I hail from a newspaper, now gone, although it continues online. I wish it well, although I wouldn’t want to be part of it. The job is to do everything at once – 20 people (give or take) on a 24-hour news cycle.
The pace of the old PI, which I considered brisk, now looks plodding. Three editors looked at everything on its day-long journey toward print. Blogs at the paper were a different story. One editor took a fast look, usually after the item was printed.
When I started blogging a couple of years ago, the prospect of that fast read intimidated me. As I like to say, misquoting Sir Thomas Wyatt, facts flee from me. Everybody benefits from another set of eyes evaluating the product, I more than most.
What I discovered online was reassuring. I’d traded three editors for many more. If something’s wrong, readers say so in the comments, email me or call. I hope on this blog, they will continue the practice, even though comments are not immediately posted. I have to look at them first, and I’m already behind.
Doug McLennan, AJ editor, told me to start Another Bouncing Ball with a piece about the transition from the PI to freelance art critic. This is it. It’s not the start, but it’s close enough. Those who want more from me on the PI’s demise can find it in The Stranger (here and here) and the Columbia Journalism Review. The CJR quote has the virtue of being brief:
The Hearst Corporation has always treated the P-I like a
placeholder. When there was money to be spent, they didn’t spend it
here. This is the time to invent the template for the transition from
newsprint to online only, and once again, the Hearst Corporation is
doing it bare bones. A skeleton looks plump compared to poorly-paid
online crew. I wish it well, but those people have a near-impossible
task. The future according to the Hearst Corporation seems to be,
journalism without journalists.
I should have added that Hearst has always treated me and mine well. The PI was a great place to work.
As a sometimes responder to the fare on Art To Go I haven’t always felt the need to exchange pleasantries but rather have tried to honestly express what was on my mind. Therefore I do have an observation over something you mentioned here that may, or may not, determine whether I’d enjoy participating on your new blog.
What did you mean when you said that comments are not immediately posted and you’d have to look at them first?
Will responses to your postings be subject to censure?
Will there be a free exchange of opinion?
Are there new rules of engagement that did not exist previously?
It would be disturbing for me to see portions of conversational exchange dropped or omitted entirely. Having experienced such a situation in the past, both as a perpetrator and a victim, the practice has left me with a distaste for blogging censureship. I do hope that this will not be the case and I can feel comfortable knowing that my future postings will make it to your page unmolested.
Hi Marulis. I’m not going to censor comments I don’t like but don’t want comments that are off topic or attack people.
Regina
Well I for one am onboard, already have you linked on my blog, so the plane is ready for take-off! Here is to a a new location on the web and new possibilities!
Harold
May you prosper online, Ms. Hackett.
As a primarily print person curious about your transition to blogging, and your admission to/of after the fact editing by readers, I can only wonder how often you find–if you look–those readers to be wrong. Or specious in their comments/edits.
Me, I’m totally fine with your pre-viewing our comments, coz flaming is not useful, nor are ad hominem or just off the wall comments. Please save us.
But given the so-called post-fact nature of much of the Web, and esp. of the blogosphere, there’s the question of running down information that’s called into question.
Another smart Northwesterner, Oregon-reared Nicholas Kristoff, has a most interesting take on another aspect of this in today’s (Thursday the 19th’s) New York Times. His column’s titled “The Daily Me,” and the teaser is as telling as succinct:
The Daily Me
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
As we ignore traditional news media more and more and go online for “news,” we become our own editors. Heaven help us.
Nonetheless, one of the best things about quick turnaround, writer-driven blogs like Another Bouncing Ball is their ability to broadcast insights and make telling remarks, something I’ve always admired about your writing, Regina.
So part of my calibration from hard-fact journalism (my brother is a newspaper copyeditor, who sometimes asks me questions, for which I always doublecheck my answers) to “True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society” will be watching the bouncing ball.
See along with Regina
versus
Sing Along with Mitch (for the truly archaic electronic media types)
chrs, j
Hi Regina,
To gain a deeper understanding of Art Criticism I recently attended the Contemporary Art and Criticism Forum in Vancouver B.C. (Artspeak and Philip)
As a painter I have a new level of appreciation for your contribution to the Art world and I want to wish you much success on your new adventure.
Hi Regina – Great to see you land here! – Tommer
Regina, now that I’m no longer at the P-I, I am thrilled to finally be allowed to comment on your blog. I have you bookmarked, and I’m delighted that, even if I’m losing my print P-I, I won’t lose the pleasure of your virtual company and commentary. I don’t think of myself as knowing much about art, but reading your work always makes me feel intrigued and informed and curious to learn more. Thanks for going forward.
I think it will be a success for you. Your other art journal played very well, this should do fine. Are you accepting advertising?
buena fortuna
billy king
Regina, I feel bad for Rebekah Denn, she may have waited years to express her feelings about your blogging efforts and I cannot fathom how she ever contained herself. It’s small situations like hers that makes one wonder over and admire people who live under totalitarian rule and who will nevertheless risk all to be able to speak their minds freely.
With that said, please allow me to offer my doubts about and my trepidation towards your policy of filtering commentary. The feeling I have is akin to being told to take a number and have a seat or “don’t call me, I’ll call you.”
Wouldn’t it be more useful to police the commentary after the fact and then delete the truly offensive?
Admittedly, I am not a big fan of centralized contol and having to wait to be approved inhibits my own spontanaity and constricts my creative genitalia.