We were sitting in the office around 7 p.m. last Friday anticipating another "press weekend." Stephen and I were in a heated discussion about some aspect of the upcoming issue when Donna, sitting at one of the computers in our office, let loose with a scream. "It's up!" She backed away from the computer screen as if sudden movements might cause it to lunge at her. "I can't read it."

What she was referring to was the Admissions Committee recommendations for the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies (AAN), the national association for publications like the Jackson Free Press. We had applied earlier this year for membership, knowing that it was a difficult but important step for us as an independent media outlet. We also knew that the Admissions Committee's reputation preceded it. It can be caustic. It can be snide. This is the committee that once wrote of a paper that it felt particularly unworthy of admission, "This paper should be taken out back and shot."

We were scared that we were next.

I settled into the seat and started reading aloud. The write-up began, "Also a rookie playing its first full season of ball, this paper is light years better than any alternative ever before attempted in this unusual city that could call itself the Buckle on the Bible Belt." By the time I'd gotten through that, I was already excited. It didn't sound like they were going to work us over too bad.

When the dust settled, we had more "yea" than "nay" votes from the committee, but it was a simple majority, meaning they wouldn't outright recommend us to the general membership of AAN; instead they strongly suggested that AAN members take a look at us and decide whether they thought we were a true alternative publication and whether we'd be around for the long haul. If we got more than 2/3 of the vote from the 120 member papers, we were in.

We FedExed more papers up to the conference so the full membership got a chance to consider us on our merits. On Sunday morning, we got the news—we'd been admitted on the first ballot.

We were floored, and we were thrilled. We are now Mississippi's only AAN paper, in the company of publications such as the Chicago Reader, Village Voice, Memphis Flyer, and LA Weekly. We're still a puppy compared to those big dogs, but we're growing.

Why is it such an honor? Like any selective professional association, membership in AAN suggests that our peers have accepted our work as meeting their strict standards. In this case, AAN had also accepted us in our first year and on the first ballot—two things that almost never happen to an AAN publication in a market as small as Jackson. Often, smaller-market papers without deep pockets are forced to reapply to AAN a number of years running. That was the case for two other papers that got in with us: the Boston Dig and Maui Time Weekly.

More importantly, membership in AAN hands us a responsibility. We've been recognized for being a member of the "alternative press" in that we take on the status quo, write in-depth stories about issues that matter to people, challenge our readers and writers to think critically, offer community-building commentary and market-leading arts coverage, and wrap it all up in an engaging design that succeeds as a business.

AAN has strict standards, and we intend to keep to them. We will never sell a story to an advertiser. We won't run press releases as stories. We'll work to uncover the truth about the city; we'll watchdog corporate media; we'll talk about the stories that you don't hear in other places. We will work tirelessly for progress and justice in this diverse, creative community we call home.

OK, we're patting ourselves on the back a little bit. But this is also a win for Jackson. This city is a legitimate market for alternative media. We're a creative, progressive city where new ideas can thrive. And all of the sudden some folks around the country have gotten a slightly different sense of who Jacksonians and Mississippians really are.

All of this couldn't come at a better time. With the FCC ruling this week to relax ownership laws for large media chains, support for independent media in Jackson comes not a moment too soon. If you got your news about the FCC ruling from Gannett, Inc.'s Clarion-Ledger, you'd think it was all about TV, particularly from the illustrations and the Ramsey cartoon. And it's true that a company that owns television stations can now reach 45 percent of the population of the U.S. instead of 35 percent.

The real news is something the Clarion-Ledger didn't make cartoon material—a monopoly newspaper can now own other media as well. The newspapers argue that they do news well, so they'll improve TV news, too. Others argue they'll control the advertising market, freezing out smaller competitors who can't offer sweet TV and newspaper packages to their clients. (See Sen. Trent Lott's column on page 10 for his take on this issue.)

So, the need for an alternative to the corporate media in this market is as apparent as ever, which is why we're doing what we're doing and why we applied to a group like AAN. Getting in had been a major goal of ours—now that it's come, it's a responsibility we'll continue to work to fulfill.

We have to take the AAN Admissions Committee to task for one thing, however. In their write-up of the JFP, they said, "The Free Press is something of a one-man (sorry, one-woman) band; we all wonder if Editor Donna Ladd ever takes a day off."

The answer is, yes, Donna has had one day off since this project started. She, reportedly, would like another. And while this effort is structured and managed by her and a lot of the passion is her passion, the fact is that the Jackson Free Press would not be here if it weren't for scores of people in the community. One fateful day last summer, Stephen Barnette turned to us and said, "I can sell ads." That one line was more responsible for the Jackson Free Press happening than nearly anything else. Soon after our publication hit the streets, Alisa Price called to let us know that she'd help us sell ads, too.

Jimmy Mumford sat across the table from us in Cozumel and said he'd be willing to do the art direction—the result, we looked like a national-level publication from the outset. Jennifer Spann said she'd write a column, Mimi Holland-Lilly said she'd add her voice, and Tony DiFatta started painting original art for the cover. Charles Smith and Jaro Vacek jumped on board with their cameras. JoAnne Prichard Morris stood up with us, writing, editing and community building. Bingo came along to write like a mad woman and Herman made our listings and music sing. Then there's Judy, Jamea, Chris, Lori, Geoff, Deborah, Shannon, Jimbo, Montreal, Bianca, Kathleen, Beth, Davin, Lea, Shannon, Jennifer, Mark, Ken and so many more. You all know who you are. Thanks for all of the hard work, the amazing energy and love that you've shared with the JFP.

This recognition is yours.

Todd Stauffer is the publisher of the Jackson Free Press.

Previous Comments

ID

68397

Comment

So you went through with your threat and pulled Reader's post to the AAN website off the LoungeBlog. You kept the link underneath the newsflash about your new memebership in case anyone wants to read further. That's good. That said, I was terribly disappointed in Todd's letter to Reader posted Saturday morning. I was waiting for an uninterrupted time to compose a post and have just now found it--only to see the letter and Reader's reply deleted. JFP has always advertised itself as an open forum, ever since the website first came up last summer. Anonymity has always been an option on the website as well as in your paper (re: the essay on being gay in Jackson in the current issue). If the new JFP policy is that anonymity is the refuge of the cowardly, you are going to have to print that author's name in your next issue--or leave yourself vulnerable to accusations of censoring views you don't like. You can say it's your website and you'll run it as you like, but stereotyping Reader's comments as "flames" and deleting them is walking perilously close to sending the message that people aren't supposed to criticize JFP on this forum. Your disclosure statement indicates you reserve the right to edit posts, but it's a power you, as a newspaper dedicated to the First Amendment, should not use on the pretext of protecting yourselves, your staffers, and your patrons from Reader's slings. (BTW, why haven't you deleted the post containting the blatantly racist term "stepinfetchit"? That's what I thought your disclaimer was all about--hate speech) JFP has sniped at institutions large and small ever since coming to Jackson--same named, and some not. You cannot expect to snipe away at others to your heart's content and then get huffy when others (Readers, distributors, whatevers) snipe back. It makes you look small, thin-skinned-and whiny. You can say that no other publication in the area runs all the negative mail they get or prints articles inimical to their editorial or business interests. But JFP has called them publicly on that--and cannot now afford the luxury of stifling criticism of itself without risking its journalistic credibility.

Author

JW

Date

2003-06-15T20:42:59-06:00

ID

68398

Comment

Hmm. Okay. So what else was written? I saw Reader's post regarding a committee's opinion-- undecided 6-5 in favor (not knowing anything about the AAN bylaws, I would surmise that a favorable vote from the committee would have to have at least a certain percentage), but nothing else after that.

Author

Ex Libris

Date

2003-06-15T21:06:40-06:00

ID

68399

Comment

JW, no conspiracy this morning. This post you speak of was in the LoungeBlog; those comments routinely close in the day or two after the event so they don't take up room up top on the Loungeblog page where other events should show up. (This posting was under a Thursday night event.) We'll repost it here, so it doesn't take up space in the LoungeBlog.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-06-16T09:23:03-06:00

ID

68400

Comment

JW: I'll post the comments that you're worried about here. Their times will not be correct, because I'm reposting them. I'll use Reader handle on them to make ownership clear. Sorry for the confusion -- we actually took a day off yesterday. - Todd

Author

Todd

Date

2003-06-16T09:29:22-06:00

ID

68401

Comment

"Jackson Free Press Jackson, Mississippi 6 yes; 5 no. The Committee is undecided. Committee comments: ìThis paper is an alternative in a town with a Gannett daily. It is raising issues and questions, not that the daily isnít covering, but doing it in more of an in-your-face way.î ñ ìThereís too much glib commentary masquerading as serious journalism to suit my tastes.î ñ ìJackson needs a publication like this. If AAN is going to look past its more sophisticated, demanding urban criteria and expand membership to smaller markets, this paperís a perfect excuse for doing just thatîñ ìAn unsteady mixture of alternative-perspective news and community-grade features. Overall the attitude is there, but thereís a real need for more reporting. A well-meant and well-packaged paper that Iím sure isnít going to go soft and would benefit from being in AAN.î ñ ìFor all their strengths, theyíre still very young and not yet ready. They need another year to work out the weaknesses, and our encouragement to refine the mix. But I would pick this paper up religiously if I were to find myself living in Mississippi.î ñ ìThis is a real, legitimate community alternative. Covers and involves the African-American community (and uses black writers) far more than most alts. Needs more reporting and less analysis but definitely an AAN paperî ñ ì I like the spirit of this but it doesnít have its legs yet. Seems like a bunch of people who will figure it out.î ñ ìThis paperís teetering somewhere in the balance between decent local coverage and clichÈ lifestyle fluff. If the staff can figure out what its vision is, where it wants to put the most energy, and how it plans to tighten up its book, it might do well.î ñ ìThis is another one of those Southern-style dilemmas: They say itís alternative for Jackson, but is that alternative enough? Once the paper finds its groove, with a minor design overhaul and better arts coverage, I think it will be.î " More: http://aan.org/gbase/Aan/viewArticle?oid=oid%3A117603

Author

Reader

Date

2003-06-16T09:30:15-06:00

ID

68402

Comment

Reader: You're showing your hand. It's unlikely that someone who doesn't work for a direct competitor would post this comment. Why do I say that? It's not because you posted these comments. We're proud of these comments! It's because you cut the ACTUAL RECOMMENDATION! Here's what appeared _between_ the committee vote section and the comments that you posted. It would be impossible to have cut and paste that without purposefully deleting the following: "Also a rookie playing its first full season of ball, this paper is light years better than any alternative ever before attempted in this unusual city that could call itself the Buckle on the Bible Belt. The Free Press is something of a one-man (sorry, one-woman) band; we all wonder if Editor Donna Ladd ever takes a day off. But her skills and energy are clearly on display within these pages. Rough around the edges, and with plenty of unevenness throughout, this paperís application deserves careful consideration by all member papers before Sundayís vote. It is very engaging, and unafraid of controversy." Two things. 1.) We're incredibly proud of this ENTIRE recommendation, including the comments, which are constructive criticism reflecting the 6-5 committee recommendation. The resulting general membership vote was a 2/3 majority on the first ballot. We know we have room to grow, but considering we operate on a slim percentage of the investment that's gone into our competitors, all I can say is that we're thrilled to take on the challenges poised by our new AAN colleagues. 2.) Until you post with your real name, you're a coward and I suggest everyone read your comments based on the assumption that you have some sort of vendetta. It's difficult to read otherwise. I'll leave your current comments up, but if you don't start arguing on the merits, we'll start deleting future flames. This site is designed to foster community and conversation, not whatever it is that you're trying to do. Regards, Todd Stauffer Publisher, Jackson Free Press

Author

Todd

Date

2003-06-16T09:30:53-06:00

ID

68403

Comment

Reader: First, I didn't add any additional commentary at all. How you can define that as a flame is beyond me. I purposefully kept my mouth shut. Second, I don't work for your competition. I don't work in any of the Jackson media. Third, I tried to post the WHOLE thing, I would have posted the WHOLE thing, but your 2500 word limit wouldn't allow it. But I did provide the link so that others could go and read for themselves the WHOLE thing. Stop being paranoid. Delete what you want.

Author

Reader

Date

2003-06-16T09:31:23-06:00

ID

68404

Comment

You haven't had any trouble posting across multiple frames in the past when it suited you, so I know you can do it. I get the sense you just didn't want to post that portion of the comments, which is fine. My bad for taking the bait. That said, if I misread your intentions (which you still haven't made clear) I apologize. If you posted the comments to celebrate them, than I'm very sorry and I thank you. Regards, Todd

Author

Todd

Date

2003-06-16T09:32:08-06:00

ID

68405

Comment

"Your disclosure statement indicates you reserve the right to edit posts, but it's a power you, as a newspaper dedicated to the First Amendment, should not use on the pretext of protecting yourselves, your staffers, and your patrons from Reader's slings." JW, this is an issue we're wrestling with here on the site. This site, with its dedication to anonymity for commenters, is a bit of an experiment in journalism commentary, at least for us. Print publications, as you well know as a member of the media, edit comments all the time. Typically, they do not print any letters without confirming the sender's identification. We want to continue to do that, but we are already running up against some problems with it: ad hominem attacks of our posters and readers (and me, although that worries me the least); disruption of discussions with meanspiritedness; and, the one that sticks in my personal craw, the use of the Web site by "undercover" members of other media trying to discredit us. I believe in media criticism wholeheartedly, but it would not be fair (or very intelligent) of me to cruise other media's Weblogs and comment boards, pretending to be someone else, looking for ways to discredit them. I accidentally found out recently (due to a common e-mail address that popped up in two different places) that an *editor* at another publication was doing that. He was even writing me e-mails directly pretending to be someone else. Talk about falling into the ethical sewer; I simply would not consider such a stunt with a competitor. We would consider it unfair trade practices. Yes, we watchdog other media (mainly the corporate daily), which is part of our stated mission. They're a powerful institution in the community. And I do it with my name.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-06-16T09:55:38-06:00

ID

68406

Comment

The upshot is that I disagree with you slightly in your statement above. I'm doing everything in my power to allow an open forum with anonymous posters -- BUT we also have the right to challenge a poster like Reader who seems out to only disrupt the conversation and use our Web site to make us or our readers looks bad. Todd challenged Reader above (which is very not his style, as you can see from watching the site so closely), but Reader's primary, if not single, goal on this site seems to be to hijack the conversation and spread as much negativity as possible. I haven't kicked him off the site, though, or deleted any of his comments to date. So chide us all you want about his posting closing in the LoungeBlog; it rings rather hollow to me.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-06-16T09:56:01-06:00

ID

68407

Comment

While we're on this topic, I'd like to say a couple of things about the AAN comments. When they came up on the site the Friday before the final vote on Sunday, I cried (two of the men in the room sniffled as well, but don't tell them I told you). I was so happy that my peers in the alternative-press world got how hard this scrappy staff in a market not accustomed to alternative media is working to do this publication well. I was scared they were going to recommend our execution , not say the wonderfully encouraging things they said about the JFP in our first year. They had considered three of our issues -- the most *recent* being our early January issue (we had to send certain dates). We honestly thought we were going through the motions so that we might get in next year, or the year after. And I agreed wholeheartedly with their constructive criticisms of us. My biggest problem, so far, has been lack of hard reporting resources. I have amazing writers, most of whom have never published before. But to be a true AAN paper, we need regular, harder-core investigative cover stories, and a reporter covering local government and the Legislature when it's in session. But that's coming. They are absolutely right that I've used commentary--often about subjects seldom discussed here in print--in places where I would prefer harder political and news analysis. On the other hand, we are a magazine, and our commentary has drawn us a legion of dedicated readers, so it is a balancing act that we will continue, even as our reporting resources continue. And our dedication to diversity--which, ironically, is not a strength at many of our AAN sister papers--means that we include some stories that may seem different to them.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-06-16T10:16:45-06:00

ID

68408

Comment

The only thing I disagreed with some in the comments was the one at the end about whether we are "alternative" enough, even if we're alternative in Jackson. This is an age-old debate in the alt world. My take is that we need to be a viable alternative for *our* market, not for New York or Chicago. We simply will never look exactly like a snarky Northeastern alt, nor do we want to. We're covering a wonderfully unique city, and that requires a wonderfully unique publication tailored to our readers. And apparently, by the overall vote Sunday, more than two-thirds of the AAN publications agreed with us. And we've been walking on air ever since. Personally, it means the world to me for my alt peers to give us such a vote of confidence and stand with us as we make our way. I thank them, and all of the folks who have worked so tirelessly to make this puppy grow. OK, now that I've talked about JFP a bit more than I'd planned to here, I'm going to get on with something else. Cheers to all of you.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-06-16T10:17:52-06:00

ID

68409

Comment

OK, here's my take. First, I'll apologize for the tone of my original message. Our staff has worked incredibly hard to get into AAN. The closest thing I can equate Reader's post to is someone with a mean spirit purposefully editing your child's school progress report and then waving that edit around at a PTA meeting. I also apologize for calling Reader a coward. It would be more appropriate to say that his/her brand of negativism is *cowardly*, and I'll stick by that. I think one can be anonymous and brave; Reader's typical post is something less than that. Some points on Web anonymity: (1) People who write for our publication, even under a Name Withheld, are fact-checked when appropriate and we know their identity. We will point out to our writers when we feel that the subject matter doesn't merit being anonymous and we will generally encourage them to sign their pieces. (2) I'm actually not aware of us accusing any other publication of "sifting their criticism." I wouldn't encourage other publications to do that, but I think you're creating a strawman, JW. That said, I think that Letters to the Editor are a different issue from a web forum, which has a specific conversational purpose. In the forum, you can encourage people to err away from personal attacks and toward furthering dialog. I think it's a fundamental confusion over the technology that people feel web forums are designed for them to anonymously accuse anyone of anything they like. (I'm talking beyond what Reader did in this post.) If people want to specifically send a letter to the editor for the purpose of criticising us publicly, they're free to do that. We're also free to consider moderation of our web forums, not to do away with criticism, but to keep things topical and constructive.

Author

Todd

Date

2003-06-16T10:29:30-06:00

ID

68410

Comment

(3) I'm a huge fan of the First Amendment (which, since we aren't the goverment, doesn't apply to this instance, although the general notion of "free speech" does in spirit) and, as you'll note, we didn't intend to delete his comments. They're back. (In the future I will look to have a "move comment" feature added to the software, so that comments can be moved from temporary blog entries to permanent stories. Reader posted to the announcement of our Thursday lounge.) (4) I take umbrage with the line "You cannot expect to snipe away at others to your heart's content and then get huffy when others (Readers, distributors, whatevers) snipe back." Again, it's your characterization that we "snipe" and I disagree with it. I think equating the tone that Reader introduces to this forum to anything that we do in it or in our magazine is unfair. Maybe it's your opinion, but I disagree. (5) The site does allow anonymity, but that's mostly for convenience. (Otherwise people would have to become members and jump through some hurdles before posting.) That does not mean that all anonymous posts are welcome, nor does it mean it's outside of our rights to ask certain participants to argue issues on their merits. But, I'll accept your castigation for posting angrily on Saturday. I'm sorry it disappointed you. Reader's careful edits of our AAN committee recommendations really rankled me. I would (and should) have taken it up directly with Reader. I would have been even more likely to had I known who Reader is. Best, Todd

Author

Todd

Date

2003-06-16T10:29:49-06:00

ID

68411

Comment

Thank you all at JFP for your clarifications and comments. I think it is good to talk about these issues out loud--especially considering the culture of secrecy that seems to surround journalistic practices (re: the NYT controversies, etc). I don't think I said "conspiracy"--I just believed that the statement in the letter had been fulfilled, and I am glad the original posts are back up where everyone can see them--and since they have been reposted, I withdraw my contention that you are censoring these viewpoints and apologize for being wrong. Thank you for coming through for all those who believe in unfettered free expression.

Author

JW

Date

2003-06-16T11:28:05-06:00

ID

68412

Comment

Apology accepted, JW. I do encourage you and others to take a breath in the future before posting something you can't take back (and, as you can see, we usually leave it up as well, regardless of its accuracy). I'm sure not perfect: I do try to take a breath before posting, although I don't always. And I do strive to apologize when I over-speak, which you do as well. I appreciate that. None of us are perfect, and true conversation is messy. It's funny; in my excitement last week, I had considered posting the AAN comments in their entirety, but had decided that would be too self-focused and that most people wouldn't care about them as we do. I figured anyone who wanted would find them on the AAN site; we all know how to Google. It certainly never dawned on me that anyone would try to edit them and use them *against* us somehow; we simply didn't view them as negative -- but seeing the most positive section purposefully edited out showed that some folks have more petty goals at heart. I would like to add one thing I didn't say above: We have no intention of a design "overhaul" as one of the committee members suggested, although we constantly strive to improve all parts of the paper. We are very proud of our design and Jimmy Mumford's work; it has been exactly the mix between magazine and alt-weekly look (well-designed, but respectful of editorial) that we've needed, and has been vital to our success. And we believe we helped raise the design bar a bit in the local media market. When we took copies of our issues to the Southereastern alt conference in Atlanta, the attendees grabbed them up, commenting profusely on our colorful covers. One publisher there snipped about them being "too pretty" for an alt, but we're sure not of the mind that you can't be pretty *and* have substance. We are, after all, southern.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-06-16T13:20:19-06:00