Fwd: Re: [Boston-editorial] 2 new features

[Peter Stidman]

----- Original message -----
From: "Peter Stidman" <indyboston at fastmail.fm>
To: "Matthew Williams" <mw21 at mindspring.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 23:45:41 -0700
Subject: Re: [Boston-editorial] 2 new features

Matt,  I think you are nitpicking here.  We have all decided in meeting
that the need for bikes during the DNC is real and very important.  The
T story can be seen as merely an update on the one that appeared before
it written by Svea.  WE cannot exclude events from coverage merely
because they are described quickly and easily.  I feel strongly that
both of these article fall under the fact that our editorial policies
are GUIDELINES not hard and fast rules.  And even though they do not fit
the GUIDELINES they are relevant and neccessary.  Please check out NYC
IMC, they have used similar articles in the past to cover things that
need to be covered and highlight calls that are of extreme importance. 
Please try to be flexible and interpret the editorial policy as
guidelines not hard and fast rules.  I am really getting tired of these
arguments that have to do with the physical attributes of articles while
ignoring their own merits.  The other thing that is great about these
articles and great about centering them is that it encourages both the
ACLU and the Black Tea to keep posting to our site and that is an
important thing to encourage in two very important groups in Boston.

-Pete

On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 18:34:23 -0400, "Matthew Williams"
<mw21 at mindspring.com> said:
> Not to start one of those interminable debates about center column 
> policy, but neither of these articles seem to fit it (unless the policy 
> got changed while I was out of the loop). The one of bag searches on the 
> T is just too short. My understanding of the policy (which I can't find 
> on the website) is that an article has to have substantial content about 
> the issue and this one doesn't--as I said, it's just too short to  have 
> substantial content. (The one on Comcast that I put in the center column 
> was actually cutting it pretty close in my opinion and I almost didn't 
> feature it.) Moreover, we already have a substantial article on this 
> issue by Svea in the center column, so it's not as if we're desperate 
> for material on this. The call out for bikes is just that, a call out, 
> not news. I think we long ago made the decision not to feature other 
> groups' announcements (which a call out is a form of) because then we'd 
> have justify including some announcement and not others. If this 
> contained more editorial material on why bikes are good and cars are bad 
> it might qualify as a commentary, but it doesn't have a whole lot of 
> editorial content either--just a paragraph. If Pete can make a good case 
> for why these belong in the center column and fit our policy, I'll shut 
> up. Otherwise I think we really out to remove them so the features that 
> are news can get a little more attention. -- Matt
> 
> On Thursday, July 1, 2004, at 01:28 PM, Pete Stidman wrote:
> 
> > The black tea's call for communal bikes is important
> > and will stay connected to our DNC category now and
> > Terry's article from the ACLU is a great protest
> > snippet.  yay content!
> >
> > -Pete
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 		
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> > _______________________________________________
> > Boston-editorial mailing list
> > Boston-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-editorial
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Boston-editorial mailing list
> Boston-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-editorial