Strategic Content Production and "Coverage Teams" or "Beats"

Drafted by Amy Lorraine

This is a significant revision of the ideas I presented at the March05 Stratgegizing Meeting, on how to organize coverage teams, or "editorial beats" for the PhillyIMC. Let me start by clarifying that by beats, I don't mean simply content areas like we might normally think of beats. I don't think we want to just have a group of people that is in charge of writing about the environment. Rather, I think we want to identify what kind of content we want to see on our center column, and organize content coverage teams to go find it, produce it, and/or draw it out.

Mainstream news sources do this - they call them section editors. The person who bottomlines the breaking news on the front page is not the same person who bottomlines the special interest reporting that might make it onto the front page, or might be in the "People" section. I'm proposing a similar model, only its teams, not individuals, and there is an understanding that you are going out and seeking content, which might at times mean writing it or encouraging others to write and post things that they wouldn't otherwise.

The mainstream news defines their editorial positions by asking, what sort of combination of writing do we want our end product to contain? I think we should do the same. I would like to see us claim the center column as a strategic zone, and make collective decisions about how to fill it based on strategic priorities. This may sound like a lot of mumbo-jumbo, so let me try to restate. Right now we fill the center "feature" column as individuals have energy. I would like to see us take some time to think, what should be in the center column in order to accomplish our strategic goals? I would summarize our "strategic goals" as having something to do with (1) coverage of events and issues that are systematically distorted or underreported in the mainstream news, (2) coverage of independent media making (zines, blogging, indy film, etc) and media reform activism that builds momentum for the IMC's "be the media" mission, and (3) coverage of local community organizing and activism that by doing well will strengthen our relationships and thereby our ability to do effective and authentic outreach to a broad range of progressive community organizations and constituencies in Philadelphia, with the message: YOU can "be the media - YOU can tell the storeis that need to be told - post them to the IMC!

All of these are not just about us writing about important stuff - though it is important stuff. They are more importantly about us thinking of our writing (and photography and audio or video documentation) as being about organizing and movement-building.

We know we want to do coverage that accurately reflects the struggles for social justice that are being waged in our world right now. But we also want MORE FOLSK THAN JUST US to do that coverage. And it is not enough to just say to folks, post to the IMC site because it is there! As recruiters, we have to be able to be practicing the micro-level of movement building, which is supporting each other -- and in this day and age supporting MANY each others. This means we must have policies and practices that explicitly encourage us to practice responsiveness regularly and vigilantly.

I think that if we think of our newsmaking in this way, that the dichotomy between indymedia as "for activists" and indymedia as "in order to influence mainstream culture" will dissipate. We want to influence mainstream culture by accurately and comprehensively representing the movement that is taking place. Doing this well will provide a much needed non-aligned resource to the "activists" and in doing so will increase their effectiveness organically.

To restate, I think we need to start thinking about applying these priorities to our website coverage. If the IMC's product is helpful to writers, media entrepreneurs, activist and community organizations -- then they will want to contribute.

The trick is this: I think we need to have a fairly good product for it to actually help. This, I see as the primary challenge that IMC's face: making the decision to define strategic coverage goals and do the labor to make them come to fruition. It is much easier to write a story when you have time -- believe me, I can attest to this!! But the newswire is for that. The IMC-Philly as a collective of independent media workers trying to build a different sort of media (a different sort of space between) should have a different level of intentionality than newswire posters. We can all be newswire posters if we want to. But when we are working as members of the indymedia collective, I think we need to be thinking about carefully-defined goals.

What sort of combination of coverage make the IMC-Philly good enough to be uniquely helpful to the Philadelphia activist community? I would like to propose that if we had the following sorts of coverage in our center column on a regular basis, without one overwhelming the other, we would be good enough, and perhaps even excellent:

1- coverage of top GLOBAL stories in the mainstream news from alternative perspectives

2- coverage of top LOCAL stories in the mainstream news from alternative perspectives

3- coverage of GLOBAL activist news stories that are not making mainstream news

4- coverage of LOCAL activist news stories that are not making mainstream news

5- regular, in-depth and investigative stories on issues that have particular local relevance -- city politics / city hall watch -- regional ecopolitics / environment -- immigration and race/ethnic relations -- others as there is interest and expertise

6- profile stories of particular local organizations, or larger organizations that are influencing local politics

7- mainstream media critique - drawing from letters to editor, inkywatch, other media critique efforts

8- profiles of other independent news enterprises - issue release feature for the defenestrator or b.informed

9- editorials

How to do all this? It looks mammoth. I think three things could make it do-able:

1 - Articulating tips for content solicitation and writing style: Each of the above has a particular style, and once it is mastered its easy to replicate. Similarly, there are easier and harder ways to find content above. I could start to list out what I would do to find some content in each of these categories. I am sure others have this knowledge, too. But it is not necessarily organic knowledge - it is experiential. So each team should document how it finds content, and teach new people this knowledge.

2 - Teams - we don't work alone; we work collaboratively and learn as we go!

3 - Linking coverage to strategic outlook - so we are all both writers/editors and organizers -- and our discussions about community outreach happen in concert with the discussions about coverage, and draw energy and ideas from each other, rather than happening parallel to each other and not benefiting from the exchange of ideas. I have learned that we cannot survive these sorts of parallel tracks - we must find and cultivate synergy in every corner. I would even like to see the tech team talk about writing stories on open source development efforts in Philadelphia, or the politics of the new comcast-funded super-tech center that project home just started, or why Reboot went out of business.... the network team could write profiles on other independent media startups in Phildelphia... I think if we go through and look at our work with this lens we will find other synergy options. I believe that we are stronger and more whole people when we think and act at several levels like this. If we don't do it intentionally, we are prone to polarizing into the categories that our domination-oriented culture sets up for us - housekeepers v. pontificators, techies v. editors, administrators v. controllers of information.

In terms of moving forward on this project, I would suggest several steps:

- Review the coverage priorities I set out above. Biases I have that undoubtedly inform that list include: movement-focus, local emphasis (I'd like to see 75% of our content local), and minimization of expliclit editorializing (I'd rather see us report on how other people are editorializing).

- Look at the working groups that Aaron has proposed (and I have edited) and ask, is Amy right that there is synergy to be cultivated between coverage teams and working groups? (I think most likely there is in some places and not others.) Then ask, what would this look like, to cultivate this synergy?

- Think of the actual people who are involved in these working groups where there is synergy, and ask of them (yourselves) - do we want to take on the role of content production in tandum with the work of buildilng the PhillyIMC (and the indymedia movement)? I think for me the answer would be a clear yes - it would help me to feel energized and personally invested, and would give me a regular chance to step back and engage in the WHY of the IMC movement - passionate tellings of truth, of each other's truths, of our stories. Do others feel similarly?

-- AmyLorraine - 27 Apr 2005
to top