So Mason secured a $5,000 contribution from a local businessman and set about producing the kind of paper he felt Tulsa should have. He foreshadowed the inaugural issue by writing a manifesto for This Land’s still-idle website. The piece called for local writers across the country to rise up against inept local newspapers and reclaim the stories of their communities. Of the Tulsa World in particular, Mason wrote:
At several points the in the last decade, you could see the World completely losing its grip on the story of our community. Most of the so-called stories that appear in the “Most Popular” section of its website are thin, encyclopedia-like recountings of the most banal sort: “School Board Proposal May Pass, “ “Crowd’s Behavior Denounced,” and “35 Officers Back on the Job.” Few articles breach the thousand-word mark, and rare among those are the ones that extend over various issues. 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.
In other words, Mason didn’t so much have a vision for a newspaper as he had a sense of what was missing from newspapers: long-form, contextual writing; a highly refined product designed to provide insight into a community rather than merely deliver a daily supply of information—a job the Internet was already ably doing, anyway.
The first issue arrived in May 2010, followed five months later by a second issue, which included the Bradley Manning piece that This Land’s website would send around the globe. By October, Mason had built up enough momentum to publish on a monthly basis. He tried some smart business maneuvers as well, including auctioning off online advertising slots, but nothing that could create the kind of revenue that would allow a married father of three to devote himself to the experiment full-time. It might have ended there—a fondly regarded anomaly destined to collapse once Mason’s friends grew tired of being asked for contributions—were it not for a Tulsa venture capitalist named Vincent LoVoi.
I first interviewed Mason in March 2011, and at the time I thought of him as an intriguing media theorist and proven editor who was certainly worthy of financial backing, but I had no idea how he might turn what he called “Oklahoma’s first new-media company” into a profitable enterprise. I assumed his plan was to produce great content across multiple platforms and then try like hell to convince local businesses to advertise. On the surface, I wasn’t that far off. It’s just that, like the rest of the industry, I failed to understand the extent to which that decaying old model could be reimagined.
Mason, a genial Midwesterner who has the air of someone constantly mediating between a deep inner monologue and the demands of the outside world, likes to joke that This Land was “born of frustration.” A more accurate description of its genesis involves a meeting of two minds—one editorial, one financial, and both afflicted with a complicated love for their hometown.
LoVoi, who is 55, with a close-cropped gray beard and a politician’s gift for conveying profound interest in anyone he meets, grew up in Tulsa but left at the beginning of his professional life to become a congressional staffer and later managing partner for the Brussels practice of the law firm Akin Gump. While still in Brussels, he partnered with a childhood friend and Tulsa investment adviser named Joel Kantor to buy two failing aerospace companies. They bundled them together, turned them around, and eventually sold them. In 2004, while still working on the aerospace project, LoVoi moved back to Tulsa to raise his four kids and continue his venture-capital efforts in the US and Europe.

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