FFT Reviews First A.O...
Forum for Fellow Travelers (FFT)
| Revision History | ||
|---|---|---|
| • November 13-27, 1991 | Newspaper: Funded by Syracuse University students. | |
| The Alternative Orange: Vol. 1, No. 2 (pp. 2) | ||
| • August 24, 2000 | Webpage:  . | |
| DocBook XML (DocBk XML V3.1.3) from original. | ||
To the Editor:
The following are questions and critiques we have drawn up in relation to your first issue of the Alternative Orange. While we feel strongly that the new A.O. staff has the potential to produce a paper of the highest quality, we feel certain problems, if not addressed, could severely limit your appeal and effectiveness in the community and University.
The format of the first A.O. is user "unfriendly". Break up the print with more photos or comics.
Is the A.O. a newspaper or a journal? If it is meant to be a newspaper, than under no circumstances can it afford to publish monolithic "thesis papers" (such as the Nowlan/Woods piece). This is not to suggest that the material should not be covered, but that the format it is presented in is highly problematic for a 12 page newspaper.
Where is the local news? Where are the quick tidbits that can be easily devoured by a student rushing from class to class? What about stories to show how the big issues affect us here at Syracuse University?
Build bridges to other communities in resistance. We have heard the comment "the paper is too white". It would be good to hear from/about communities that have suffered historical alienation from the printed press.
Strike a balance between theory and news. To favor one over the other will threaten the broad appeal the paper could have to both veterans and fresh recruits of revolutionary politics.
In conclusion, remember who your audience is and what their needs are. In the meantime, keep up the good work.
Forum for Fellow Travelers (FFT), Syracuse, N.Y.
...The A.O. Responds
We thank the Forum For Fellow Travelers for taking the time to respond to our first issue. As a staff we find your criticisms to be useful and significant.
The A.O. is "User Unfriendly": The first issue of the A.O. was "unfriendly" to many readers who found the wash of text and its "density" to be a bit (or perhaps more than a bit) overwhelming. This was due both to a miscalculation on our part, and to our "rush" to get the first issue out, using equipment and techniques that we were unfamiliar with. We have attempted in this second issue to make the issue more visually appealing.
Newspaper or Journal?: We are trying to move toward a hybrid format somewhere between a newspaper and a magazine (though a magazine more like The Village Voice than People). We will try to publish a mix of shorter and longer, and both easily accessible news stories and more densely theoretical texts. We don't, however, find "news" and "theory" to be logically incompatible as you seem to. News stories, whether in the NYT or in the Guardian are informed by a range of theoretical assumpions, either spoken or unspoken. Many who are currently writing for the A.O. are interested in writing stories which make clear their theorectical orientation, and which are at the same time--because of their theoretical clarity--concrete in their details. We believe that we must both address potential readers "where they are," and work toward developing an audience which may not yet fully exist.
Where is the Local News?: We are striving also to focus on local events by relating them to trends of regional, national, and global significance. "Remembering Columbus" was one such story from last issue. There are more in this issue, and we hope to increase our coverage of local developments, especially as our staff and experience grow.
Too "White?": We agree. We are making strong attempts to involve other groups (especially women, gays and lesbians, people of color, and workers) both as writers and general staffers. This is a real problem, but it is also an historical problem: we cannot expect that many groups will easily trust what is still a largely white male paper. For many, we will have to demonstrate our political solidarity and good will. And yet we have already made some progress. In this issue we include important contributions from HAS (on the Spanish Page), The Womyn's Center/Feminist Collective/Lesbian Collective, the Women's Studies Advisory Board, and the Post-Colonial Forum. We hope to develop to the point where the influence of such groups within the A.O. is so significant that these will not appear as merely "outside" additions to a "white" paper.
We invite all interested individuals and groups to both work with us to transform the A.O. into the most politically progressive paper it can be. We also hope that FFT and others will send us responses and critiques of this and all upcoming issues of the A.O.
[B. Bates for the Alternative Orange]
