Missing The Future of Arts Journalism

Paddy: Sorry – but we didn’t change the rules mid-stream at all. We never asked for “commercially” viable models. We said we were looking for “sustainable business models”. There are for-profit business models and non-profit business models. To get VC funding for a commercial model you have to demonstrate a path to profitability. To get funded philanthropically these days, most funders want to see some model of sustainability. There aren’t many foundations that are willing to create another hungry mouth to feed unless it shows some way of being sustainable once it’s up and running. So we were looking for models that had some ongoing way of supporting themselves. Donations, contributions, subscriptions, advertising – there are all sorts of ways of doing it. Public radio, for instance, lives on memberships, donations, philanthropic support and a form of advertising. It’s non-profit, but it has a business model. Having a business model merely means that you have a way of supporting what you do. It’s fine to say something “should” be supported. It’s quite another to find a viable ongoing way of doing it. That’s what we’re looking for.

Why? Because there are thousands and thousands of blogs and other projects that, even if they’re doing terrific work, survive on sweat equity. Great that they exist. And I hope they continue. I’d dearly love to find ways so that bloggers and journalists can be able to make a living at it. That’s what this was all about.

To my mind, the issue isn’t creating content. You and Tyler and others have found ways to do that. And do it effectively. But where’s the model that helps sustain it so more people like you can support themselves doing it? It’s wonderful that you got a Warhol grant this year to help you do AFC. If it were up to me, you’d get one every year. But I think we have to be looking for more ongoing sustainable ways to support what you do. That’s what this was about.

We can all argue about what constitutes something “sustainable.” But there has to be at least some sort of business model to make it so – whether non-profit or for-profit – to be able to go forward.

So no changing of rules mid-stream at all. In fact, the overwhelming majority of projects submitted for the event were non-profit of one sort or another. For-profit projects were a small minority. I’m sorry Tyler got confused in his definitions. If he’d asked, I’d have happily told him.

Second. If I want to find great criticism or reporting, there’s no shortage of places to go, even after all the cutbacks and layoffs in the news industry. We know how to do great reporting and great criticism. So we could have had a contest to find the best arts criticism and reporting. Yet it’s all under threat. I hate that we’re losing great people and great writing. Just pointing to the best of what we already do, while it might make us feel better, doesn’t really start to solve anything.

So for me it comes down to two basic issues. One is the business model (see long screed above), and two is to look at the ways in which we practice our craft. For a living, I have the privilege of reading arts journalism. Day after day. Thousands, hundreds of thousands of stories. I make a living trying to find stories that I think matter. Obviously I value it or I wouldn’t bother.

But I also want to make it better. I think that means training a cold eye and asking some questions. What is news? What is criticism? Where do they fit? What are the relationships between artists and community and journalists? What’s a better way to describe the texture of a sound or explore a movement on a stage?

I’m not saying ArtBabble is journalism. But is it a challenge to journalism? Does it say something about a change in relationship between journalist and arts institution? InstantEncore sucks up information everywhere. It’s automated. It tries to gather up every piece of information about classical music and put it in one place. I’m not saying it’s journalism either. But is it a challenge to journalism or should it be a tool that could be incorporated into journalism? I don’t know, but it seems worth it to consider for a moment.

And so on. Again, we could have picked the best stories or the best writers or the best magazine out there. We could do a discussion about how The New Yorker is great or not great. And what would that serve? [Actually, I'd love it if there were some really great credible prizes for our profession. We should be recognizing and rewarding the best of what we do. But that wasn't what this project was about.]

Paddy: Sorry – but we didn’t change the rules mid-stream at all. We never asked for “commercially” viable models. We said we were looking for “sustainable business models”. There are for-profit business models and non-profit business models. To get VC funding for a commercial model you have to demonstrate a path to profitability. To get funded philanthropically these days, most funders want to see some model of sustainability. There aren’t many foundations that are willing to create another hungry mouth to feed unless it shows some way of being sustainable once it’s up and running. So we were looking for models that had some ongoing way of supporting themselves. Donations, contributions, subscriptions, advertising – there are all sorts of ways of doing it. Public radio, for instance, lives on memberships, donations, philanthropic support and a form of advertising. It’s non-profit, but it has a business model. Having a business model merely means that you have a way of supporting what you do. It’s fine to say something “should” be supported. It’s quite another to find a viable ongoing way of doing it. That’s what we’re looking for.

Why? Because there are thousands and thousands of blogs and other projects that, even if they’re doing terrific work, survive on sweat equity. Great that they exist. And I hope they continue. I’d dearly love to find ways so that bloggers and journalists can be able to make a living at it. That’s what this was all about.

To my mind, the issue isn’t creating content. You and Tyler and others have found ways to do that. And do it effectively. But where’s the model that helps sustain it so more people like you can support themselves doing it? It’s wonderful that you got a Warhol grant this year to help you do AFC. If it were up to me, you’d get one every year. But I think we have to be looking for more ongoing sustainable ways to support what you do. That’s what this was about.

We can all argue about what constitutes something “sustainable.” But there has to be at least some sort of business model to make it so – whether non-profit or for-profit – to be able to go forward.

So no changing of rules mid-stream at all. In fact, the overwhelming majority of projects submitted for the event were non-profit of one sort or another. For-profit projects were a small minority. I’m sorry Tyler got confused in his definitions. If he’d asked, I’d have happily told him.

Second. If I want to find great criticism or reporting, there’s no shortage of places to go, even after all the cutbacks and layoffs in the news industry. We know how to do great reporting and great criticism. So we could have had a contest to find the best arts criticism and reporting. Yet it’s all under threat. I hate that we’re losing great people and great writing. Just pointing to the best of what we already do, while it might make us feel better, doesn’t really start to solve anything.

So for me it comes down to two basic issues. One is the business model (see long screed above), and two is to look at the ways in which we practice our craft. For a living, I have the privilege of reading arts journalism. Day after day. Thousands, hundreds of thousands of stories. I make a living trying to find stories that I think matter. Obviously I value it or I wouldn’t bother.

But I also want to make it better. I think that means training a cold eye and asking some questions. What is news? What is criticism? Where do they fit? What are the relationships between artists and community and journalists? What’s a better way to describe the texture of a sound or explore a movement on a stage?

I’m not saying ArtBabble is journalism. But is it a challenge to journalism? Does it say something about a change in relationship between journalist and arts institution? InstantEncore sucks up information everywhere. It’s automated. It tries to gather up every piece of information about classical music and put it in one place. I’m not saying it’s journalism either. But is it a challenge to journalism or should it be a tool that could be incorporated into journalism? I don’t know, but it seems worth it to consider for a moment.

And so on. Again, we could have picked the best stories or the best writers or the best magazine out there. We could do a discussion about how The New Yorker is great or not great. And what would that serve? [Actually, I'd love it if there were some really great credible prizes for our profession. We should be recognizing and rewarding the best of what we do. But that wasn't what this project was about.]

Paddy: Sorry – but we didn’t change the rules mid-stream at all. We never asked for “commercially” viable models. We said we were looking for “sustainable business models”. There are for-profit business models and non-profit business models. To get VC funding for a commercial model you have to demonstrate a path to profitability. To get funded philanthropically these days, most funders want to see some model of sustainability. There aren’t many foundations that are willing to create another hungry mouth to feed unless it shows some way of being sustainable once it’s up and running. So we were looking for models that had some ongoing way of supporting themselves. Donations, contributions, subscriptions, advertising – there are all sorts of ways of doing it. Public radio, for instance, lives on memberships, donations, philanthropic support and a form of advertising. It’s non-profit, but it has a business model. Having a business model merely means that you have a way of supporting what you do. It’s fine to say something “should” be supported. It’s quite another to find a viable ongoing way of doing it. That’s what we’re looking for.

Why? Because there are thousands and thousands of blogs and other projects that, even if they’re doing terrific work, survive on sweat equity. Great that they exist. And I hope they continue. I’d dearly love to find ways so that bloggers and journalists can be able to make a living at it. That’s what this was all about.

To my mind, the issue isn’t creating content. You and Tyler and others have found ways to do that. And do it effectively. But where’s the model that helps sustain it so more people like you can support themselves doing it? It’s wonderful that you got a Warhol grant this year to help you do AFC. If it were up to me, you’d get one every year. But I think we have to be looking for more ongoing sustainable ways to support what you do. That’s what this was about.

We can all argue about what constitutes something “sustainable.” But there has to be at least some sort of business model to make it so – whether non-profit or for-profit – to be able to go forward.

So no changing of rules mid-stream at all. In fact, the overwhelming majority of projects submitted for the event were non-profit of one sort or another. For-profit projects were a small minority. I’m sorry Tyler got confused in his definitions. If he’d asked, I’d have happily told him.

Second. If I want to find great criticism or reporting, there’s no shortage of places to go, even after all the cutbacks and layoffs in the news industry. We know how to do great reporting and great criticism. So we could have had a contest to find the best arts criticism and reporting. Yet it’s all under threat. I hate that we’re losing great people and great writing. Just pointing to the best of what we already do, while it might make us feel better, doesn’t really start to solve anything.

So for me it comes down to two basic issues. One is the business model (see long screed above), and two is to look at the ways in which we practice our craft. For a living, I have the privilege of reading arts journalism. Day after day. Thousands, hundreds of thousands of stories. I make a living trying to find stories that I think matter. Obviously I value it or I wouldn’t bother.

But I also want to make it better. I think that means training a cold eye and asking some questions. What is news? What is criticism? Where do they fit? What are the relationships between artists and community and journalists? What’s a better way to describe the texture of a sound or explore a movement on a stage?

I’m not saying ArtBabble is journalism. But is it a challenge to journalism? Does it say something about a change in relationship between journalist and arts institution? InstantEncore sucks up information everywhere. It’s automated. It tries to gather up every piece of information about classical music and put it in one place. I’m not saying it’s journalism either. But is it a challenge to journalism or should it be a tool that could be incorporated into journalism? I don’t know, but it seems worth it to consider for a moment.

And so on. Again, we could have picked the best stories or the best writers or the best magazine out there. We could do a discussion about how The New Yorker is great or not great. And what would that serve? [Actually, I'd love it if there were some really great credible prizes for our profession. We should be recognizing and rewarding the best of what we do. But that wasn't what this project was about.]

Personally, I found this whole process very confusing. First there were going to be 5 finalists, each demonstrating sustainable business models. The finalists first announced were non-profits. Non-profits usually aren’t described as business models. I don’t see why the grant application page couldn’t have used the words “sustainable philanthropically supported, and commercial business models” (though given the breadth of projects it would seem to make more sense to have two separate awards – will this be the case?).

Anyway, after the original announcement, I, along with many others, received another email announcing another five participants. I wrote an email to the pr representative asking for a clarification between the two categories and received no response. None of this exudes “well oiled machine”

Although a side note to this, I really don’t think ArtBabble is a challenge to art journalism or even any internet video hub for that matter. Their relationship with ART21, a program aiming to reach a completely different audience and receives funds for just that purpose seems potentially very problematic, and when I asked a representative a recent lecture to discuss it he was totally unable to answer the question. ArtBabble’s website is completely unnavigatable and is designed for a 1997 web sensibility. So while the project itself may present interesting possibilities — housing the video documentation of museum installations for example certainly presents a valuable service — I in no way shape or form think this project responds to the language of the Internet. I don’t think they represent the summit well.

I’m happy NAJP exists, but I really don’t know who it’s intending to serve. It seems like the models being proposed fall into three camps: those that have already proven business sustainability (so why would they need it) and those who are non-profit and therefore don’t qualify (except that now they do), and those who don’t practice any model of journalism, but fall under the heading “projects the NAJP has interest in” (Note that Glasstire amongst the few exceptions to this breakdown, and actually fits within the original stated intentions of the grant.) All this would be totally fine if NAJP’s objectives were more clearly stated from the outset.

I realize that this comment may read as sour grapes to some — AFC applied for this very grant this summer — but I rather wish that wasn’t the case if only so I could write a response that didn’t on some level seem like a personal response. I honestly just found this process confusing, and frankly don’t like that the creative capital grant I received earlier this year has been brought up as being relevant at all in this discussion. I’m happy I got it too, but it has nothing to do with the issue’s I discussed. Certainly I never claimed that a one year grant represents a sustainable model.

For what it’s worth, my own belief is that by toeing the for-profit – non-profit system line as closely as possible, you do come up with a sustainable operational model. There are approximately 9 journalism grants Art Fag City qualifies for this year, 6 of which are reasonably well matched, and if we’re hooded by NYFA we can apply to all of them. This in combination with fundraising and ad sales should lead us into a position where we’re all making a wage we can live off of.

Personally, I found this whole process very confusing. First there were going to be 5 finalists, each demonstrating sustainable business models. The finalists first announced were non-profits. Non-profits usually aren’t described as business models. I don’t see why the grant application page couldn’t have used the words “sustainable philanthropically supported, and commercial business models” (though given the breadth of projects it would seem to make more sense to have two separate awards – will this be the case?).

Anyway, after the original announcement, I, along with many others, received another email announcing another five participants. I wrote an email to the pr representative asking for a clarification between the two categories and received no response. None of this exudes “well oiled machine”

Although a side note to this, I really don’t think ArtBabble is a challenge to art journalism or even any internet video hub for that matter. Their relationship with ART21, a program aiming to reach a completely different audience and receives funds for just that purpose seems potentially very problematic, and when I asked a representative a recent lecture to discuss it he was totally unable to answer the question. ArtBabble’s website is completely unnavigatable and is designed for a 1997 web sensibility. So while the project itself may present interesting possibilities — housing the video documentation of museum installations for example certainly presents a valuable service — I in no way shape or form think this project responds to the language of the Internet. I don’t think they represent the summit well.

I’m happy NAJP exists, but I really don’t know who it’s intending to serve. It seems like the models being proposed fall into three camps: those that have already proven business sustainability (so why would they need it) and those who are non-profit and therefore don’t qualify (except that now they do), and those who don’t practice any model of journalism, but fall under the heading “projects the NAJP has interest in” (Note that Glasstire amongst the few exceptions to this breakdown, and actually fits within the original stated intentions of the grant.) All this would be totally fine if NAJP’s objectives were more clearly stated from the outset.

I realize that this comment may read as sour grapes to some — AFC applied for this very grant this summer — but I rather wish that wasn’t the case if only so I could write a response that didn’t on some level seem like a personal response. I honestly just found this process confusing, and frankly don’t like that the creative capital grant I received earlier this year has been brought up as being relevant at all in this discussion. I’m happy I got it too, but it has nothing to do with the issue’s I discussed. Certainly I never claimed that a one year grant represents a sustainable model.

For what it’s worth, my own belief is that by toeing the for-profit – non-profit system line as closely as possible, you do come up with a sustainable operational model. There are approximately 9 journalism grants Art Fag City qualifies for this year, 6 of which are reasonably well matched, and if we’re hooded by NYFA we can apply to all of them. This in combination with fundraising and ad sales should lead us into a position where we’re all making a wage we can live off of.

I’d like to add that I don’t think multimedia websites pose a challenge to journalism. Journalism is journalism, criticism is criticism, art work is art work and the medium is simply hosting and distribution. The idea the databases and API’s are somehow posing a challenge to reporting is a pie in the sky notion evoking the AIDS 3D IMG MGMT essay on this site recently, Hubris/Nemesis/Whatever. The problem online art critics and journalists are suffering from is that even the best of us still haven’t found the right combination of philanthropy and direct website revenue. Funding a database might solve a different problem, but it won’t solve this one.

I’d like to add that I don’t think multimedia websites pose a challenge to journalism. Journalism is journalism, criticism is criticism, art work is art work and the medium is simply hosting and distribution. The idea the databases and API’s are somehow posing a challenge to reporting is a pie in the sky notion evoking the AIDS 3D IMG MGMT essay on this site recently, Hubris/Nemesis/Whatever. The problem online art critics and journalists are suffering from is that even the best of us still haven’t found the right combination of philanthropy and direct website revenue. Funding a database might solve a different problem, but it won’t solve this one.

I’d like to add that I don’t think multimedia websites pose a challenge to journalism. Journalism is journalism, criticism is criticism, art work is art work and the medium is simply hosting and distribution. The idea the databases and API’s are somehow posing a challenge to reporting is a pie in the sky notion evoking the AIDS 3D IMG MGMT essay on this site recently, Hubris/Nemesis/Whatever. The problem online art critics and journalists are suffering from is that even the best of us still haven’t found the right combination of philanthropy and direct website revenue. Funding a database might solve a different problem, but it won’t solve this one.

I’d like to add that I don’t think multimedia websites pose a challenge to journalism. Journalism is journalism, criticism is criticism, art work is art work and the medium is simply hosting and distribution. The idea the databases and API’s are somehow posing a challenge to reporting is a pie in the sky notion evoking the AIDS 3D IMG MGMT essay on this site recently, Hubris/Nemesis/Whatever. The problem online art critics and journalists are suffering from is that even the best of us still haven’t found the right combination of philanthropy and direct website revenue. Funding a database might solve a different problem, but it won’t solve this one.

My post on MAN responded to the RFP, which was clear. The RFP stated that contest entrants must have “viability, both as a business and as a journalistic enterprise.” Non-profit organizations are not businesses. The IRS is careful not to describe tax-exempt organizations as “businesses.”

If NAJP thought the post or the RFP was in error and if NAJP wanted non-profits as contestants, my post provided NAJP with an opportunity to amend the RFP to address the issues I raised or to ask MAN for a clarification. The organization did neither.

My post on MAN responded to the RFP, which was clear. The RFP stated that contest entrants must have “viability, both as a business and as a journalistic enterprise.” Non-profit organizations are not businesses. The IRS is careful not to describe tax-exempt organizations as “businesses.”

If NAJP thought the post or the RFP was in error and if NAJP wanted non-profits as contestants, my post provided NAJP with an opportunity to amend the RFP to address the issues I raised or to ask MAN for a clarification. The organization did neither.

My post on MAN responded to the RFP, which was clear. The RFP stated that contest entrants must have “viability, both as a business and as a journalistic enterprise.” Non-profit organizations are not businesses. The IRS is careful not to describe tax-exempt organizations as “businesses.”

If NAJP thought the post or the RFP was in error and if NAJP wanted non-profits as contestants, my post provided NAJP with an opportunity to amend the RFP to address the issues I raised or to ask MAN for a clarification. The organization did neither.

My post on MAN responded to the RFP, which was clear. The RFP stated that contest entrants must have “viability, both as a business and as a journalistic enterprise.” Non-profit organizations are not businesses. The IRS is careful not to describe tax-exempt organizations as “businesses.”

If NAJP thought the post or the RFP was in error and if NAJP wanted non-profits as contestants, my post provided NAJP with an opportunity to amend the RFP to address the issues I raised or to ask MAN for a clarification. The organization did neither.

“Personally, I found this whole process very confusing. First there were going to be 5 finalists, each demonstrating sustainable business models.”

We never said that. We said in our guidelines that we were looking for sustainable business models. Never said “commercially viable” as you first accused us of. Never said that each would demonstrate one as you say now. We were trying to see how people were tackling the issues of viabilty and sustainability.

“The finalists first announced were non-profits.”

We announced five demonstration/showcase projects that weren’t chosen competitively (and made this clear), our intention from the start. Two of the five are very much for-profit – Cedar Rapids Gazette and InstantEncore. Two are non-profits – NPR Music and the Indianapolis Museum. The last is a software tool developed by a university.

“Non-profits aren’t business models.”

Again, I refer you to the explanation in my original comment. If you made this claim to NPR or any foundation or business school they’d disagree with you. But whatever. You can have your own definition if you insist.

“Given your mention of the number of non-profit applications to the summit, I can’t help but think this didn’t effect the summit’s decisions.”

Oh, but I’d like to help you but think. Actually – the proportion of non- to for- was just about what I expected it to be. It pretty much reflects the current landscape out there.

“Anyway, after the original announcement, I, along with many others, received another email announcing another five participants. I wrote an email to the pr representing asking for a clarification and received no response.”

Yes – you and hundreds and hundreds of others got emails. Everyone we could think of. Not another five participants. We announced an open call for five projects. We also said we were showcasing five other projects that weren’t part of the competition. These weren’t eligible for the prize money. I’ve checked through our summitinfo@najp.org email archive and find no email from you. We of course did get your submission of ArtFagCity to the Summit.

“It seems like the models being proposed fall into three camps: those that have already proven business sustainability (so why would they need it) and those who are non-profit and therefore don’t qualify,” and those who don’t practice any model of journalism, but fall under the heading “projects the summit has interest in” (Note that Glasstire amongst the few exceptions to this breakdown, and actually fits within the original stated intentions of the grant.)”

You really think this was a grant? Really? Why? We never said that anywhere and it’s not. Second, I’m baffled by your continuing willful ignorance about business models. Try this: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22non-profit+business+model%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a.

Then you say Glasstire fell into the original guidelines, after just saying non-profits aren’t business models. After just saying that the original guidelines insisted on commercial models. Huh? Glasstire is a 501c3.

And why would we be interested in a project that has a sustainable business model? Oh, I don’t know – maybe so others might learn from it? Kind of the whole point of the project, I think.

“All this is totally fine, but why not make that explicit in the entry forms so people aren’t confused.”

Obviously it wasn’t fine to you, and I realize you’re disappointed we didn’t choose you (sorry, but sour grapes are sour grapes). It was certainly explicit enough for the other 108 projects that submitted. Though if you read the entry guidelines with as little care as you evidently did my first response, I can see why you might have had a problem.

As for your follow comment. I’m glad you posted it because it really explains all: “Journalism is journalism, criticism is criticism, art work is art work and the medium is simply hosting and distribution.” Oy. Have you really not read any art history about the last 100 years? Art is art? Case closed? Really? As for journalism. Perhaps you might want to expand your reading beyond arts blogs concerning journalism. You don’t seem to have noticed, but the journalism world is having a vigorous debate about what constitutes journalism.

PS to Tyler: Your link to the IRS code says no such thing about non-profits not being businesses. It says non-profits “must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests.” That doesn’t mean they aren’t businesses. A business is an enterprise in which goods or services are sold. The non-profit business sector is a significant part of our economy. If you want to make up your own definition fine, but you won’t find many takers for it.

As for this: “If NAJP thought the post or the RFP was in error and if NAJP wanted non-profits as contestants, my post provided NAJP with an opportunity to amend the RFP to address the issues I raised or to ask MAN for a clarification. The organization did neither.”

The rfp wasn’t in error at all. And we got plenty of non-profits as we expected we would. Clearly they weren’t confused by what a business is. No amendment needed. We didn’t respond because you never contacted us to ask for any clarification. You are in error, and you evidently don’t seem interested in making the correction. Given the promotion of your own project in the same post, I’d say… Well, I’d rather not.

“Personally, I found this whole process very confusing. First there were going to be 5 finalists, each demonstrating sustainable business models.”

We never said that. We said in our guidelines that we were looking for sustainable business models. Never said “commercially viable” as you first accused us of. Never said that each would demonstrate one as you say now. We were trying to see how people were tackling the issues of viabilty and sustainability.

“The finalists first announced were non-profits.”

We announced five demonstration/showcase projects that weren’t chosen competitively (and made this clear), our intention from the start. Two of the five are very much for-profit – Cedar Rapids Gazette and InstantEncore. Two are non-profits – NPR Music and the Indianapolis Museum. The last is a software tool developed by a university.

“Non-profits aren’t business models.”

Again, I refer you to the explanation in my original comment. If you made this claim to NPR or any foundation or business school they’d disagree with you. But whatever. You can have your own definition if you insist.

“Given your mention of the number of non-profit applications to the summit, I can’t help but think this didn’t effect the summit’s decisions.”

Oh, but I’d like to help you but think. Actually – the proportion of non- to for- was just about what I expected it to be. It pretty much reflects the current landscape out there.

“Anyway, after the original announcement, I, along with many others, received another email announcing another five participants. I wrote an email to the pr representing asking for a clarification and received no response.”

Yes – you and hundreds and hundreds of others got emails. Everyone we could think of. Not another five participants. We announced an open call for five projects. We also said we were showcasing five other projects that weren’t part of the competition. These weren’t eligible for the prize money. I’ve checked through our summitinfo@najp.org email archive and find no email from you. We of course did get your submission of ArtFagCity to the Summit.

“It seems like the models being proposed fall into three camps: those that have already proven business sustainability (so why would they need it) and those who are non-profit and therefore don’t qualify,” and those who don’t practice any model of journalism, but fall under the heading “projects the summit has interest in” (Note that Glasstire amongst the few exceptions to this breakdown, and actually fits within the original stated intentions of the grant.)”

You really think this was a grant? Really? Why? We never said that anywhere and it’s not. Second, I’m baffled by your continuing willful ignorance about business models. Try this: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22non-profit+business+model%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a.

Then you say Glasstire fell into the original guidelines, after just saying non-profits aren’t business models. After just saying that the original guidelines insisted on commercial models. Huh? Glasstire is a 501c3.

And why would we be interested in a project that has a sustainable business model? Oh, I don’t know – maybe so others might learn from it? Kind of the whole point of the project, I think.

“All this is totally fine, but why not make that explicit in the entry forms so people aren’t confused.”

Obviously it wasn’t fine to you, and I realize you’re disappointed we didn’t choose you (sorry, but sour grapes are sour grapes). It was certainly explicit enough for the other 108 projects that submitted. Though if you read the entry guidelines with as little care as you evidently did my first response, I can see why you might have had a problem.

As for your follow comment. I’m glad you posted it because it really explains all: “Journalism is journalism, criticism is criticism, art work is art work and the medium is simply hosting and distribution.” Oy. Have you really not read any art history about the last 100 years? Art is art? Case closed? Really? As for journalism. Perhaps you might want to expand your reading beyond arts blogs concerning journalism. You don’t seem to have noticed, but the journalism world is having a vigorous debate about what constitutes journalism.

PS to Tyler: Your link to the IRS code says no such thing about non-profits not being businesses. It says non-profits “must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests.” That doesn’t mean they aren’t businesses. A business is an enterprise in which goods or services are sold. The non-profit business sector is a significant part of our economy. If you want to make up your own definition fine, but you won’t find many takers for it.

As for this: “If NAJP thought the post or the RFP was in error and if NAJP wanted non-profits as contestants, my post provided NAJP with an opportunity to amend the RFP to address the issues I raised or to ask MAN for a clarification. The organization did neither.”

The rfp wasn’t in error at all. And we got plenty of non-profits as we expected we would. Clearly they weren’t confused by what a business is. No amendment needed. We didn’t respond because you never contacted us to ask for any clarification. You are in error, and you evidently don’t seem interested in making the correction. Given the promotion of your own project in the same post, I’d say… Well, I’d rather not.

“Personally, I found this whole process very confusing. First there were going to be 5 finalists, each demonstrating sustainable business models.”

We never said that. We said in our guidelines that we were looking for sustainable business models. Never said “commercially viable” as you first accused us of. Never said that each would demonstrate one as you say now. We were trying to see how people were tackling the issues of viabilty and sustainability.

“The finalists first announced were non-profits.”

We announced five demonstration/showcase projects that weren’t chosen competitively (and made this clear), our intention from the start. Two of the five are very much for-profit – Cedar Rapids Gazette and InstantEncore. Two are non-profits – NPR Music and the Indianapolis Museum. The last is a software tool developed by a university.

“Non-profits aren’t business models.”

Again, I refer you to the explanation in my original comment. If you made this claim to NPR or any foundation or business school they’d disagree with you. But whatever. You can have your own definition if you insist.

“Given your mention of the number of non-profit applications to the summit, I can’t help but think this didn’t effect the summit’s decisions.”

Oh, but I’d like to help you but think. Actually – the proportion of non- to for- was just about what I expected it to be. It pretty much reflects the current landscape out there.

“Anyway, after the original announcement, I, along with many others, received another email announcing another five participants. I wrote an email to the pr representing asking for a clarification and received no response.”

Yes – you and hundreds and hundreds of others got emails. Everyone we could think of. Not another five participants. We announced an open call for five projects. We also said we were showcasing five other projects that weren’t part of the competition. These weren’t eligible for the prize money. I’ve checked through our summitinfo@najp.org email archive and find no email from you. We of course did get your submission of ArtFagCity to the Summit.

“It seems like the models being proposed fall into three camps: those that have already proven business sustainability (so why would they need it) and those who are non-profit and therefore don’t qualify,” and those who don’t practice any model of journalism, but fall under the heading “projects the summit has interest in” (Note that Glasstire amongst the few exceptions to this breakdown, and actually fits within the original stated intentions of the grant.)”

You really think this was a grant? Really? Why? We never said that anywhere and it’s not. Second, I’m baffled by your continuing willful ignorance about business models. Try this: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22non-profit+business+model%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a.

Then you say Glasstire fell into the original guidelines, after just saying non-profits aren’t business models. After just saying that the original guidelines insisted on commercial models. Huh? Glasstire is a 501c3.

And why would we be interested in a project that has a sustainable business model? Oh, I don’t know – maybe so others might learn from it? Kind of the whole point of the project, I think.

“All this is totally fine, but why not make that explicit in the entry forms so people aren’t confused.”

Obviously it wasn’t fine to you, and I realize you’re disappointed we didn’t choose you (sorry, but sour grapes are sour grapes). It was certainly explicit enough for the other 108 projects that submitted. Though if you read the entry guidelines with as little care as you evidently did my first response, I can see why you might have had a problem.

As for your follow comment. I’m glad you posted it because it really explains all: “Journalism is journalism, criticism is criticism, art work is art work and the medium is simply hosting and distribution.” Oy. Have you really not read any art history about the last 100 years? Art is art? Case closed? Really? As for journalism. Perhaps you might want to expand your reading beyond arts blogs concerning journalism. You don’t seem to have noticed, but the journalism world is having a vigorous debate about what constitutes journalism.

PS to Tyler: Your link to the IRS code says no such thing about non-profits not being businesses. It says non-profits “must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests.” That doesn’t mean they aren’t businesses. A business is an enterprise in which goods or services are sold. The non-profit business sector is a significant part of our economy. If you want to make up your own definition fine, but you won’t find many takers for it.

As for this: “If NAJP thought the post or the RFP was in error and if NAJP wanted non-profits as contestants, my post provided NAJP with an opportunity to amend the RFP to address the issues I raised or to ask MAN for a clarification. The organization did neither.”

The rfp wasn’t in error at all. And we got plenty of non-profits as we expected we would. Clearly they weren’t confused by what a business is. No amendment needed. We didn’t respond because you never contacted us to ask for any clarification. You are in error, and you evidently don’t seem interested in making the correction. Given the promotion of your own project in the same post, I’d say… Well, I’d rather not.

“Personally, I found this whole process very confusing. First there were going to be 5 finalists, each demonstrating sustainable business models.”

We never said that. We said in our guidelines that we were looking for sustainable business models. Never said “commercially viable” as you first accused us of. Never said that each would demonstrate one as you say now. We were trying to see how people were tackling the issues of viabilty and sustainability.

“The finalists first announced were non-profits.”

We announced five demonstration/showcase projects that weren’t chosen competitively (and made this clear), our intention from the start. Two of the five are very much for-profit – Cedar Rapids Gazette and InstantEncore. Two are non-profits – NPR Music and the Indianapolis Museum. The last is a software tool developed by a university.

“Non-profits aren’t business models.”

Again, I refer you to the explanation in my original comment. If you made this claim to NPR or any foundation or business school they’d disagree with you. But whatever. You can have your own definition if you insist.

“Given your mention of the number of non-profit applications to the summit, I can’t help but think this didn’t effect the summit’s decisions.”

Oh, but I’d like to help you but think. Actually – the proportion of non- to for- was just about what I expected it to be. It pretty much reflects the current landscape out there.

“Anyway, after the original announcement, I, along with many others, received another email announcing another five participants. I wrote an email to the pr representing asking for a clarification and received no response.”

Yes – you and hundreds and hundreds of others got emails. Everyone we could think of. Not another five participants. We announced an open call for five projects. We also said we were showcasing five other projects that weren’t part of the competition. These weren’t eligible for the prize money. I’ve checked through our summitinfo@najp.org email archive and find no email from you. We of course did get your submission of ArtFagCity to the Summit.

“It seems like the models being proposed fall into three camps: those that have already proven business sustainability (so why would they need it) and those who are non-profit and therefore don’t qualify,” and those who don’t practice any model of journalism, but fall under the heading “projects the summit has interest in” (Note that Glasstire amongst the few exceptions to this breakdown, and actually fits within the original stated intentions of the grant.)”

You really think this was a grant? Really? Why? We never said that anywhere and it’s not. Second, I’m baffled by your continuing willful ignorance about business models. Try this: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22non-profit+business+model%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a.

Then you say Glasstire fell into the original guidelines, after just saying non-profits aren’t business models. After just saying that the original guidelines insisted on commercial models. Huh? Glasstire is a 501c3.

And why would we be interested in a project that has a sustainable business model? Oh, I don’t know – maybe so others might learn from it? Kind of the whole point of the project, I think.

“All this is totally fine, but why not make that explicit in the entry forms so people aren’t confused.”

Obviously it wasn’t fine to you, and I realize you’re disappointed we didn’t choose you (sorry, but sour grapes are sour grapes). It was certainly explicit enough for the other 108 projects that submitted. Though if you read the entry guidelines with as little care as you evidently did my first response, I can see why you might have had a problem.

As for your follow comment. I’m glad you posted it because it really explains all: “Journalism is journalism, criticism is criticism, art work is art work and the medium is simply hosting and distribution.” Oy. Have you really not read any art history about the last 100 years? Art is art? Case closed? Really? As for journalism. Perhaps you might want to expand your reading beyond arts blogs concerning journalism. You don’t seem to have noticed, but the journalism world is having a vigorous debate about what constitutes journalism.

PS to Tyler: Your link to the IRS code says no such thing about non-profits not being businesses. It says non-profits “must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests.” That doesn’t mean they aren’t businesses. A business is an enterprise in which goods or services are sold. The non-profit business sector is a significant part of our economy. If you want to make up your own definition fine, but you won’t find many takers for it.

As for this: “If NAJP thought the post or the RFP was in error and if NAJP wanted non-profits as contestants, my post provided NAJP with an opportunity to amend the RFP to address the issues I raised or to ask MAN for a clarification. The organization did neither.”

The rfp wasn’t in error at all. And we got plenty of non-profits as we expected we would. Clearly they weren’t confused by what a business is. No amendment needed. We didn’t respond because you never contacted us to ask for any clarification. You are in error, and you evidently don’t seem interested in making the correction. Given the promotion of your own project in the same post, I’d say… Well, I’d rather not.

@Douglas Please refrain from making personal attacks on the blog. Just because I don’t agree with your comment doesn’t mean it is a reaction to not being chosen or that I didn’t read it carefully. Art Fag City applies regularly for grants (though as you point out this is only a contest), and to date this is the only one I’ve written about. People are allowed to find the process confusing even if you didn’t! Also, please note that I removed part of my comment visa vi the non-profit applicants chosen earlier this weekend that you chose to address because I felt I crossed that line myself. I apologize for that.

“Personally, I found this whole process very confusing. First there were going to be 5 finalists, each demonstrating sustainable business models.”

We never said that. We said in our guidelines that we were looking for sustainable business models. Never said that each would demonstrate one as you say now. We were trying to see how people were tackling the issues of viabilty and sustainability.

I still think “sustainable business model” is confusing. It sounds like you’re looking for a for profit commercial enterprise. Two longtime bloggers interpreted this differently than you intended, one of whom is a reporter by trade. If that’s common language amongst those who work at NPR so be it, but I didn’t know that, and I don’t think it’s so unusual that I wouldn’t. The burdeon of Google is that it inspires the assumption on the part of the commentor that you’d think to use it for everything – even terms you’re already sure you know. But people are still people, so they make mistakes, and misinterpret language that’s misinterpretable. I don’t see why the point is so difficult to grant.

Second: Regarding glasstire. I stand corrected – I did not know they were a non-profit. They represent a solid journalistic model, which seems appropriate for the contest.

Third:

We announced an open call for five projects. We also said we were showcasing five other projects that weren’t part of the competition. These weren’t eligible for the prize money.

I will update the post.

“As for your follow comment. I’m glad you posted it because it really explains all: “Journalism is journalism, criticism is criticism, art work is art work and the medium is simply hosting and distribution.” Oy. Have you really not read any art history about the last 100 years? Art is art? Case closed? Really? As for journalism. Perhaps you might want to expand your reading beyond arts blogs concerning journalism. You don’t seem to have noticed, but the journalism world is having a vigorous debate about what constitutes journalism.

Don’t troll the blog. There is no reason to question whether anyone has read an art history book about the last 100 years or suggest that we’re unaware of the debate the journalism world is having. It’s obviously not true, and is issued with complete disrespect. You owe me an apology.

With respect to the aforementioned debate: I am not interested in engaging a discussion about what constitutes journalism. The essence of the job remains the same and blogs, databases, and multimedia capabilities have been integrated into most major newspaper websites. Unsolved problems like creating listing services that compete with craigslist and effective web advertising models present a challenge to the sustainability to journalism. An art database does not.

Anyway, here is a copy of the email I sent to your press agent last week:

artfagcity@gmail.com
sender-time Sent at 8:46 AM (GMT-04:00). Current time there: 5:23 AM. ✆
to sikorski@usc.edu
date Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:46 AM
subject Re: National Summit on Arts Journalism goes live today — 5 finalists announced

Dear Arianna,

Weren’t there different finalists announced three weeks ago? Are there two different programs? Let me know. This is what I have from a previous release:

p

· Sophie: A new authoring tool for multimedia developed by the Institute for Multimedia Literacy that suggests new possibilities for presenting critical response.

· The Indianapolis Museum of Art: With its Art Babble and Dashboard, the IMA is an example of a cultural institution extending its reach into areas that have traditionally been the province of journalism.

· InstantEncore.com: An example of an aggregator attempting to gather up everything about an art form (in this case classical music) and making it accessible in one place.

· NPR Music: An example of a traditional big media company that is reinventing itself across platforms. NPR Music blurs the lines between journalism, curation, presenting and producing.

· Gazette Communications, Cedar Rapids Iowa: An example of a local media company that is trying to reinvent the idea of what is news and how it might be gathered and presented.

In addition to ten featured projects, there will also be two roundtable discussions; one, moderated by Laura Sydell, arts correspondent for NPR, will focus on the evolving art of arts journalism, and the other, moderated by Andras Szanto, director of the NEA Arts Journalism Institute in Classical Music and Opera, will explore the business of supporting arts journalism. Members of the audience will be invited to share video responses at the conclusion of the program.

@Douglas Please refrain from making personal attacks on the blog. Just because I don’t agree with your comment doesn’t mean it is a reaction to not being chosen or that I didn’t read it carefully. Art Fag City applies regularly for grants (though as you point out this is only a contest), and to date this is the only one I’ve written about. People are allowed to find the process confusing even if you didn’t! Also, please note that I removed part of my comment visa vi the non-profit applicants chosen earlier this weekend that you chose to address because I felt I crossed that line myself. I apologize for that.

“Personally, I found this whole process very confusing. First there were going to be 5 finalists, each demonstrating sustainable business models.”

We never said that. We said in our guidelines that we were looking for sustainable business models. Never said that each would demonstrate one as you say now. We were trying to see how people were tackling the issues of viabilty and sustainability.

I still think “sustainable business model” is confusing. It sounds like you’re looking for a for profit commercial enterprise. Two longtime bloggers interpreted this differently than you intended, one of whom is a reporter by trade. If that’s common language amongst those who work at NPR so be it, but I didn’t know that, and I don’t think it’s so unusual that I wouldn’t. The burdeon of Google is that it inspires the assumption on the part of the commentor that you’d think to use it for everything – even terms you’re already sure you know. But people are still people, so they make mistakes, and misinterpret language that’s misinterpretable. I don’t see why the point is so difficult to grant.

Second: Regarding glasstire. I stand corrected – I did not know they were a non-profit. They represent a solid journalistic model, which seems appropriate for the contest.

Third:

We announced an open call for five projects. We also said we were showcasing five other projects that weren’t part of the competition. These weren’t eligible for the prize money.

I will update the post.

“As for your follow comment. I’m glad you posted it because it really explains all: “Journalism is journalism, criticism is criticism, art work is art work and the medium is simply hosting and distribution.” Oy. Have you really not read any art history about the last 100 years? Art is art? Case closed? Really? As for journalism. Perhaps you might want to expand your reading beyond arts blogs concerning journalism. You don’t seem to have noticed, but the journalism world is having a vigorous debate about what constitutes journalism.

Don’t troll the blog. There is no reason to question whether anyone has read an art history book about the last 100 years or suggest that we’re unaware of the debate the journalism world is having. It’s obviously not true, and is issued with complete disrespect. You owe me an apology.

With respect to the aforementioned debate: I am not interested in engaging a discussion about what constitutes journalism. The essence of the job remains the same and blogs, databases, and multimedia capabilities have been integrated into most major newspaper websites. Unsolved problems like creating listing services that compete with craigslist and effective web advertising models present a challenge to the sustainability to journalism. An art database does not.

Anyway, here is a copy of the email I sent to your press agent last week:

artfagcity@gmail.com
sender-time Sent at 8:46 AM (GMT-04:00). Current time there: 5:23 AM. ✆
to sikorski@usc.edu
date Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:46 AM
subject Re: National Summit on Arts Journalism goes live today — 5 finalists announced

Dear Arianna,

Weren’t there different finalists announced three weeks ago? Are there two different programs? Let me know. This is what I have from a previous release:

p

· Sophie: A new authoring tool for multimedia developed by the Institute for Multimedia Literacy that suggests new possibilities for presenting critical response.

· The Indianapolis Museum of Art: With its Art Babble and Dashboard, the IMA is an example of a cultural institution extending its reach into areas that have traditionally been the province of journalism.

· InstantEncore.com: An example of an aggregator attempting to gather up everything about an art form (in this case classical music) and making it accessible in one place.

· NPR Music: An example of a traditional big media company that is reinventing itself across platforms. NPR Music blurs the lines between journalism, curation, presenting and producing.

· Gazette Communications, Cedar Rapids Iowa: An example of a local media company that is trying to reinvent the idea of what is news and how it might be gathered and presented.

In addition to ten featured projects, there will also be two roundtable discussions; one, moderated by Laura Sydell, arts correspondent for NPR, will focus on the evolving art of arts journalism, and the other, moderated by Andras Szanto, director of the NEA Arts Journalism Institute in Classical Music and Opera, will explore the business of supporting arts journalism. Members of the audience will be invited to share video responses at the conclusion of the program.

@Douglas Please refrain from making personal attacks on the blog. Just because I don’t agree with your comment doesn’t mean it is a reaction to not being chosen or that I didn’t read it carefully. Art Fag City applies regularly for grants (though as you point out this is only a contest), and to date this is the only one I’ve written about. People are allowed to find the process confusing even if you didn’t! Also, please note that I removed part of my comment visa vi the non-profit applicants chosen earlier this weekend that you chose to address because I felt I crossed that line myself. I apologize for that.

“Personally, I found this whole process very confusing. First there were going to be 5 finalists, each demonstrating sustainable business models.”

We never said that. We said in our guidelines that we were looking for sustainable business models. Never said that each would demonstrate one as you say now. We were trying to see how people were tackling the issues of viabilty and sustainability.

I still think “sustainable business model” is confusing. It sounds like you’re looking for a for profit commercial enterprise. Two longtime bloggers interpreted this differently than you intended, one of whom is a reporter by trade. If that’s common language amongst those who work at NPR so be it, but I didn’t know that, and I don’t think it’s so unusual that I wouldn’t. The burdeon of Google is that it inspires the assumption on the part of the commentor that you’d think to use it for everything – even terms you’re already sure you know. But people are still people, so they make mistakes, and misinterpret language that’s misinterpretable. I don’t see why the point is so difficult to grant.

Second: Regarding glasstire. I stand corrected – I did not know they were a non-profit. They represent a solid journalistic model, which seems appropriate for the contest.

Third:

We announced an open call for five projects. We also said we were showcasing five other projects that weren’t part of the competition. These weren’t eligible for the prize money.

I will update the post.

“As for your follow comment. I’m glad you posted it because it really explains all: “Journalism is journalism, criticism is criticism, art work is art work and the medium is simply hosting and distribution.” Oy. Have you really not read any art history about the last 100 years? Art is art? Case closed? Really? As for journalism. Perhaps you might want to expand your reading beyond arts blogs concerning journalism. You don’t seem to have noticed, but the journalism world is having a vigorous debate about what constitutes journalism.

Don’t troll the blog. There is no reason to question whether anyone has read an art history book about the last 100 years or suggest that we’re unaware of the debate the journalism world is having. It’s obviously not true, and is issued with complete disrespect. You owe me an apology.

With respect to the aforementioned debate: I am not interested in engaging a discussion about what constitutes journalism. The essence of the job remains the same and blogs, databases, and multimedia capabilities have been integrated into most major newspaper websites. Unsolved problems like creating listing services that compete with craigslist and effective web advertising models present a challenge to the sustainability to journalism. An art database does not.

Anyway, here is a copy of the email I sent to your press agent last week:

artfagcity@gmail.com
sender-time Sent at 8:46 AM (GMT-04:00). Current time there: 5:23 AM. ✆
to sikorski@usc.edu
date Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:46 AM
subject Re: National Summit on Arts Journalism goes live today — 5 finalists announced

Dear Arianna,

Weren’t there different finalists announced three weeks ago? Are there two different programs? Let me know. This is what I have from a previous release:

p

· Sophie: A new authoring tool for multimedia developed by the Institute for Multimedia Literacy that suggests new possibilities for presenting critical response.

· The Indianapolis Museum of Art: With its Art Babble and Dashboard, the IMA is an example of a cultural institution extending its reach into areas that have traditionally been the province of journalism.

· InstantEncore.com: An example of an aggregator attempting to gather up everything about an art form (in this case classical music) and making it accessible in one place.

· NPR Music: An example of a traditional big media company that is reinventing itself across platforms. NPR Music blurs the lines between journalism, curation, presenting and producing.

· Gazette Communications, Cedar Rapids Iowa: An example of a local media company that is trying to reinvent the idea of what is news and how it might be gathered and presented.

In addition to ten featured projects, there will also be two roundtable discussions; one, moderated by Laura Sydell, arts correspondent for NPR, will focus on the evolving art of arts journalism, and the other, moderated by Andras Szanto, director of the NEA Arts Journalism Institute in Classical Music and Opera, will explore the business of supporting arts journalism. Members of the audience will be invited to share video responses at the conclusion of the program.

Although this wasn’t mentioned, I do think it’s fair to question AFC and other blogs with two or fewer bloggers on the subject of sustainability as very few these models have proven to generate enough income (I would question even the sustainability of say, Kottke long term). It’s something I think about a lot, and on this level, the Summit’s picks did not seem out of line to me. The highlighted projects though – not so much. I agree with Tyler.

Although this wasn’t mentioned, I do think it’s fair to question AFC and other blogs with two or fewer bloggers on the subject of sustainability as very few these models have proven to generate enough income (I would question even the sustainability of say, Kottke long term). It’s something I think about a lot, and on this level, the Summit’s picks did not seem out of line to me. The highlighted projects though – not so much. I agree with Tyler.

Doug wrote that, “[My] link to the IRS code says no such thing about non-profits not being businesses,” which is consistent with what I said in my comment above: “The IRS is careful not to describe tax-exempt organizations as “businesses.’”

I’m personally disappointed in the way Doug’s comment ends. I have nothing but the highest respect for Doug, for his accomplishments at both AJ and in the broader field and for his interest in the future of arts journalism. He has been kind and thoughtful enough to include me in a wide variety of NAJP events even though I was never an NAJP fellow. Throughout the discussion on the future of our field I’ve been careful to keep my participation in the discussion focused only on the issues. I believe that engagement with people on important issues — particularly in reasoned dissent — is a sign of respect, an indication that I think enough of them and their efforts to politely (and hopefully thoughtfully) continue the conversation.

I’m pleased to have been able to share my thoughts on arts journalism with potential readers via MAN and I’m glad that there are other forums all over the internet for similar discussions. True: My concepts weren’t eligible for the NAJP competition. Among other guidelines, the NAJP RFP specified that it sought projects that were already extant or that were about-to-launch. That’s fine. Mine isn’t and thus didn’t qualify. That’s fine too. I’m sure that neither Doug nor anyone else affiliated with NAJP thinks that NAJP-sanctioned events should be the only place where conversations about the future of arts journalism should take place.

Doug wrote that, “[My] link to the IRS code says no such thing about non-profits not being businesses,” which is consistent with what I said in my comment above: “The IRS is careful not to describe tax-exempt organizations as “businesses.’”

I’m personally disappointed in the way Doug’s comment ends. I have nothing but the highest respect for Doug, for his accomplishments at both AJ and in the broader field and for his interest in the future of arts journalism. He has been kind and thoughtful enough to include me in a wide variety of NAJP events even though I was never an NAJP fellow. Throughout the discussion on the future of our field I’ve been careful to keep my participation in the discussion focused only on the issues. I believe that engagement with people on important issues — particularly in reasoned dissent — is a sign of respect, an indication that I think enough of them and their efforts to politely (and hopefully thoughtfully) continue the conversation.

I’m pleased to have been able to share my thoughts on arts journalism with potential readers via MAN and I’m glad that there are other forums all over the internet for similar discussions. True: My concepts weren’t eligible for the NAJP competition. Among other guidelines, the NAJP RFP specified that it sought projects that were already extant or that were about-to-launch. That’s fine. Mine isn’t and thus didn’t qualify. That’s fine too. I’m sure that neither Doug nor anyone else affiliated with NAJP thinks that NAJP-sanctioned events should be the only place where conversations about the future of arts journalism should take place.

Doug wrote that, “[My] link to the IRS code says no such thing about non-profits not being businesses,” which is consistent with what I said in my comment above: “The IRS is careful not to describe tax-exempt organizations as “businesses.’”

I’m personally disappointed in the way Doug’s comment ends. I have nothing but the highest respect for Doug, for his accomplishments at both AJ and in the broader field and for his interest in the future of arts journalism. He has been kind and thoughtful enough to include me in a wide variety of NAJP events even though I was never an NAJP fellow. Throughout the discussion on the future of our field I’ve been careful to keep my participation in the discussion focused only on the issues. I believe that engagement with people on important issues — particularly in reasoned dissent — is a sign of respect, an indication that I think enough of them and their efforts to politely (and hopefully thoughtfully) continue the conversation.

I’m pleased to have been able to share my thoughts on arts journalism with potential readers via MAN and I’m glad that there are other forums all over the internet for similar discussions. True: My concepts weren’t eligible for the NAJP competition. Among other guidelines, the NAJP RFP specified that it sought projects that were already extant or that were about-to-launch. That’s fine. Mine isn’t and thus didn’t qualify. That’s fine too. I’m sure that neither Doug nor anyone else affiliated with NAJP thinks that NAJP-sanctioned events should be the only place where conversations about the future of arts journalism should take place.