One last thought that didn't have a place in the piece because I noticed it late, as I was ready to publish—I see that Cary has a post on the Open Salon cover today. I don't pretend to understand the complex politics of why he's posting here and not on Big Salon. Maybe they couldn't afford to pay him for a piece while he's on vacation. Welcome, Cary. It's a good piece. And it's nice to see someone get a post in on a serious topic. But from an editorial policy standpoint, it takes more than an isolated post by one of Open Salon's favored authors, whether it be Saturn Smith, Steve Klingaman, or David Brin (all of whom I enjoy reading, by the way) to count as anything more than a half-hearted afterthought in my book. And even now, you're living in the shadow of that gigantic Project Runway photo. That hardly spells serious commitment to political news.

I'm teetering on my four inch heels while carrying a slice of cake (a bakery has less of a selection) and attempting to maneuver through the detours entitled Tiger Woods/Megan Fox/The Bachelor/etc. on my way to rating your post highly.
R

Kent-

Could it simply be a matter of the big issues, news, politics, social issues only have a certain shelf life, and Salon and OS are simply realizing that society CANT sustain itself on "hard hitting' newsworthy intense topics? Look at one of OS's competitors, HuffingtonPost. They now have an entertainment, media and comedy and sports section, as well as their original intent of politics and world issues.

And, really, I can't blame them too much. Do you, does anyone watch CNN, or MSNBC or FoxNews 24/7? I doubt even Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, or Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck watch their own respective networks 24/7.

And maybe you do, and if you do, that's your choice, of course. But, I can't help but think to myself of the old adage:

"All work and no play makes billy a dull boy"

I don't think anyone can sustain the level of intensity that you imply you desire from OS. Even the president is known to take breaks, play golf, and host social meetings (that have a political agenda granted).

I just wonder how much longer the 24 hour news cycle is sustainable? People need breaks and need fluff so they don't become overwhelmed with other people's issues while trying to manage their own.

Just a thought

As for the bake sale idea, I think the goal has its heart in the right place, but the scope just isn't big enough. But we can only do so much for one another while still protecting ourselves, and we are no good for each other if we do not protect our own hearts, minds and spirts

Heh. Donna, I've got nothing against cake. I just see the world crumbling and we're talking about cake crumbling.

Placebo, that may be part of it. But HuffPo and others do this without losing their focus by keeping a partition between the topics. So one can go there looking for news and efficiently find it. Here it's all presented as if interchangeable, which shows lack of respect for readers and lack of comprehension of the basic business of information-providing in a post-information-explosion world.

Well, I would like more news, but then debate sells as to progressives versus non-progressives, and I think that is more of a public service, and more notice generating too.

Don, I didn't mean to rule out debate and analysis about news. Cary's piece today is a good example of analysis that isn't really news per se. But Project Runway, for example, is an example of neither news nor debate. I don't even begrudge them having it on-site. I am, however, profoundly saddened that there is not a place I can bookmark and recommend to friends that will reliably contain current non-fluff content in a way that is even remotely attractive.

Kent, I think this took a lot of guts. And I had some of the same thoughts when I read the "bake sale" blog.

Bonnie, I agree that misogyny project was quite worthwhile. Not everyone agreed, but good debate (as Don Rich notes) is fine. I would just like to see that generally on political topics, not just on isolated topics of apparent special interest to the editors.

I don't want to take part in an EP discussion. However, marshalling writers to write about health care or foreclosure or how much some political policies have hurt us and others would be welcomed. It just might not attract readers outside of OS. For awhile there every other post I wrote was about healthcare. I was determined to make whatever 38 people really read something to understand. What gets read is blogs with a personal story that may not be the main point but support it.

Thanks, Jeanette. I have learned in my life that honesty is sometimes risky. Over time, I've found people develop a grudging respect for what seems a short-term irritant because they know they can come to me for an opinion that is honest, and I try to focus on that long term goal to let me do things that are, as you say, a risk of offending someone. My goal is not to make anyone upset, but my goal is to say what needs to be said. It's my own personal brand of "constructive criticism". Thanks for noticing.

Dorinda, you might be surprised to learn I have no problem with that theory. But what I do have a problem with is having that theory and not saying it. They don't seem to have the willingness to say out loud “we will be favoring this kind of piece and not welcoming that kind of piece.” Depending on the details, that might cause me or others to stop trying right away. But my guess is they don't want to risk that. I think newspapers and magazines should absolutely have a theme. But a theme means saying not just what you are but what you are not. And they want to be all things to all people. They can't do that. And, as I said, their theme used to be politics, but they've drifted. At a time when politics is ever more important. There are calls for constitutional conventions, seceding, refreshing the tree of liberty with bloody revolution, amending the fundamental voting processes of the Senate, impeachments, and so on. And we're discussing Project Runway.

Highly rated.

I come here every day hoping to read about politics. Most of what I write, whether satirical or serious, is about politics. You made a good point in the comments, that HuffPo basically has several topical "home pages."

Having said that, I do like the mix of pop culture, but I've read much more compelling Hollywood pieces than the "Superman" post from yesterday.

Bottom line foe me is that I like a small amount of pop culture but prefer politics... on this site.

Roger, I agree with your “for this site.” They have an edge in politics and are just one of a gazillion in the other areas. But heck, if they want to come out and say “this is not about politics,” then I and others can pack up and go elsewhere. That had not been my impression. But increasingly it is.

I felt the same about Kerry's post. I was surprised actually. Of course, I wish Cary and King well and hope they get the treatment they need. But, to do a post like that here where we don't even know them was odd, at best. Here, where people are writing on a daily basis about lack of jobs, foreclosure and no insurance. We are the people that need to supplement Salon's employee health insurance? It's a kind thing for them to do to want to help their employees and I'm not saying that we shouldn't help others in need when we can - not at all. But here we have one of our members, Safe_Bet, who died, leaving two children behind and that doesn't even get placed on the cover. Or Wayne Gallant. Hell, half the people in here need money raised for them, just to buy food. That's what bother me the most.

I don't agree that Open should be all politics all the time. I know I've said this to you before but, just because that's what you want from the site doesn't mean it's what everyone else does. It is a blog site, after all. But, I do agree that there could be a bit more balance. Of course entertainment posts might bring people in, but I would think that politics would as well. OS has at least 8.5 times the users it did during the election. They came from somewhere, right? Sure I write fluff, but I write other things too. At least in my mind I do. There just needs to be a balance.

I reposted my very political health care piece in response to Cary and King....
You are right. The media in general (although not in specific if you listen to Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes, and read The Nation) has fallen down on the job.... and will continue to do so as long as we are a country of the complascent. Which, it seems, in the main, we are.

Great piece of writing. Great ideas.... WHO will listen?

BTW Nearly every time I have written a political piece here it has gotten buried under the mound of personal poor-me tales.... and the enough already!!! television and movie reviews and the news updates that are hours old already.

OTOH you (and I and many others) "solved" this dilemma months and months ago by suggesting covers with sections and calling out political pieces and others of note.....

Sigh.

Thank you. You've said what needed to be said and in a very clear and well reasoned way. Kudos. One of the best pieces you've written to date I think.

It's tragic that Big Salon doesn't know what to do with Little Salon. Sometimes we're like the tag-along younger sibling who is occasionally useful in scoring chicks, but a pain in the ass when you have to babysit instead of going on the date.

I find it very odd that Salon would use the resources of this venue to raise funds for their own employees. Kerry Lauerman's original post about this received an EP. EP for what? And now for several days scarce cover space is used to advertise this effort.

As far as I can tell both men are employed. They both have health insurance. Presumably they had some accrued sick and vacation time, and perhaps even short and long-term disability insurance. If Salon does not offer these to their employees, then perhaps the employees should look for jobs elsewhere.

So it's not clear to me what we're being asked to do. Make up for an inadequate benefit package? Is that it? I have no idea.

I wish both men well, both physically and financially. But there are all sorts of people on OS who have physical and financial problems, some of whom aren't employed or don't have insurance, some of whom are now going bankrupt or losing their homes.

So out of all of the people on OS who could use help, why are the resources of the site used to help only these two?

And this comes down to a basic question: what is the purpose of Open Salon? I've been here since April 2008 and I still haven't figured that out.

Exquisitely timely and had to be said. I too was puzzled at the call-out to supplement Cary's and Kings medical benefits package while I am paying huge amounts of money to my dentist because my own dental coverage is so slim. Odd and badly timed.
Reality check noted. Thank you.

I'm as political as you can possibly get, and I certainly wish that OS (and everything else in medialand for that matter) was geared towards political activism and people becoming better citizens.

Unfortunately, having just taken inventory of my own postings, I've found that I've gotten on average about twice the number of hits on my fluffier stuff than I have on my political big idea pieces.

In a better world, OS would be a better version of the New York Review of Books. Unfortunately, with the times we live in, people are looking for diversion. That's the reason why Busby Berkeley was so popular as a moviemaker in the Depression.

Perhaps ultimately, part of the problem lies with Barack Obama. His no drama, lay back and let me manage things smoothly personna has created its own set of unintended consequences such as the fubar on healthcare. With the economy slowly and unevenly recovering, there is the tendancy towards conservativism not only in Washington, but elsewhere, like OS and its readership.

Remember, our democracy is only as good or as strong as the collective mindset of the population, and in the absense of any compelling real news issue, there will be the natural inclination in drifting towards Tiger Woods and Brittney Spears. Oops! I meant Sarah Palin.

I don't agree that OS should be more politically oriented, but I do think you are dead on about organizing the cover in a way to make it a simple task for the reader to go to the political section, or the entertainment section similar to HuffPo. I too found the "bake sale" to be distasteful, I am sorry for anyone undergoing a health crisis but they are both employed and have HEALTH INSURANCE. That is way more than many of us here on OS can say.

It might have been nice to have a bake sale for two little girls who have lost their mother as Julie pointed out. Or even a small space on the cover to memorialize the passing of Safe_bet and Wayne Gallant. More important to rehash mindless television drivel I suppose.

And while I'm at it, isn't anyone else a little blown away by Kerry's recent response to the question of why an OS post that is put on Salon will not be compensated monetarily? The response was that Salon never pays for content that has been published elsewhere first --- even if elsewhere means right here on their very own stepchild, OS.

The OS policies do not make economic sense either. Your post, with no cover slot or EP, has nearly as many views as the Project Runway one which is featured on the main Salon page. Not to mention the Project Runway one has been up four hours longer.

The same can be said for all the other MI2 and Survivor fluff. People here obviously prefer more hard-hitting and political news by any metric, yet we keep getting fluff. I don't understand it.

Kent, you and I have been around here for longer than most. Look at the cover today and tell me that is what this used to be like? I always and I mean always read your things. You are a serious person with much to share. I can do political writing also. But I refuse to do political little sound bites. If I have a topic then I want to cover the topic. The hyperactivity of jumping from post to post is not just here but is what years of television has taught us. I could say much more but I just want you to know some of us are still serious but I mostly do sillier things as this is more of a feature writing site. It is a nice, friendly site and I still like it. But it could be so much more. A writing site? Ha! A political discussion site? sometimes, it is. A social site--always.

Excellent piece Kent. I will not only rate this, I'll point others here.

I agree ~ as Ive said elsewhere, I signed on mostly to comment (on political pieces) and to write on rare occasions. I've never believed most of my work would be worth featuring on the cover, but I like you have become increasingly disenchanted with the drivel that does make it there. Even some of the favored writers have very mediocre pieces that make it while so many (and here I would point to almost all of yours and Dennis Loo's as 2 that should be featured regularly) are ignored.

So in some ways, this place is like the Democratic Party. It ain't what it was, lord knows it ain't what it could be, but while we think about where else we could be, it's losing what little appeal it has left.

Bravo
Bravo
Bravo

I definitely prize OS's ability to showcase everything from fiction and poetry to personal essays, humor and political reporting/analysis. I think we'd all lose a lot of very rich content by becoming a "politics only" site.

Maybe setting up OS with "sections" (very like HuffPo does) where one can go find Politics, Entertainment, Books etc would be a good idea. As long as we could still look up our favorite bloggers no matter what they are writing about. (I've noticed lots of people on here are wildly multi-talented and multi-focused.) Probably, it's expensive to re-design a site like this....

On the bake sale thing: it's terribly sad that anyone anywhere has to have a bake sale, or an auction or anything of the sort to pay medical bills. And these are people WITH insurance, for pete's sake.

Perhaps Big Salon was just trying to acknowledge that we, over at OS, are part of their "family" by including us in the appeal. However, the whole situation could be used as a way to highlight this very important issue.

Cat is onto something (as usual) - Salon could easily do a "Stories of the Recession" using OS writing from the past few months. We have everthing from discussions of food stamps and food pantries to pieces on unemployment and foreclosure.

Kent, it was brave to write this post. Thanks.

I came to Salon.com for the Art, not the politics. Salon has eliminated much of their Arts Section, so I rarely go to it anymore or anywhere else on Salon, which seems to be more about opinion than good old fashioned news. I don't need opinion. Opinion and egos is what I think is wrong with today's news.

OS, though, I think of it as a blogosphere, where anything goes and it's all about opinion. This is a practicing ground, not the real McCoy and unless there is accountability, it will never have the gravitas you are looking for. Oh, and if it was all things "real" as you define it, I wouldn't come here. While you find fashion frivolous, I find that fashion is a great sociological tool and says a lot about a society.

As to the cover, well, I'll admit that it is disappointing that it features things that are poorly written. I don't mind reading about fashion or a TV show, as long as it's thoughtful and well written. If OS is going to feature an article written about Project Runway, the writer should know enough about fashion to know that the show is not about fashion but about egos. I feel the same about any topic, "real" or otherwise.

a social blogging community for artists of all stripes.

Thanks for this post, Kent. I don't completely agree--I like many of the personal pieces I read on OS, and I think the appeal of "Project Runway" and other celeb fluff is the same appeal of slick magazines in a doctor's office. Sometimes I like to skim through People; sometimes The Economist.

But your point is very well taken about what Open Salon could be if the cover was organized by topics or "Stories of the Recession" as Cat and Blue suggest. Because this is a social-networking site as well as a writer/blogger site, a lot could be done editorially to inspire good discussions of all kinds--and sparking civic discourse is one of the reasons-to-be for journalism. I would like to see that, I really would. I'd also like to see categories like "Fiction" and "Poetry" and "Memoir" on the cover. Rated.

I'm still pretty new here on OS, but I've gotten impression that OS is more akin to a farm team, or even semi-pro that to "the bigs," as Salon.com evidently is. I joined after looking around and seeing the abundance of talented writers. It was the writing that hooked me and that will keep me here. My view of politics is closer to Skip Williamson's that to any sense that any but the most powerful interests in our society have much influence over the governing.

My political focus is more on the local level, where there may be just as much corruption but where change can be affected more by egalitarian winds than at any other level.

I find it odd that the OS cover seems to pander to a general readership, as if it's competing with, as you call it, Big Salon. I really wonder how much readership we have outside the contributors themselves. Not that Salon's policymakers give a hoot what we OS contributors think or wish - this is made abundantly clear every day, but I agree with Ablonde's rational view that the OS cover be sectioned by category - politics, humor, sports, fiction, etc., with the very best-written piece of all - no matter the category - given banner display each day.

As a showcase for excellent writing, OS might enhance its reputation and accrue a readership from beyond its ranks.

For folks who want the pop culture potpourri, there would always be Big Salon. (r)

I apologize for an especially odd, recurring typo. For some reason I kept typing "that" when I meant to type "than."

Well damn, just wrote the comment of the century, if I do say so myself, and it got gobbled up with a mishit of a key. Damn.

So, what Cat and Janie said x100.

I came here for politics and I like the sideshow of fluff. I think OS has many brave writers sharing their stories as part of outlining the problem and really do want to be a part of the solution, myself included. It takes guts to write those pieces. This piece takes guts.

I wasn't insulted by Kerry's post, as I took the sentiment as genuine and I don't want to kill the messenger, but to tell you the truth, I could use a bake sale. I'm no longer too proud to admit it. I've come here writing my own guts out without any agenda except to hope it makes a difference somewhere. What I would like is to see a way to have that, and others work, be a part of a solution. That is what I like about this post...a call to action. I like action. I have yet to find a way to create that collective here.

While I think format changes might enhance that, what I have found when looking at technology outside OS (which I have been doing over the last two weeks) is that we truly need some sort of discussion board on various topics. Then, it is about the topic, not the writer posting it. It becomes a focal point for a main idea versus a hodge podge of postings in no way linked together around a theme. Just my thoughts so far...

I agree about the discussion-board idea, Sparking. That's what I was trying to say, but I didn't spell it out.

I also wanted to point people to Writing for Godot on Reader Supported News (Truthout)--Godot is a place where political writers can post pieces. So far, it is very unfluffy, but it also doesn't seem to have that many readers.

I'll just keep repeating myself, because the only alternative is to just give up. OS has terrific potential, but there seems to be not even a sliver of effort are the part of Salon to do anything with it. A very simple solution to some of the most frequent and serious complaints would be, as Lisa says, different sections devoted to different topics. That way people could have what interests them most, could much more easily navigate, and it would make the prime cover real estate more accessible to members.

Thanks for keeping on keeping on with this, Kent.

I remember some months ago trying to put forth the idea for labeled sections on this site so the content could at least by found if anyone wanted to look for it.
No one seemed to care about my idea at the time.
I feel like OS is the ugly stepchild of big Salon, not much noticed or appreciated by the parents unless needed for something, in this case a bake sell. I care not for editors getting and EP either, since it seems silly to me to give oneself some sort of ribbon to promote a piece of writing on a spot you are the editor anyway. I admit always laughing when I see it done, no matter what the topic is.

I am here for the life we live in Kent. As folks say here, the 'real world'. It sometimes includes more than I want to read or deal with.
But is is here. I do get tired of the endless discussions on the cover that seem to occur in spells here. But since I don't worry much about it, I tend to look at the feed or faves, or most recent.
This post took some guts here Kent. I expect you will get a variety of comments here.

many thanks for your thoughtful post here. rated.

Different sections would make a huge impact, actually, in dealing with this problem.

I think we're stuck here between the desire for what it could be and a business situation where Big Salon has decided the fluffier pieces will rake in the hits and maybe make the place a paying prospect. Heck, there's a possibility that OS is doing okay, what with the ads and what amounts to mostly free labor. I bet keeping Big Salon afloat is the primary concern presently. So, ironically, the very thing that we need to be discussing--the politics and the recession--may very well be the reason we aren't.

Anyway, I think sections would do a lot towards helping that situation. Different sections with different front pages. And different ads! (More money maybe?)

I want to see more personal stories on the recession, on healthcare. This week Blue Cross raised my premium or offered me a "deal" whereby I could go into debt if either my child or I got super sick. Also, they warned me oh so nicely in the letter that they were possibly going to raise it again this year. Yes. Really. I'd like to know if anyone else is having this situation happen to them. I'd like to hear about what's really going on because, guess what, we're not going to get that on the "real" news, except possibly Democracy Now. I do like me some Amy Goodman.

Anyway, my two cents ... BREAK THE COVER INTO SECTIONS. It couldn't be that hard.

It would solve a lot of problems if the OS Editor(s) would limit the amount of Covers/EP per individual, to maybe two insertions per month. In doing so, it would give the needed exposure to many other writers. It would also increase the quality of the articles.

It's one thing to try and increase traffic by highlighting "fluff" on a daily basis, it's another to try and sustain it.

{[R]}

I agree there is way too much pop-culture on the front page... it has been a disappointing aspect of OS for me... Bake Sales for Healthcare... I think there is a poem in there somewhere... humm...

FYI I just noticed that Cary's article is on the front page of Big Salon- top middle...

Good points. Putting this piece on the cover would be nice step in the right direction. Rated.

Regardless of whatever Big Salon wants Open to be and whatever the media should or should not be doing, I found Kerry's post offensive, in that it was seeking help for two people who have virtually no presence here in the face of scores of people here every day who are suffering from all manner of ills. And I also thought it pathetic that Salon Media had no sense that if these people really mattered to them, they would take the responsibility to help them. Well, bathetic.

This is a quality, important post. It will further the discussion within the OS community. I doubt TPTB will bother to read it and the comments, let alone act on any of it.

You say that Salon Media Group is about politics. Could be. But I don't see any evidence of it. Obviously Joan is on the Matthew's show because of politics. But I am not sure that Salon wants anyone to know it if the Media Group is really about politics.

Look at the topics of the sections of Salon.com. They HAVE multiple covers, sections, which we have been asking for since I got here.

[I have sent PM suggestions, written about it in posts and in comments. So have you and lots of us, for months, coming on years. So if we don't have them it is not for lack of their knowing how to do it. They do it on Salon.com. Likely it is because they would have to employ more staff to decide what to put on the covers of the sections. Maybe they could hold a bake sale to pay for another employee or two.]

Here is the main point: NOT ONE of the section on Salon is dedicated to, or at least labeled, "politics." "News" is the closest they come, and that is not only about politics. HuffPo has a politics section. Not Salon. So maybe the reason you came here was never the reason that Salon was here.

And maybe politics was not the reason Open Salon was created. Nothing in the TOS or in any communication from TPTB to us peons ever mentioned politics as far as I can remember. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

I would love to see more emphasis on politics. I write about it quite a bit. And when I do I get a strong readership. But no more than I get when I write about other topics. The posts I write that get picked up outside of OS and get thousands of hits are inevitably NOT about politics. Usually they get picked up by Google, the aggregations sites, and then are linked by others beyond that.

But the truth is that I don't know more than a handful of OS writers who are getting political play beyond OS. And when they are it is because they are also publishing, often for pay, elsewhere in better know sites.

So, OS is not what I want it, and I did not even come here for the politics. Likely, OS will never be what some of us want.

The question for me is whether or not it can become something to the public that is more meaningful than a bunch of copycat, secondary plagerism of the seamy side of the MSM. Unfortunately for all of us, that is the direction the cover here is going.

If you look at the number of hits most popular on OS - and NOT written just recently - most of are fluffy, unoriginal crap that has been tweaked from places like People and US magazines and the half hour Inside Hollywood, TMZ, and Extra type TV programs. The idea of hard hitting news published here is to try to get something up - stolen from another source - within 15 minutes of a celebrity death. That is sure to make the cover.

On the other side, we still have free access to a site that Google covers well, (Bing not so much) as do five aggregation sites when we link our posts to them. We still can write, show, perform what we want on our blogs. And we can, as I have and as you have, build up a respectable sized readership of people who actually want to read what we write. You have. I have. Many, many of our friends have.

So I don't see it as all black and white. And on balance I am still here, writing, gaining friends and readers, both here and on sites that have linked to my blog. So are you.

I haven't had a cover in months, well, maybe one. And only a small handful since I have been here. I don't look at the cover much. I think I am better off if I don't because I never like what I see and, last time I checked, TPTB have never once asked me what I think of it.

Good post, Kent. I mean that. Not that I agree totally with you but that you did us a great service by providing a topic worth discussing and a forum to have that discussion. Thank you. And, yes, rated.

Monte

What "Mishima666" said.

Rated

Progressive politics....Salon.com? Perhaps in some ways...but pandering for free content is hardly the stuff of current labor laws ...and publicly held companies are expected to adhere to. Salon Media is a publicly held company who was 96M dollars in the hole in 2008. Their financials are published on Yahoo.

So, cover your assets. Yes. Salon Media would do well to follow your advice. xox

@Martha - thanks. I think we agree on a lot of things.

Came back to rate this twice if I could Kent. Many great comments here. As we never do get a clear idea of what Big Salon wants besides in the Open Calls, I think it behooves us to know what we want. That's what I've been thinking about lately. What do we want and what are we willing to do to get it.

I've been talking with a number of politically minded folks behind the scenes who do want this kind of place to discuss, and potentially shape politics. I have a post mostly written that I was saving until Monday on the topic which I sincerely hope you will add your comments on - just a heads up.

Much admiration going out to you this evening - thanks for all you do and the way you do it.

This is a wonderful piece, Kent. I do think editors try to keep a mix on the cover and in EP choices because it draws in readers, and the more readers there are, the more opportunities we have to be read. My faves are usually political in nature, but you know what they say: everything is political.

It's all too obvious what the marketing plan is here. Big Salon will be the place for serious news -- at least occasionally, and Open Salon will be the red-headed stepchild where (Un)Reality TV is reviewed as if it matters and recipes will be offered for cake and cookies, but not for solving any of the critical problems that will soon render all of this superfluous anyway.

Well, TPTB, can always blame it on the Romans -- Bread and Circus, don't you know?

Kent, comes down to $, we all lose... Six corporations own the media in this country, I shout it daily, to no avail... Pointing out pop culture madness at OS has no run, been shot down by many of the favorites... Corporations control it all easily with mindless entertainment and $... Stifling the ability to think clearly, the dumbing down of an already too ignorant society, hey maybe a national bake sale will work ... I came to OS because of the political side of Salon, so I'm with you, but...RRR

Kent, if you think fighting the powers that be at Salon is hard and futile, just wait till you have to fight government bureaucrats to get healthcare. :-)

Just having fun with your post.

This is a good one and I generally agree with its desires. I know I would be more interested in a site much more focused on politics and news. But, different strokes for different folks... and OS is still free!

fyi, salon is a nickel and dime operation. they are very lucky to have survived the dotcom crash.

Great post. I agree with so many here, you, Roger F, Sparking, etc. I love the politics here - but the real reason I love OS is the randomness of signing on and finding.....anything and everything. I click on whatever headline grabs my interest, then follow comment leads, etc. Soon, I am in deep, reading what is essential found poetry.

I should check out Big Salon more often, or at least sometime; add it to my list of (mostly) progressive, lefty sites. A movement is what it will take to turn the ship of this country, and not the Tea Party movement. Something like MLK's. Revolution again (I'm hoping for socialism...). Lots of the elements are in place - joblessness, desperation, lack of medical care - I feel something will happen soon. It must.

Rated - good luck!

Hi Kent. I usually agree with you but I don't quite buy the point this time. If I understand your post correctly, you'd like OS to be more politically oriented and that the folks who run this site should assign more EPs to political pieces, and/or categorize the posts.

First, I'm unsure how great an influence the EP designation carries. Maybe I haven't been here long enough to tell, but I usually check out the posts by a variety of criteria.

Second, categorizing the posts could result in some folks simply skipping whole sections. As it is now, I sometimes read posts that I might otherwise have skipped had they been in some category I seldom check out. This raises the issue of categorization.

Lots of posts cross all sorts of lines. The personal crosses with the political, with the cultural, with gender identity and parent/child issues etc. How about the Tiger Woods mistresses story? Much of it should belong in the Salacious category. But why not in Sports too? What about a comparison of Tiger vs Edwards? Does that make it political? What about an angle on how rich and famous men take advantage of the power dynamic etc etc? Political and what else?

Is a straight economics analysis political? Is a straight scientific analysis of Climate Change political if it makes no recommendations? Where do you draw the line?

I like the jumble as it is. It's easy to find topics that interest me and several of those articles are ones that I wouldn't have suspected in advance that I'd enjoy. While my interests here are primarily political, I first got enticed by Silkstone's insightful recaps of the Mad Men series. And they have more than a touch of the political in them. More recently I was bowled over by O'Really?'s (geez, lots of punctuation there) captivating piece on a relationship gone wrong.

Kent, I admire your impulse to look for a better vehicle to promote social change but I've begun to realize that I'm perhaps overly process-oriented. In other words, if I don't see a workable remedy, I dismiss the problem. It's just another of life's daily imperfections. You know, change what you can, cope with what you can't.

I want to point out that while Cary Tennis is on a temporary disability leave, he cannot be paid for doing what he does for a living: writing. So he's here posting for free like the rest of us, and remains free to lay down and rest while he still needs to do so. Disability payments in California are hardly something that keeps up with the real cost of living, especially being that San Francisco is one of the most expensive cities to live in the entire US. So I am sure that he could use our help, even if it is only a little. I know there are over 80,000 folks registered here now, so it isn't hard to imagine how a small contribution could lead to some timely help. That they thought asking us on OS to their bake sale to benefit Cary and King Kaufmann was for me kind of like finding the nice Jehovah's Witness lady on my doorstep. It's hard to be mean to her, but really, does she ever imagine what or who she is talking to at the time? Does she ever imagine when she is coming to my door that she is asking a minister with a doctoral level education to throw over her faith and adopt one that doesn't respect her education? This request seemed just as blind and incongruent to me. So I turned away from Kerry's post, but not from Cary and not from King either. I have compassion for their circumstances, all of them. But once again, I don't think Kerry actually knows who he is asking.

I think that many of us here have diminished incomes, even if we still have our jobs. I haven't had a bonus in two years. And one month last Spring I had to loan my company some money during a cash flow crunch. I do little things to help like pay $5 extra on my electric bill so people who are having a time can have a little help. I buy $100 worth of warm new socks and take them down to the Food Bank where they hand them out to the homeless.

I don't have a lot of extra money these days, but I try to share what I can when I can. Before the recession I had more I could share. Like lots of people here I am getting by scaling back. My health insurance will cover me in a catastrophe, but regular care is pretty much at my expense now.

I consider my writing to be one of my assets, but I don't write much here other than some memoir posts and stuff I like to write about having a good life. I don't often feel like I am taken seriously. It is clear to me that the cover is not where I belong. It isn't because my writing isn't good, it is because I don't care for the general lack of depth in selections for the cover, particularly its open calls for recaps of bad TV and reports of the scum at the bottom of our culture that you can find anywhere.

There is a serious absence of direction toward anything but that which requires the attention span and of a mosquito and its particular mindless and relentless seeking of blood.

When the arts make the cover, I am thrilled. I remain thrilled that I was able to write here in a manner that gave me some feedback from folks whose writings skills I appreciate. That is always useful for those of us who haven't had writing professors for a long time or anyone who edited or coached us to better our skills.

So do I agree with Kent? He’s more serious than I am; I like a good laugh and some of the stupid stuff around here is pretty damned funny, but I have to say that rather largely, I do agree.

Abrawang, you misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting a litmus test. I'm suggesting a goal. The question isn't whether something “counts as” political. The question is whether there's any evidence that there's a goal to address the real issues facing us, or if we're all just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, assuming that someone else will fix the very real problems of the world.

Just as I'm willing to suggest that the healthy and able should pay the lion's share of health care simply because they are able, I'm saying that those who are best able to carry political messages have a moral/ethical obligation to do so if they care at all about those messages. In spite of what may erroneously seem like personal criticism on my part, I think the bake sale article sends the clear message that the people running the site do care. I just think they're being ineffectual about the thing they care about. I'm suggesting they need to think better about what they can do to help, and that they're falling down in that job, probably not intentionally. But by putting them on notice, I place this into the realm of intention. It's an easy thing to overlook. But having been told you're overlooking it, if you continue to do it, it becomes an intentional act.

Those wondering about the idea of multiple covers, please refer to the article Mishima and I co-wrote, Reaching for the Open Sky. This is an idea that is as old as the idea of hypertext itself, and it's trivial to implement. (Zero javascript required, can be done with all HTML in an afternoon.) All that is required is for the human responsible for editorial content of the cover(s) to have two or three or five bins to toss articles into instead of just one.

Minds are not changed, in any profound way, by political discussions. What is needed are stories of human beings suffering and laughing and living told in a way that transcends the cartoon caricatures we now see or read in most of our media.

I, for one, believe that we get what we deserve. We seek entertainment, escape. So, our politics are destined to operate on the same level.

Jay, I'm not really suggesting that essays are a bad form. I said in the first comment after the post I welcome Cary's post—he was making a political point. I'm suggesting that however you tally it, Project Runway is not political discussion, and I'm suggesting that if people don't get serious about a political discussion in a venue that can tolerate one, that's the answer to why the world is falling apart.

Probably the best meta post on OS I've ever read. I felt very strange after reading Kerry's bake sale and e-Bay post and then looking at the cover that day and the next and the next. Agree with nearly all the comments, particularly regarding Safe_Bet. Dakini Dancer was honoured properly -- has OS changed so much since then?

Craze, the authors put the keywords. The editors just have to comb the posts marked politics for the politics articles they want to include on the politics cover, the posts marked food for the food articles, the ones market obituary for the obit page, etc. How hard is that? And indeed, a post might have more than one label, but that's why you have an editor—they can say “yes, this is both categories but only really good in this one,” or “this is so relevant in both that it makes sense on both covers,” or whatever. I'm not suggesting that the failure here is that people make bad judgments; people will always make good and bad judgments. That's what it is to have a person in the loop. The point is that it doesn't appear anyone is trying or told they need to.

I think there can be basically no good argument for retaining the status quo. The idea that somehow it is healthy to not know what you're getting is not a way of keeping any of the people I want to read because they value themselves more than to be lost in that kind of shuffle. Sure, people will stay. But not the good ones. There's an extremely good ad running on TV for a place called “the ladders” that advertises $100K+ jobs. Ignoring the thing they're advertising or how they've segmented themselves, their message is spot on. They show a guy playing professional tennis and then a zillion fans pour onto the court, all pretending they're tennis players, too. It's anarchy. You can't tell good tennis from bad tennis because really there is no order. The point is there's a world-class tennis player in there and no one can see him, so he might as well not be there. He certainly has no ability to show himself as world-class in that mess. So he won't be playing there.

The $100K+ part will no doubt distract some from my point, but I underscore that an analogy is not a literal equivalence, and not every part of a thing one makes an analogy to is the reason why one makes the analogy. My point is not about elitism, my point is about classification. A political writer among a bunch of pop culture writers is hard to find. The political people want to talk to one another. The pop culture people want to talk to one another. Encouraging anarchy is encouraging the mutual frustration of all of these people. The people who like both can easily peruse two pages, one containing culture and one containing politics. But if you don't separate them, it is much harder on everyone.

Craze, no, I 100% don't agree that it's labor intensive. The Editor still has to read a bunch of articles anyway. This gives them a place to put it. But you used the word exponential; it's not. The search is very fast to do a partition into buckets, and the buckets can easily be sorted from most plausible to least plausible. based on ratings. Right now, the Editor doesn't seem to use any cue from the hard work done by a zillion people to rate things. Instead, the editor could use that coming in instead of fighting it. The editor doesn't have to agree with every last high rating, but it's certainly a sign of something amiss if the editor is not trying to at least have a look at the highly rated posts. That's the problem. Every time I think about this, I think, "Isn't there some way to help the editor make better selections?" and then I think "Yeah, we could each do a little." and then I think "Oops, we do. It's the ratings." and then I think "Oh, they must be ignoring it." So if they're determined to fight the ratings sytem they themselves set up, then indeed they'll have trouble. But if they at least start from there, their work is small. And since people also pre-categorize, that isn't work either. It's just a question of whether you believe it. But if works are routinely miscategorized by an author, they can be warned they'll be put on a blacklist. I bet works are rarely miscategorized. So the question isn't "Is this labor intensive" it's "Can I easily produce 5 products for the cost of one?" I already have someone reading these things and often saying (I bet) “There's too much good stuff here. How do I decide?” So doing it with 5 covers would actually increase the number of “winners” without compromising quality. Layout? As nearly as I can tell, they select from a set of standard layouts, but if they don't, they should. That can be nearly automated so should not be an issue. And finally, what about end user satisfaction? Well, writers feel better if they're findable so that's a win. And readers want to select the kind of thing they want, so their situation is better. As both a business owner and a programmer, my experience says this is very doable. The fact that someone doesn't see how to do it is not very relevant to me; it's enough that someone else does. If indeed they see a problem they cannot solve, they should ask. Because I'm not the only one to have suggested this has solutions, and there are many talented people out here willing to offer advice. They are not using the natural resources they've gone to the trouble to amass; rather, they are making those human resources feel wasted. That's no good for a business either.

On the issue of search, you're way off the mark, by the way. Search is not cover layout. First, would you accept a front page which was just in the format of their search? It's not attractive and it's not discriminating. It makes a fine reading order for an editor but it's not the same as a cover. If you were going to do that, why would you pay a human editor. It's not good enough.

But moreover, the search solution is only a thing that appeals to someone who is (1) familiar with the system and (2) kind of geeky. That is, people who read a newspaper, most people, I think do not expect to use search as their primary means. It's just not the expected tool. People don't go to the NYT and sit there at the search bar typing in things, not ordinary readers. They read headlines. They may go to sections but that's not the same. Sections are laid out, and set up to allow reading of headlines, looking at pictures, etc.

But addressing my point (1) in more depth, the reason I want to be on the cover with politics is that I want there to be a go-to place for the world's movers and shakers wanting to get the pulse of the community. I want a place that I could imagine Obama or at least Grayson bookmarking as part of his daily reading. (These guys may have interns who do that for them, but even so, I want a thing their helpers would bookmark.) Or Krugman or Friedman or Rachel Maddow. I assume these people consume many publications, and I want Open Salon to be one. But what would be the point of any busy, important person ever bookmarking Open Salon? They might bookmark Salon because it offers them information that is better organized where they can see what they want ina way that is well-packaged. But Open Salon, geez, a lot of places would fire someone summarily just for going to it at all. Its cover is NSFW and a search feature isn't going to help that. It's embarrassing to suggest to someone they should go to that page. My friends would think I was wasting their time or wanting to get them in trouble going to it. I want to refer them to a page that is constructed by someone with some political savvy to allow them access to some truly fine political discussions that happen here. The discussion will happen anyway, but it won't change anything in the world if a person who does not know anything about Open Salon other than its name cannot look at the site and in 2 seconds say "This is a place I must bookmark and return to." And there is just no chance whatsoever that the typical front page of Open Salon these days would be such a commanding view. Not the people I want to talk about. Not the typical consumer of the political analysis. So we're lost. This is not something you can rely on chatter from friends for because in order for Rachel Maddow or Alan Grayson to ever be my friend on Open Salon, they'd have to first decide it was worth their time to be here. And since I allege in its present form it isn't worth it for them to get far enough to find out they should be my friend, the only way they will find my stuff is either on the cover (which doesn't happen for most politics unless it's written by Saturn) or else through a Google search, which will find my content anywhere I put it, so why do I need Open Salon. What Open Salon could offer, but doesn't, is an introduction between readers who respect the Salon name and writers who respected Salon enough to give this place a shot as a possible platform to make a difference. If it can't offer that, then it will ultimately lose those of us who have to be heard for it to matter.

I usually respond to all posters by the way, but this is one of those where a lot of people have spoken and if I responded to each there would be a lot of redundancy and it would distract from others' messages. I wanted to say, though, that I've carefully read everyone's response (and if more come in, I'll read those as well). Thanks everyone.

Craze, nearly as I can tell, Salon is already committed to having a human editor on staff and I'm not going to be offering advice about how to do without another human being. That's beyond my ethical scope. Given that they are committed to that person, and I think it's great to see people employed in journalism—I think they can add a lot—my focus is on how to maximize the value they provide. As to the cover, you're assuming 5 times the work because you're assuming putting the pages together compositionally is the lion's share of the work; if it is, that can trivially be made more efficient. IMO, the lion's share is reading pieces, and that has to be done anyway. You're also assuming that the covers have to be the same size, and that's not 100% clear either. The auxiliary pages could have higher percentage automatic feed with very good results. And you're neglecting the fact that with the specific branding of these other pages, both writers and readers would find much higher quality, which might move more people through happily, and in turn might yield better community growth; not all changes that cost effort are done just as a freebie—there is a product here and improving the product has value that makes it worth investment. Finally, the changes I'm suggesting are ultra-minimal and could be tested quite easily with some pretty minimal technical changes.

First, Kent, fine, fine post.

Second, my apologies to that I haven't the time to read everyone's comments as I'm sort of out of commission (as anyone who reads me might have noticed). I had a death in the family and I'm grieving and distracted.

Third, I don't think the distinction we should make here is between politics vs. non-politics on the cover of OS. The problem here is that politics of the deep kind, whether it is about public policies being enacted or not enacted, debated or not debated, or it's about politics as it can be seen in the movies (e.g., in Avatar) or in sports or in any other arena, is what is sorelymissing from EPs. So those of who have disagree with Kent on the grounds that you think there's already enough politics being written about elsewhere I think are missing the deeper point here. Which brings me to my last point:

Fourth, the superficial fluff that is featured so much in the EPs appears to be a marketing ploy. But it's mistaken in that it isn't really, even in the strictly business sense, the best approach. As Kent has indicated, this place "could be a leader in forming America's opinions. But instead it's a follower. It follows television and fashion and all things fluffy or shiny." There is an amazing community here of writers and readers and commenters, many, many of whom think deeply about stuff and bring diverse expertise and experiences to bear, but which is only barely reflected on the covers of OS. This is evident in that the editors won't really reveal their true criteria for deciding what gets an EP. If you read their stated criteria, it's clear that they aren't revealing the entire criteria. That is why it continues to be so puzzling to so many of us what their rules are. Material that cuts a little too deeply usually gets ignored and other material that is less challenging will get an EP.

Sorry about the typos in my remarks. : )

To expand and clarify a bit what I meant by politics of the deep kind: if you probe enough, there is politics in everything. I don't mean politics in the sense of Democrats v. Republicans, or politics in the sense of being PC. I mean really looking at the underlying dynamics of something. For example, a really deep look at sports reveals a whole lot of dimensions - e.g., the question of strategy (like warfare), the question of gender, of race, of class, etc. You can even approach cuisine or fashion, for that matter, in this way.Unforunately, instead we get featured stuff on covers most of the time that is breathless boosterism for Project Runway and the like.

Kent,

I think this is an excellent post. I think it is definitely the sense of apathy to which you refer that is the underlying most of what we are dealing with. Beyond that, there is an epidemic of stupid running rampant through America today. The examples are almost endless.

I think a lot of people have simply given up; they know it's not going to change in their lifetimes, and they have, as you point out so clearly, more clear and present dangers to deal with close to home.

I go to work each day and basically switch off my mind because I'm SURROUNDED by stupid all day long, and switching off my mind is the only way I can survive there, and I have to survive there so that I can survive.

I think you have a very valid point here, and it will go nowhere. I have gotten here too late to do any good here, but I will rate this in hopes that someone else who hasn't been here yet might stop by and read.

RATED highly.

I first heard of Open Salon from Travellini who has posted several pieces here. I sent her something I had written just to get the words on paper and she suggested that I make several pieces of it and post them here which in fact is what I did.

You may wonder what I am driving at here. The potential debacle of health care reform was making me insane. I posted my several pieces here in September about my dears and concerns over health care. They were read by Travellini and one other, I think.

My writing made Travellini recall her plan to write about her sister, Gayle's, ordeal. My other reader and I witnessed that ordeal through Travellini's reports at the time. I wept as I saw that piece here and was touched by the outpouring of concern made by readers here who commented on the piece.

I drifted away after posting those pieces and reading about Gayle.

Quite recently I began to write again about my concerns about a reform plan that has not only not concluded but appears to be running amok. Each time I have been touched by those who have read my words and commented on them.

During this past week or so, I have come here every day. I had looked before at Travellini's favorites and found someone who writing touched me. This time I looked at some of her writing and was startled by the magic of her words. As I began to read comments posted, I began to wonder what writings some of the commenters had posted. By looking back and forth, I feel as though I have found several comrades who care about things that matter to me. As with you now, I have read and I have commented and I keep coming back wanting more.

I begin each morning looking online at news sites. My last four are The Independent, The Guardian, MSNBC and HuffPost. Lately I have then moved here where I begin to feel that I belong.

There is some nonsense. There is some fluff. There are article titles I have decided are chosen to ensure that people will at least look at them so that they will look popular. Nonsense to me but not to them as far as I can see.

This is the way I have navigated here. It is not perfect, but, I think, it allows for possibility. Maybe that is the draw, whatever we write about.

It didn't occur to me that this was a politically oriented site and clearly my politically oriented pieces have not drawn crowds. Maybe part of me thought and hoped that they would. Part of thought and hoped that everyone would know that this was the right time for health care reform, that it would pass easily and quickly simply because it was the right thing, the best thing for so many. Silly me.

But I hope on and feedback from a few here helps me go on believing.

I enjoyed your piece as well as your participation in all the activity that followed your posting. Thanks.

Anna, indeed, it's possible to find some nice people here and have some very good conversations. And I actually think for people who just want to “share” and “feel gratified” the size of the audience may be secondary to the quality of the communication. I'm glad you've had some good experiences in that regard. I've had some, too.

But regarding the politics, one doesn't move the world by having gratifying chats with one's friends. Especially because usually one's friends are politically of the same ilk, but also because one rarely has enough good friends to affect elections. One moves politics by advertising, by presence, by getting a message out to those who don't expect it, to those who are not one's friends. And so yes, it's the inability of nearly anything written here on such matters to ever claw its way to the front cover (unless it's written by one of those who are quite obviously the unacknowledged favorites of the editors) that makes this site poor for politics. It might just be an anomaly of when I arrived, during an election season. Probably I should just never have come and instead invested the time in building a place for myself elsewhere. That is my definite impression at this point, in spite of having met some very nice people here. Hopefully, when I eventually migrate elsewhere, I'll stay in touch with those people.

But how sad for Open Salon that it seeks to be so “the same” and so “unmanaged,” ignoring any unique content and instead pouring its slim resources into excitedly and efficiently cloning content from elsewhere. (I got excited when I thought the cover had read “Blog important issues” and then crestfallen to see it merely said “Blog import issues.”)

Kent, I do take your points. I felt and feel so strongly about health care reform. I came here to share that. So few came or wanted to know. I wish that had been very different. I wanted people to engage with me. I wanted my message to spread. But I am not good at advertising. If I were, I would have work by now or more importantly, someone would want my work.

If I have learned anything over this past year, it is that I could never be a politician. Big pictures interest me. Details matter, but when they are reduced to haggle points and distractions and deliberate delay tactics, then they make me insane. Always have. Always will.

I am not a shouter. I am gentle. I want to make my case and I want people to listen. I thought here, they would.

Your piece here is about politics. I have written about a political issue. Has your curiosity led you to my work when one click would take you there? What helps you to locate politically oriented pieces then, I wonder.

I don't argue well. I was asked once to teach debate. I did, but I wasn't very good. I am very good at teaching writing. Without a job in hand, I am taking the opportunity to write. I am learning a great deal. I am looking for a publisher.

Here, I push a button and, my work appears. Published! No money. Not much of an audience. Yet. But the possibility of an audience may be here.
May. Be.

Anna, there are some excellent points there. I took notes for a possible future blog post. You touched on some things I frequently comment on, about self-promotion and why we insist on it. Very well said, and any reply I rushed out would detract. I'll save my remarks for another day when I have both time and energy.

Thinking of all I read here yesterday, I looked at the top line here and saw "topics". When I looked, I saw something about tags to the left. Wondering what I might find, I tried to remember tags I had used on my recent pieces. Obama. There they were. More people than I realized had at least looked at the pieces. Only a few made comments. Maybe the others hated the pieces. Maybe they read the first few words and went away.

Can't imagine this is news to you, but it was news to me. Thanks again for making me think more.