
Across the street from a Fastenal hardware store in the shadow of Tulsa’s aging art-deco skyline, the staff of what is perhaps the best for-profit local journalism startup in the country has yet to reinvent the craft. Eleven full-time editorial employees sit at desks scattered across the rooms of a bright red house with Astroturf carpeting, telling stories about their community. As This Land Press founder and editor Michael Mason would argue, if this sounds unremarkable, it’s because journalism’s vision of its own future has become overly complicated.
In its short existence—one year as a passion project and another 18 months as a venture-capital-backed multimedia company—This Land has consistently produced the kinds of in-depth features and investigations that much of the industry is looking to nonprofit models to sustain. While still in its pre-investment days, it published a groundbreaking, internationally cited profile of Oklahoma native Bradley Manning, the army private accused of funneling thousands of pages of classified documents to WikiLeaks. Last September, it took an historical approach to investigative journalism, revealing that a founding father of Tulsa was a member of the Ku Klux Klan and an architect of the city’s notorious race riot in 1921. More recently, it published an investigation into sexual abuse of students at a school run by a local megachurch.
This Land is on pace to become cash-flow-positive next spring—which means that, in two years as a fully functioning business, it will have found a way to earn more money than it spends. If it stays on track thereafter, it will continue to expand its newsroom while earning a profit for its owners. It’s far too early to tell whether that will happen, but the trajectory is promising. No equivalent organization (and, granted, there aren’t many) has come so close to financial self-sufficiency so quickly. Most noteworthy is the fact that if This Land becomes profitable, it will have done so not in spite of its investment in locally focused, literary journalism, but because of it. Rather than hoping that the market might one day find a way to support great journalism—as the current discussion about the future of news suggests—This Land is betting that it can do so now.
To an outsider, Tulsa’s media market does not seem in desperate need of renewal. In terms of maintaining their numbers, at least, the city’s journalists have fared better than many of their counterparts in other cities. The afternoon Tulsa Tribune went out of business right on schedule in 1992, but the morning paper, the Tulsa World, remains relatively stable and family-owned. There’s an alt-weekly, Urban Tulsa, also independently owned, that may be unique among alt-weeklies as a conservative counterpoint to a conservative daily. Tulsa can also claim TV stations, radio news, a business journal, a glossy lifestyle magazine, and all the rest. In other words, the media scene is exactly what any reader who finds himself in a red state oil town of one million people might expect: It’s perfectly adequate. It just wasn’t good enough for Michael Mason.
In spring 2010, Mason was 38 and working as a brain-injury case manager at Tulsa’s Brookhaven Hospital. An odd mix of media insider and outsider, he had spent decades agonizing over the lack of opportunities for writers in his hometown, even as he slowly managed to work his way into some of the most elite corners of the profession—without ever leaving Tulsa. After spending his twenties as an advertising copywriter and aspiring novelist, he decided that a writer needed a career worth writing about, took the case-manager job, and eventually published a well-reviewed nonfiction book about traumatic brain injury called Head Cases (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008). This launched his career as a science writer and earned him another book deal, but while the prospects for his own writing had brightened, the local media that so frustrated him hadn’t changed at all.
I remember a few years ago when you called the Daily Oklahoman a newspaper in reverse - actually sucking the intelligence right out of the reader - and you were right. This Land is putting the intelligence back where it belongs - with new readers.
#1 Posted by Jay, CJR on Tue 4 Sep 2012 at 10:57 AM
After a few months of watching This Land...I got a chance to buy two packages of the first papers. Now, I have all of them!!!
I think they rock.
#2 Posted by Julie Skye, CJR on Tue 4 Sep 2012 at 03:09 PM
You've convinced me I need never buy this paper.
If the Tulsa World is a *conservative* daily, and Urban Tulsa, likewise meets your definitions for conservative ?
You must think the Daily Oklahoman is a Nazi propaganda swindle sheet from hell...
The Tulsa World is a moderate liberal viewpoint, Urban Tulsa less moderate.
Inability - or unwillingness - to acknowledge even that tells me the caliber of your journalism, and I have no doubts of your financial success.
After all , L. Ron Hubbard made a buck or two before he passed, and his org is still doing quite well financially.
#3 Posted by Kit, CJR on Tue 4 Sep 2012 at 10:49 PM
Hey, Kit, you sound exactly like the kind of person I don't like to have sex with.
#4 Posted by PJ, CJR on Wed 5 Sep 2012 at 12:05 AM
@Kit I suppose everything's relative. (And, no, I certainly don't see the Oklahoman as anything sinister.) Creative work-in with the Scientology reference, though.
#5 Posted by Michael Meyer, CJR on Wed 5 Sep 2012 at 08:39 AM
i THINK THIS IS A GREAT IDEA,WE NEED MORE OF THESE AL OVER THIS COUNTRY GIVE THOSE LIEING MEDIA A RUN FOR THERE MONEY, BUT IF THE LIBERALS ARE BEHING THEM =. LOOK FOR TROUBLE TO, IM SURE THEY WILL DO SNEAKY THINGS TO DESTROY U, AND YOUR BUSINESS, SATAN IS JUST LIKE THAT. BUT GOD WILL ALWAYS PROTECT US IF WE STAND BEHIND HIM
#6 Posted by EVELYN JOHNSON, CJR on Wed 5 Sep 2012 at 01:35 PM
So Evelyn, we should get Satan behind us and God in front of us? That makes me a little nervous.
#7 Posted by TulsaBuz, CJR on Wed 5 Sep 2012 at 03:30 PM
People in general don't seem to read as much as they once did, so it's wise for This Land to use multiple platforms for its product. I wish them well.
#8 Posted by Steve, CJR on Wed 5 Sep 2012 at 05:12 PM
This snippet about journalism, both print and especially tv, rings so true.
"Other than a standard design, nothing connects the content from last month’s stories to this month’s. Continuity—a fundamental element of narrative—no longer exists. Under the stewardship of the World, the story of Tulsa’s community reads like a book in which one chapter has virtually no relation to the next."
If we are to become a people of the future, we must learn to become a people with a past. A person without a history or story has no basis to percieve the time to come. The time that is is where those people live, an immediate world where things happen from nowhere and the meaning of these things is unknown.
Readers don't require advertisements, they require continuity, a story rooted in truth. That is your market, journalists. Give us good stories.
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 5 Sep 2012 at 11:30 PM
This Land gives us meatier and more substantial journalism than this area has typically offered. I am so thrilled with their success and so proud to have read it from its very first issue! Go Michael! Go This Land!
#10 Posted by Crystal, CJR on Wed 5 Sep 2012 at 11:32 PM
Why do people always have to judge in this instance a journalistic venture by liberal, conservative, religious or non-religous rather than by quality, honesty, alternative views and content. Am looking forward to my first read. Lee
#11 Posted by Lee Wendte, CJR on Thu 6 Sep 2012 at 02:45 PM
I love this story and am trying to create a similar animal for the black community in New York City. http://www.dominionofnewyork.com. We're only one-year-old and pre-investment. But I've pretty much com to the same conclusion as him and am moving in that direction. Their experience is very encouraging.
#12 Posted by Kelly Virella, CJR on Thu 6 Sep 2012 at 07:11 PM
Someone buy Evelyn a spellcheck and turn her CAPS LOCK off.
#13 Posted by Ben, CJR on Fri 7 Sep 2012 at 04:14 PM
If the future of "journalism" is biweekly literary journals printed on over-sized, upscale newsprint by editors whose apology for focusing primarily on non-news-driven stories is a slanderous tirade against those daily news journalists who do bother to report news of record, This Land Press is it. If the future of journalism is infrequently printed rags in which the only occasional real news content is that which is carefully selected, slanted and spun to support the far-left ideology of the publisher -- who by the way contributed $25,000 to mostly unsuccessful candidates hawking Okie versions of far left "progressivism" -- This Land is it.
How appropro that This Land -- published from what would have been the Native American state of Sequoia but for the interference of a racist president who said in nine cases of 10 "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" -- selected the mantra of manifest destiny as the banner under which it would publish its far left folk stories. Whatever motivated the big bank that created this land for reasons none of us understand, this land from which I write and on which Mason and LoVoi celebrate their own importance was stolen from the displaced people to whom it had been promised only to be claimed as "made for you and me" in a lyric ostensibly penned by a drunkard who made a career as a purveyor of political theme music.
The future of journalism? Or more of the same self-important, axe-to-grind, politically motivated pap that makes certain segments of the academic community feel heroic for their place in a cultural hierarchy in which they share their luster, occasionally, with the lesser masses for whose care they've deemed themselves the proper stewards.
This Land Press is a news paper only in that its content is printed on news print. It may be a journal of sorts, but it's a cruel semantic game to generally discuss the future of "journalism" as if the Lady's Home Journal and all other specialty journals somehow serve the same role in public life as local news journals that attract people to non-biased, comprehensive reporting about local public policy by engaging readers with stories -- and advertisements -- that cater to their more accessible interests.
CJR reporter Michale Meyer is a bold faced liar when he claims that the other newspapers in town - including the left-leaning alt-weekly Urban Tulsa --- are conservative publications. Urban Tulsa's pages are filled with typical alt-weekly political art and opinions: celebrating the "occupy" movement (conservative indeed) and blasting all-things-republican in Tom Tommorrow's This Modern World and other editorial cartoons that exclusively espouse left-wing ideals. Urban Tulsa seldom if ever publishes even a slightly conservative opinion, and never ever a conservative or even (egads) anarchistic cartoon. Apparently in CJR-speak, "conservative" means "everyone not on the bleeding edge of left-wing pseudo-populist progressivism."
#14 Posted by Sarah Nelson, CJR on Sat 29 Sep 2012 at 01:06 PM
One other comment, nay, two:
Any so-called reporter who starts his analysis with the phrase "is perhaps the best" in the lede of what is presented as a serious news piece does not know his job. It's not a reporters job to make qualitative assessments based on one's own subjective opinions. It's a reporters job to keep his opinion out of the news. The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics says analysis shall be clearly separated and differentiated from news content. In this instance, CJR and Michael Meyer cast their speculative analysis as hard news, contrary to the ethics of the profession.
Nor is it a reporters job to beg off on his factual errors (or outright lies, as it were) with the feeble apology "everything is relative." It's a reporters job to asses -- using objective methodology -- what is relative to what, and to accurately narrate details about relative aspects.
#15 Posted by Sarah Nelson, CJR on Sat 29 Sep 2012 at 01:26 PM