This is a handsome issue, no? Two entities are responsible for that. The first is Point Five Design, our art consultant, comprised of Alissa Levin, Ben Levine, and Nathan Eames. Their classy and intelligent sensibility has graced our magazine and website since 2007. Point Five helps us turn ideas into images when illustrations are needed, and they always seem to find the right artist. They usually work within the confines of a miserly art budget, and it was nice to shake loose a few more dollars this time around to let them strut more stuff. Thanks to them.
The other entity is Tom O’Neill. His title is associate editor/copy manager, which comes nowhere near describing his role. Tom lays out a majority of the pages in the issue, finds most of the photos, edits some stories and copyedits others. More than that, every word and every image in the magazine, every semicolon and dash, goes through his discerning eye, and through his computer as he processes the whole shebang. He’s our last word on style. He pays all the writers and artists and supervises all the interns. He makes the magazine map and places every article and every ad. He never loses his cool, even on a 160-page issue like this one, except when the copy machine/printer breaks down. One. More. Time. Thanks to him.
Speaking of advertising, you may notice that this issue has quite a bit. We’re extremely grateful, first of all, to all of those advertisers who put their names in our pages, and we hope to see them again. And I bet that Christie Hefner will be asking them to return. Christie is the chairwoman of our fiftieth anniversary, which we intend to stretch through the coming year in various ways, and she has rolled up her sleeves on our behalf and proven that success is achievable. For this special anniversary issue, she and Dennis Giza, our intrepid acting publisher, filled every ad space in the book, with the help of Joe Duax and Louisa Kearney. Thanks to all of them, and to Cathy Harding, our determined and impressive new development director.
One person I’d like to thank had nothing to do with this print issue, but everything to do with our website, where more readers will see and read the articles in the issue than will do so on paper. That is Michael Murphy, our website developer, along with his team of mysterious people in multiple time zones, including Dean Pajevic.
Something they are working on as I write is a very big deal for us: by the time you read this, I hope, our website will be on a meter model. All this lovely print content—and any print content from over the past three years, and a few editor picks beyond that—will be available online to anyone, free, up to twenty-two articles over six months. Beyond that number, we’ll be asking readers who want more to get a web-only subscription or a print subscription, which will include web access. We are working with Steve Brill’s Press+ on the meter, and if it works we’ll soon be thanking him, too. I believe the meter will do everything we want it to—draw more subscriptions, more visitors to our website, and, eventually, more revenue, which we will convert into a better CJR.
Drama.
Aside from that, and I'm surprised I'm the first one to pose some questions about the cjrevolution, but what's the details on this 22 articles per month situation?
Is that 22 articles per 6 months per unique machine? Is it 22 accesses per month of article content (meaning one article accessed 22 times uses up your pass) or is it unlimited access to 22 articles (meaning 22 articles can be accessed 1000 times a piece in a 6 month period, but the 23 article will use up your pass)?
Are you going to have subscription accounts and will comments be forced to use those details? If not, will the subscription access be machine address based and do you have a plan to handle changes in DHCP address information? Are subscription accounts adless?
Good luck to you on this, I hope the subscription thing works out, but I suspect the 22 articles over 6 month limit is going to cost you a lot of traffic.
#1 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 24 Nov 2011 at 04:23 PM
Except for the lock down situations (Sunday Times of London, to an unfortunate degree, it seems), most such arrangements are working well. I do not have any problem dealing with The NYT. For the time being.
There are some gems with a lot of content still available (The TLS, for example).
I would have to make a decision on CJR, but I rate it fairly highly. There needs to be sensitive online editing to nurture comments (I do not want to be stalked on this site). Also, curiously, despite the philosophy, the bonding between readers and CJR writers is often shaky.
Every service will have its strengths and weaknesses.
Something that puzzles me about Poynter, Nieman, and CJR: What are the implicit rules? Is it media-style, where you follow up on the leads, or is it university-style, where you tiptoe around pretending certain issues don't exist?
Perhaps a good example is the LSE approach to Libya matters, as compared with Harvard's bizarre reticence.
Jim R. set off a firecracker re his offer from Columbia, despite the coverage of his troubles here. Which began here. One wonders why the implications have seemingly slipped through at CJR, Nieman Watchdog, and Poynter.
If CJR is going to have an editor-in-chief, it may as well be done soon. That might resolve some issues.
On balance, the service is worth returning to frequently.
#2 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Thu 24 Nov 2011 at 05:25 PM
Here's a quote from Wikipedia: Mulroney later confirmed that he had
personally accepted cash payments from his business associate Karlheinz
Schreiber, a German-Canadian businessman who had been a paid broker for
Airbus and other companies. The cash changed hands in three secret
meetings in hotels in Montreal and New York City, in brown paper bags of
$1000 bills totaling either $225,000 (according to Mulroney) or $300,000
(according to Schreiber). The payments occurred over an 18-month period,
beginning in 1993 when Mulroney had stepped down as Prime Minister but
was still a member of Parliament. In 2007, Mulroney stated that he had
kept the cash paid in New York in a New York safety deposit box (thus
implying that he had not illegally carried it undeclared across the
US-Canada border) and in a safe in his Montreal home. The cash payments
had not then been declared as income for tax purposes.
And then there was an infamous Press Gallery dinner speech: On September
12, 2005, veteran writer and former Mulroney confidant Peter C. Newman
released The Secret Mulroney Tapes: Unguarded Confessions of a Prime
Minister. Based in large part on remarks from the former prime minister
which Newman had taped with Mulroney's knowledge, the book set off
national controversy. … Newman … claims Mulroney did not honor an
agreement to allow him access to confidential papers. This led Mulroney
to respond at the annual Press Gallery Dinner, which is noted for
comedic moments, in Ottawa, October 22, 2005. The former Prime Minister
appeared on tape and very formally acknowledged the various dignitaries
and audience groups before delivering the shortest speech of the night:
"Peter Newman: Go fuck yourself. Thank you ladies and gentlemen, and
good night."
I never heard about the brown bag money or Schreiber. And, my God, I
knew all about Silvio Berlusconi's teen-age girlfriends.
--
Stephen G. Esrati
(retired Plain Dealer copy editor and stamp columnist)
#3 Posted by Stephen G. Esrati, CJR on Thu 24 Nov 2011 at 05:25 PM
Just a humble suggestion, keep the blogs free. You can use them to retain traffic, generate page view advertising revenue, and to self aggregate your paid content.
The you can make the blogs more of a summary of ideas than work intensive articles and still enable casual readers to participate in the community discussions.
Again, just a thought.
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 24 Nov 2011 at 06:14 PM
The least successful blogs are fluff poorly coordinated with news.
The Australian is a happy hunting ground for such an arrangement.
I would like to participate in discussions about language and many other subjects that appear at CJR online.
I have no interest in high-volume, combative, vanity arguments that could take place at any general site on the Internet.
I have no interest in being stalked online by any irrational person.
I am willing to pay a reasonable price to participate.
If you are asking for two (merged) sites--one a serious news site, the other a venting site loosely tacked onto it--I would suggest that that is not going to happen. Nor should it. I sincerely hope not.
#5 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Thu 24 Nov 2011 at 07:55 PM
The blogs are going to stay free. The 22-articles-per-six-months thing only applies to magazine articles. And regarding the Rosen/Clint exchange as presented on Brad DeLong's site, here's the basic story: a few years ago, in order to meet our budget and not have to lay off staffers, we made a deal with a company called EBSCO, which sells magazine archives to libraries. In exchange for a substantial yearly payment (don't remember the exact sum), EBSCO got the rights to administer our archives. As part of that agreement, we had to take all of our old magazine content offline, and were only allowed to post about 7 or 8 articles from each new issue, all of which had to be removed from the site after 6 months. Now, as part of that agreement, I think we were allowed to build our own article database and sell old articles on our site, but we never had the money, time, or programming resources to tackle such a complicated project -- and so our archives were basically inaccessible for three years. This situation was frustrating to everyone.
So the Press+ partnership lets us get our archives online, which we wouldn't have been able to do otherwise, while still meeting the terms of the EBSCO agreement. We're not expecting to make a lot of money off of this; indeed, most casual readers of the site will never, ever be affected by the meter. But if you are the sort of person who plans to read 22 CJR magazine articles over 6 months (and, trust me, there aren't very many people like that out there), well, we work really hard on putting a quality magazine together, all while constantly struggling to make our budget and stay afloat, and I don't think it's an affront to our hard-core readers to ask them to kick in fifteen bucks to help support our good work. And, to reiterate, all web-only content is going to stay free.
Let me know if you've got any more questions. I'm technically on vacation until Monday, but I'll be checking in on the site once or twice per day until then.
#6 Posted by Justin Peters, CJR on Thu 24 Nov 2011 at 10:26 PM
"And regarding the Rosen/Clint exchange as presented on Brad DeLong's site, here's the basic story...This situation was frustrating to everyone."
Yeah, I was curious as to what was going on. Seems to be a couple of tempests stirring in the cjr teapot lately with the Romenesko job offer situation, the business model changes mentioned here, and the "why can't we have a better cjr?" complaints about the accessibility of past archives. Has cjr been requested to make some adjustments lately or were these changes long in coming and the drama is just a symptom of change?
" And, to reiterate, all web-only content is going to stay free."
Pish, no problem then. Cheers.
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 24 Nov 2011 at 11:16 PM
Behind the News — November 11, 2011 02:11 AM
Jim Romenesko Leaves Poynter
And the blogosphere cries foul
By Justin Peters
[I see no reason why they shouldn’t. And the fact that you’re a famous blogger-aggregator with a distinctive style shouldn’t insulate you from criticism if “style” becomes an excuse for sloppy work. I assume I would have been fired from Slate if I would’ve just copy-and-pasted unattributed news content and passed them off as my own words. I was, and remain, just some guy whom nobody knows, after all, not some KING of the blogosphere. And I wonder if the blogosphere would’ve been so quick to come to my defense.]
Justin, Perhaps in your own mind you had no such intention, but what the words say here is quite different: "I assume I would have been fired from Slate if I would’ve just copy-and-pasted unattributed news content and passed them off as my own words."
Although I dispute that Poynter accused Jim of plagiarism--my reasoning is at the Poynter site--the above sentence in your words could hardly be interpreted as anything but an allegation of (intentional) plagiarism. And the reference is indisputably to Jim (the KING). Perhaps you think that you qualified all that in your comments below the piece, but I can't see that that attenuates the force of the charge significantly. Many people would just read the piece, and not work through all the comments. They are not marked as corrections.
#8 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Thu 24 Nov 2011 at 11:50 PM
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2011/11/jim-romenesko-weighs-his-departure-poynter/45237/
[Four days after the press watchdogs at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism posted their “Romenesko Saga” story, I received an invitation to return to aggregating — from, of all places, the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism.
Here’s a portion of Mark Glassman’s email:
Columbia’s Journalism School is putting together a new website about
business journalism education, and we were wondering if you might be
interested in contributing. …
We think your skills as an aggregator and your critical eye make you
an excellent candidate for this type of piece, and we’d love to get a
dialog going. I realize this must have been a rocky last few days for
you, but if you’re interested, we’d love to discuss the opportunity as
soon as possible, as the site is launching next month.
Thanks, I said, but I’m going to pass.]
#9 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Thu 24 Nov 2011 at 11:56 PM
[I realize this must have been a rocky last few days for you, but if you’re interested, we’d love to discuss the opportunity as soon as possible, as the site is launching next month.]
Look, I have to say no to this one. If you are in the middle of a major story involving serious criticism of a person, do not offer that person a job. Period. It looks terrible. As if you are trying to cover up your own mistakes.
Sometimes a student will push me by sending me college admissions essay text repeatedly, obviously hinting that I should polish it up. When I have already helped them to the extent I think appropriate. You either do it the right way, or you cheat. Sometimes editors of student text will tell me that if they don't do it, someone else will. As soon as I figure out that a student wants me to do his or her work, I say no.
You can't fudge it. If you think someone is screwing around, you can't offer them work. Especially if you have made statements about that person that might not stand up to scrutiny.
#10 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Fri 25 Nov 2011 at 12:13 AM
Guys, folks are out for Thanksgiving, but that Romenesko offer didn't have anything to do with CJR. that's from the J-school, which is apparently starting some sort of new website about business-journalism education.
#11 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Fri 25 Nov 2011 at 01:07 PM
[Guys, folks are out for Thanksgiving, but that Romenesko offer didn't have anything to do with CJR. that's from the J-school, which is apparently starting some sort of new website about business-journalism education.
#11 Posted by Ryan Chittum on Fri 25 Nov 2011 at 01:07 PM].
Ryan, Can I ask you how you know what the J-school considered? Are you saying that at the J-school there was no attempt to analyze the implications of the news at CJR?
Justin can respond on Monday. Since the issue had been raised, I posted my comments as a courtesy to CJR.
We have not dealt with the comments after Justin's piece. The language issues remain unfocused. But I do not expect to get involved in that today. Thanks. Clayton.
#12 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Fri 25 Nov 2011 at 01:35 PM
Clayton, I don't know what the J-school considered, I was trying to clear up that CJR didn't offer Romenesko the blogging thing. That was the J-school. Have a good one.
#13 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Fri 25 Nov 2011 at 04:49 PM
Clayton, I don't know what the J-school considered, I was trying to clear up that CJR didn't offer Romenesko the blogging thing. That was the J-school. Have a good one.
#13 Posted by Ryan Chittum on Fri 25 Nov 2011 at 04:49 PM
Ryan, With all due respect:
http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/page/277-contacts/281
Whether your distinction is an artificial one or not is something I am prepared to discuss on Monday, Vancouver time. I accept the point that staff members are on a well-deserved holiday.
Apparently at the J-school there was no anticipation of Jim's reaction.
#14 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Fri 25 Nov 2011 at 05:30 PM
[Here’s a portion of Mark Glassman’s email: Columbia’s Journalism School is putting together a new website about business journalism education...]. Jim Romenesko.
[Guys, folks are out for Thanksgiving, but that Romenesko offer didn't have anything to do with CJR. that's from the J-school, which is apparently starting some sort of new website about business-journalism education.
#11 Posted by Ryan Chittum on Fri 25 Nov 2011 at 01:07 PM].
I have waited for a reader to point out that the information about the offer to Jim R. having come from the J-school is right in my post quoting from Romenesko. That is clearly not going to happen.
Nor is any reader apparently going to show any interest in the Justin Peters allegation of plagiarism against Jim: [I assume I would have been fired from Slate if I would’ve just copy-and-pasted unattributed news content and passed them off as my own words.] And the chaotic way that the comments played out at the end of the Peters piece.
The NYT once had an On Language column, that failed. "Fail," man. There is a silly thing called Language Log. CJR itself has its failed Language Corner, where the above issues get ignored in favor of mediocre usage notes.
Poynter should help start up an audit of language in American journalism. In J-schools, at CJR, at The New York Times. The inability to orient to issues in English, to begin with, is dumbfounding.
Instead of going through a laborious process, coming up with nothing of substance, Poynter should initiate reforms now. I recommend as the best book the COBUILD English Grammar. I do not recommend any rhetoric texts. There should be one for journalism. An extremely good dictionary, including CD, is the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English.
Clayton Burns PhD Vancouver claytonburns@gmail.com
(I do not charge for my skills in analysis in this area).
#15 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Sat 26 Nov 2011 at 01:42 PM
"Poynter should help start up an audit of language in American journalism."
The preposition "up" is both superfluous and misused in this monstrosity of a sentence.
The proper sentence is:
"Poynter should help start an audit of language in American journalism."
Where is Jim Sinclair when we need him?
#16 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 26 Nov 2011 at 03:29 PM
Feeble, so and so. Try www.onelook.com.
start (sth) up
phrasal verb ( BUSINESS )
Definition
If a business or other organization starts up, or if someone starts one up, it is created and starts to operate
Many small businesses started up in the 1980s to cater to this growing market.
We ought to start up a drama group.
(Definition of start (sth) up (BUSINESS) from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press)
#17 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Sat 26 Nov 2011 at 03:52 PM
I notice that we're not citing the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, as we so recently suggested.
I wonder why we've abandoned our so recently recommended authority?
It would appear that we're eschewing our chosen authority in order to defend our abuse of English grammar!
Tsk, tsk!
You'll have Mr. Sinclair spinning in his grave with such selective poor grammar!
#18 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 26 Nov 2011 at 04:08 PM
In your case, we must consider the source. An old principle in journalism.
#19 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Sat 26 Nov 2011 at 04:30 PM
An old principle in journalism.
Amazing! Neither a subject nor a verb to be found in this ersatz "sentence"!
#20 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 26 Nov 2011 at 04:55 PM
Did I start this?
Sorry everybody.
#21 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 26 Nov 2011 at 07:08 PM
You are wrong, Mr. 'padikiller.'
Perhaps you have been hiding for the past 100 years. Under your false name. (You may even have false teeth.)
Try Hemingway.
Try "Microstyle."
Try "Words That Work," by Dr. Frank Luntz. Recommended by our Edward. A book by an operator who worked ferociously on The Republican Contract on America Campaign.
#22 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Sat 26 Nov 2011 at 11:37 PM