2001 AAN Admissions Committee Recommendations Here they are: “slam dunks” to “a thousand times no” The following is a summary of the recommendations and comments on applying papers by the AAN Admissions Committee, compiled by Clif Garboden, Boston Phoenix. Over the past two months, the 11-member 2001 AAN Admissions Committee evaluated 22 applying papers and, at its annual meeting Wednesday, July 10, voted to recommend seven applicants for membership. The committee voted to recommend rejecting 13 of the applying papers and just couldn‟t decide about two. Committee recommendations are summarized below, with committee comments, ranked in descending order of the committee vote. One applicant, the professionally executed and entertaining Outlook News out of Columbus, Ohio, was deemed ineligible for admission by the committee and the AAN Board because its singular focus on gay issues contradicts the AAN bylaws‟ requirement that member papers be “general interest alternative newspapers.” The Admissions Committee screens applying papers but does not itself admit papers to AAN. Applying papers are voted in by the general membership at the annual business meeting, this year held on Saturday, July 14 at 3:30 p.m. in the Lafayette Ballroom. The slam-dunks Two papers qualify as no-brainers this year. The Georgia Straight, Vancouver, British Columbia. To Yanks, this is the best-kept secret in alternative journalism; to Canadians, it‟s an institution that‟s been publishing since the underground press was in flower 1967. The unsuspecting Admissions Committee was awestruck. This is a classic alt paper that mixes credible news with stylish arts — a breath of fresh air in the pile. (11 yes; 0 no) The committee enthusiastically recommends to admit. The Portland Phoenix, Portland, Maine. The latest regional addition to the Boston Phoenix newspaper group follows in its heavy mother‟s footsteps. With a combination of locally generated news, features, and arts coverage plus national stuff picked up from other Phoenix papers, this paper presents an ambitious range of stories and, for a small town, packs an impressive editorial punch. (10 yes; 0 no; Clif Garboden recused for conflict.) The committee enthusiastically recommends to admit.
Accentuated positives The committee identified two stronger-than-average contenders with higher-than-average alternative sensibilities. This pair still needs to grow, but under AAN‟s care, they certainly will. RipSaw News, Duluth, Minnesota. Can they do it in Duluth? Yes, they can. Witty, eloquent, and full of spark! Not without its faults, but clearly (in terms of bang for limited buck) this year‟s single best applicant. Great sense of news and, as important, place. The staff is clearly madly in love with northern Minnesota, and willing to kick and pummel it to make it better. Plus, it‟s the only applying paper with a regular column about getting drunk in local bars. (9 yes; 2 no) The committee strongly recommends to admit. Pasadena Weekly, Pasadena, California. Recently acquired from the dreaded Los Angeles Times, this paper will benefit from association with AAN. These guys have got the model down pat — and do a thoroughly professional job of “delivering the goods.” Great-looking covers and wellcomposed cover stories. (7 yes; 4 no) The committee strongly recommends to admit. The upper cusp Three applying papers were the subjects of considerable committee debate. All have conspicuous shortcomings, but no fatal ones. Weekly Planet/Sarasota, Sarasota, Florida. This entry from the Creative Loafing group is uneven to a fault as reflected in committee comments. “This is a good paper doing a lot of good things. But it needs a more aggressive demeanor to count as gutsy, hearts-on-fire journalism.” “This paper is definitely making a valiant — albeit uneven — effort. With harder, or better-focused, news and more consistent cultural coverage, there is definitely hope.” “There‟s some lively enough headlines such as: „Ramming Republicans Down Our Throats.‟ But then the copy underneath is some of that all-too- usual recitation of platform promises.” “There‟s some substantive news that hits on pressure points in the community, but not quite enough. Get rid of the „Scenes‟ section of chummy community photos. . . . Having a gallery director write an arts column, whether or not said review is hanging in his gallery, probably isn‟t a good idea.” (6 yes; 4 no; Sioux Watson abstained) The committee recommends to admit. Free Times, Columbia, South Carolina. Impressive investigative reporting for a paper of its size and a great arts guide. This paper is full of versatile writers cranking out earnest stories of local interest. One week
they‟ve got an investigation of a deadbeat city councilman, the next week it‟s a well-researched article on pop art. Stories of county and statewide interest help you get a sense of the community. Needs more news and more of an alternative edge. (6 yes; 5 no) The committee recommends to admit. Local Planet, Spokane, Washington. The line between editorial and advertorial is blurred. One main feature was a softball profile of some local communications company, and some pieces were little more than publicservice announcements. Clever and thoughtful in some longer pieces but filled with daily-style puffery in shorter stories. Assignments are good, writing is fair, but editing, which could make it better, lets everyone down. And they have to kill the boosterism impulse. Still, these guys are doing a lot of local news in 32 pages — some of it pretty creatively. It hits on most, if not all, cylinders. (6 yes; 5 no) The committee recommends to admit. You figure it out On two papers, the committee was unable to reach consensus and encourages the membership to review the papers prior to Saturday‟s meeting. Portland Mercury, Portland, Oregon. This infant expansion paper from the folks who brought us The Stranger, split the committee between those who found it to be a steakless-sizzle version of its sister publication and those who reveled in its bratish assaults. “A surprisingly weak news section. I expected more. . . . Everything — everything — is smartass, and just smartass.” “The great marriage of off-kilter topics matched with unparalleled, no pretensions prose that is hallmark of The Stranger style. We should all aspire to such dizzying heights of excellence. This paper is such fun reading that I almost pissed myself. Arts staff that knows whereof it speaks, and why. Plus, I don‟t think I came across one single, solitary cliché the whole time.” “There is not a lot of news here, and what there is, favors attitude over substance. Also, I don‟t get a huge sense of Portland. Arts coverage is irreverent to a fault? The brevity of the „stories,‟ combined with the heavy-duty attitude, borders on obnoxious.” “I love the perverse cultural coverage these guys do.” “Everything from cover heds to column names to movie clips is funny and opinionated — bordering on brilliant — but it‟s relentless and loses impact as a result. Can‟t decide whether to be envious or exhausted.” (5 yes; 5 no) The committee makes no recommendation. Our City, Clarksville, Tennessee. Here again, the comments ranged from “This is a much-improved paper with serious news on important local issues.” to “This paper should be ashamed of itself.” Several committee members took serious issue with a pollution feature that took public-
officials‟ seemingly self-serving statements at face value. Others noted that, in other instances, the editors were obviously making a valiant effort in a market that could best be described as “hostile‟ to alternative journalism. (5 yes; 5 no) The committee makes no recommendation. Not this time, okay? The committee rejected three papers committee with reservations. The Source, Bend, Oregon. Veteran committee members agreed “Boy, has this paper improved!” But that didn‟t convince the majority, who found the paper‟s story choices unimaginative and writing dull. “All these folks really need do is hire some good writing talent to be a contender,” commented one. (4 yes; 7 no) The committee recommends against admission. Boston’s Weekly Dig, Boston, Massachusetts. The balance between news and arts is tipped way too far away from news for the committee‟s taste here. “Good-great writing. You can tell this paper has an emphasis on club life,” observed one committee member. “You can tell this paper has too much of an emphasis on club life. Needs much more in the way of local news and more frequent, in-depth cover stories,” he continued. A generally well-done and well-written publication, but fat arts and scant news doesn‟t fit the mold. (3 yes; 7 no; Clif Garboden rescued for market conflict) The committee recommends against admission. Planet Weekly, Jackson, Mississippi. While recognizing that the editors were trying to take on controversial topics in a tough market, such factors as generally poor editorial, cover photos tied to short events announcements, stereotypical sports coverage, party pics, format disorganization, and amateurish reliance on rhetorical questions convinced the majority that this paper, though not without potential, isn‟t ready yet. (3 yes; 7 no; Bill Chapman abstained) The committee recommends against admission. Not hardly Four papers fell into an emerging subcategory of weekly journalism the committee nicknamed “hip community papers” or “faux alternatives.” Toledo City Paper, Toledo, Ohio. Distinguished by a puffy feature on an old-folks social club worthy of any small-market daily, this applicant lacks an informed alternative edge. No city coverage. No issues. No politics (except for one op-ed piece per issue). There must be more to Toledo than this. Writing is often tragically bad. (One story begins: “Penis, penis, penis, penis, penis.” One story has no paragraph breaks at all.) Scope of coverage
is weak and limited. From a dining review: “The liver and onions for $6.95 wedded the robust liver with sliced onions very well.” (2 yes; 9 no) The committee recommends against admission. The Omaha Weekly, Omaha, Nebraska. This paper does have strong music coverage and an excellent media column that stand out despite what is perhaps the least attractive cover-format and layout in the history of publishing. “Break down and hire a designer. Column on arrests and name changes belongs in daily or a community weekly — this is definitely not an alternative paper.” “There‟s not a lot to this paper. Clearly a new startup, and I give them credit for trying, but it seems like a community paper trying to find a niche as a pseudo-alternative. And it isn‟t working.” “Gotta keep asking „why?‟ Community journalism packaged as alternative and floated in a daily format. Layout is horrible; idiotic jumps, virtually no logical organization. Writing quality is generally high, but nothing much gets said that wouldn‟t fit in a small-market daily.” “I got a headache just trying to read this. Rarely are a paper‟s structural flaws so severe as to interfere with one‟s ability to read it! . . . This is a three-legged table — at best.” (1 yes; 9 no; Bill Chapman abstained) The committee recommends against admission. Maui Time Magazine, Lahaina, Hawaii. Mostly this paper is about surfer photos. “It‟s simply not a serious news or entertainment source. Typos abound. And even when the paper attempts a sense of importance with a story about a protest by native Hawaiians, we have to read clear down to the seventh paragraph before we learn that it concerns homesteading and religious rights. That is, I think. The writing meanders in so many places, it‟s really hard to tell.” (1 yes; 10 no). The committee recommends against admission. Tri-City News, Asbury Park, New Jersey. All the news is almost absurdly boosterish in this pro-Asbury Park renaissance publication. This weekly needs more “weekly.” It needs more substance. It needs a back bone of solid journalism to prop it up. If you care about your community, you‟ve got to do more than simply tout it and spread your feathers. (1 yes; 10 no) The committee recommends against admission. The Octopus, Champaign, Illinois. This Yesse! Publication, founded in 1994, falls into the “needs improvement” category. The paper takes on ambitious stories with a strong sense of social responsibility, but the writing and reporting don‟t do the topics justice. Typical committee comments include: “Two of the issues submitted showed that they are tackling the right issues. The writing is not very good. . .. Have really mixed feelings about this one. Again, this paper recognizes a lot of what a good paper should do, it‟s just not getting there in its writing or in its commitment to writing more
news/features stories and columns.” “Hmmm. this one‟s a puzzler. It has all the right elements and they‟ve been „at it‟ a long time (1994) so they have their MO down. But there‟s just something wrong. The stories have no „snap,‟ there is a grayness to the whole thing. Maybe I‟m being too harsh, or maybe it‟s just a case of a paper with all the right adjectives but not enough nouns.” (1 yes; 10 no) The committee recommends not to admit this year. High Plains Reader, Fargo, North Dakota. This paper has interesting columnists who are not afraid to speak their minds. The editor and publisher write a lot, and well. There is less arts boosterism than you normally see in small markets. As in the news section, arts reviewers have — and share — their opinions. However, while the writing and editing are sophisticated, there is a lack of local reporting. Representative comments include “An alternative paper from Fargo, ND, is entertaining to imagine, but this one needs a little work before it's AAN-worthy. More local news.” “This is a satisfactory paper, especially for such a small market. So perhaps riveting stories are hard to come by [in Fargo]. Still, only effort digs up great stories.” (1 yes; 10 no) The committee recommends not to admit this year. A thousand times . . . In the unanimous opinion of the committee, three applying papers simply do not belong. New York Resident, Manhattan, New York. This paper is actually well done for what it is, which is a big-city community newspaper with celeb-driven covers and one hell of a classifieds section. But alternative it is not. (0 yes; 11 no) The committee strongly recommends against admission. Up & Coming Magazine, Fayetteville, North Carolina. Pleased as we are that Up & Coming‟s publishers have managed to break the back of the Fayetteville Times‟s media monopoly, this paper has enough conflicts of interest and explosions of self-interest to approach journalistic malfeasance. No wonder the community loves this paper — they write it! Some comments: “There are no in-depth articles. There is a boosterish, Chamber of Commerce approach to the news. The humor columns are not funny. Cheerleading abounds. The arts reviews read like rewritten press releases. Stupid writing is everywhere. This is drivel.” “Ugh! Takes press releases and uses them straight up as news stories. No credibility here, YMCA director writes a column about the YMCA.” “Get rid of any elected official donating propaganda in the guise of a column. This isn‟t journalism, it‟s a ruse.” “It isn‟t any newspaper‟s job to be so relentlessly positive it can‟t tell the truth.” “The publisher of this promotional weekly writes, „[I]n our market, edgy kick-ass controversial papers would be inappropriate and unacceptable. To
survive and contribute, Up and Coming Magazine needs the support of the entire arts, entertainment, government, civic and business communities.‟ Hey, don‟t forget the military-industrial complex and the Republican White House. If this is an alt paper, I‟m Norman Schwarzkopf.” “Application says the paper is called Up & Coming because it focuses on good news, and I think that‟s scary. What happens when there‟s bad news?” (0 yes; 11 no) The committee recommends very, very strongly against admission. Beverly Hills Weekly, Beverly Hills, California. Oh, brother. “Any paper with an article on how to find a good plastic surgeon written by a plastic surgeon doesn't belong in AAN.” “A terrible little paper. It runs columns by a plastic surgeon and cosmetic dentist that are nothing but ads disguised as editorial. It has no independent news or voice. I see nothing of value here.” “If this is an alternative, I‟d hate to see what the publisher describes as the „establishment‟ paper. Here we‟ve got advertisers posing as “columnists,” sports scores, pet pictures, and obits.” “This paper simply needs a concerted effort to serve its community in a way that really matters. There‟s little sense of spirit about this publication.” (0 yes; 22 no) The committee adamantly recommends against admission. Thanks to the 2001 Admissions Committee, who are: Clif Garboden, chair, (Boston Phoenix); Bill Chapman (C-Ville Weekly); Sioux Watson (Independent Weekly); Matt Gibson (Missoula Independent); Ken Neill (Memphis Flyer); Paula Routly (Seven Days); Audrey van Buskirk (Seattle Weekly); Tim Redmond (San Francisco Bay Guardian); Ben Fulton (Salt Lake City Weekly); Margaret Downing (Houston Press); and Fran Zankowski (NewMass Media).