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.

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.

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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

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.

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.