during the month of March with a management team consisting entirely of rabid hoops fans. Especially when your team is in the Austin bracket.

Still think free dailies are the answer?

Sometimes free isn't enough. Not everyone in suburban DC wants a free Examiner on their doorstep:

Fourteen Arlington citizens, however, have had time to send flaming complaints to county authorities. Some of the complaints include the residents' exasperated entreaties to the Examiner, and their tone can't be boosting morale at the fledgling paper's editorial offices. On March 4, for example, Arlington resident Jeanne Briskin included this line in an e-mail to the Examiner: "Stop delivery of the examiner to my home...immediately. I did not request it, and do not want it, at all, ever."

Like Morrissey, Briskin reported no luck in getting the paper to cut off delivery and wasn't pleased about handling disposal duties. "I do not want to clean up what I consider to be trash that you dump on me," wrote Briskin to the Examiner.

The complaints—and the red plastic piles that inspire them—have made their way to the top of Arlington municipal government. Arlington County Board Chair Jay Fisette has asked the county manager to probe the litter complaints. Not that Fisette isn't perfectly familiar with the issue to begin with. "Count me as a passionate advocate of the free press, but I'm also an environmentalist who picks up unwanted litter, and I've been busy lately," says Fisette.

Immediacy

Both the Dallas Observer and The Frontburner have rolled out some exceptional reporting and commentary this week. As a megalomaniacal entrepreneur (with all the affiliated insecurities inherent therein), I found myself briefly pausing as to the extent of the marketplace need for something like Pegasus News.

Then, in fact-checking the date of the Times Herald's demise, I re-stumbled upon this:

But to think that a weekly newspaper can effect change like a major-market daily is incorrect. It simply can't. Not that we don't try, and do a damn fine job of trying. But an alternative weekly, in this market, does not have the ability to focus a usually complacent citizenry on injustice and corruption like a daily newspaper can. That is where the Herald is missed.

Of course that was written in 2001, when a daily frequency was still as good as it seemed to get.

The mythteries of Journalism 2.0

First, let me go on record that I've never really liked anything Frank Rich wrote in the Times' arts section. Nor can I usually make it beyond the 37th graf of his screeds.

That said, I've been amused by the debate, and apparent capitulation, on the part of the NYT, as to whether he belongs in Arts or Op-Ed.

Sectioning is very relevant online. In fact, every reader deserves his own edition.

But in print? Rich could and should go on the front page. Or in sports, if he happens to touch on the topic. Or wherever the hell an editor thinks he fits.

Like many cherished ideas that aren't ideals, this one fails miserably:

In a newspaper, particularly one that aspires to be the paper of record, opinion belongs on the opinion page. Even if I agree with Rich, which I do with alarming regularity, I still don't much appreciate the ammunition he -- and a hundred other professional soap-boxers -- have given to all the belligerent wingnuts who have managed to spread skepticism about the world's authoritative news sources because they cannot or will not see the difference between one person's passionately expressed beliefs and another's reported observations and sourced quotes. Ever notice how National Public Radio does not broadcast any opinion -- except as rare, carefully isolated, and identified "commentaries"?

The root of this myth-guided thought lies in the objectivity myth.

Apocalypse, soon?

Yesterday's Vanishing Newspaper webinar was interesting, as much for the listener comments as for the panelist presentations. (The panelists were great, mind you-- but I've been reading their stuff for some time.)

Apparently, Jeff Jarvis left with the same takeaway I did: According to Philip Meyer's numbers, at the current rate of decline, the last daily newspaper will be printed in 2040. Ordinarily, Meyer said, you see such curves taper off over time.

He, however, sees only acceleration.

Point-ed parody

Some people are just so negative -- always tearing down, never nurturing...

More validation on the objectivity myth

Jarvis, as usual, is right.

By the by, I highly recommend catchcing tomorrow's webinar on the future of media, led by the aforementioned machine of buzz. We'll be there (virtually)!

Did we mention we plan to have audio on our site?

Of course, this is about as professional as the commentary will get.