The "Alternative" Press Isn't

Considering that the "alternative press" has traditionally been the major source from which Project Censored (the media-watch group with which I'm affiliated) culls its annual list of under-reported or "censored" news stories, I've always been interested in attending the yearly AAN conference and was happy to have been invited to this year's Salt Lake-based shindig.

After attending, however, I'm disappointed to report that my previous concerns about the "alternative press" were only more deeply confirmed. Indeed, my general impression of the conference (and the editorial product of the many papers on display) was much the same as my prior assessment of the host city: frequently beautiful artistic design; flat, homogenous content; too many white people.

This unscientific appraisal turned out to be more than accurate as I perused the conference materials in my registration packet. In the front of the conference program -- listed first (before the two-day schedule of actual panel discussions) -- was a comprehensive roster of trade show exhibitors (simultaneously situated in the Grand Ball Room). Call me silly, but there's just something about an "alternative press" gathering dominated by the likes of Simmons Market Research, Media Marketing Inc. and Synaptic Micro Solutions that strikes me the wrong way.

To be sure, actual journalists had to have felt a wee bit out of place at a conference so clearly geared to the business side of the journalistic process. Indeed, a quick look at the schedule of panel and roundtable discussions found a mere 14 of the 48 scheduled sessions devoted to "editorial."

What kind of meaty, Edward R. Murrow-inspired panel topics typified the 19th annual AAN conference? I'm sure you would have been mesmerized by "Telemarketing Strategies" -- or most certainly "Selling/Negotiating In The '90s." And even the most cynical would've undoubtedly found "How To Use Software To Increase Revenue" wholly riveting. Aren't they still called News weeklies...?

Okay, so business is business, but of the precious few editorial panels, shouldn't one expect more than AAN TV Pundits -- which aside from having virtually nothing to do with print journalism, held little relevance for anyone other than the three panelists (two editors and a publisher) who currently appear on such pundit shows.

Also among the handful of editorial panels that comprised the "journalism" side of the conference were Cartoonists ("A lively, humorous look at the trials and tribulations of an alternative cartoonist...") and "Arts Coverage: The Editor's Responsibilities To Readers And To The Local Scene."

"Last year, at this same conference -- in this same session" scolded Paulsen, "AAN papers were criticized for not investing in reporting -- for buying stories rather than writers -- for rarely being innovative or ground-breaking. And there was a lot of hand-wringing among editors and publishers, and talk of 'renewing commitments' to investigative reporting. And it was all bullshit! I look at the papers on display at this year's conference and virtually nothing's changed."

"Just look around the conference itself," Paulsen continued, "for all this 'commitment to reporting,' where are they? Where are the writers? They're not even here! You say you're renewing your commitment to reporting, and who did you bring to the convention? Your ad and business staffs!"

Paulsen's diatribe was met by a curious response. No one argued or disagreed, yet no one voiced agreement either. In fact no one did or said much of anything. No hand-wringing or "renewed commitments" to substantive reporting. The moderator simply introduced the next panelist and the session moved on.

As I sat there absorbing Paulsen's words -- and the group's utter lack of response to them -- I wasn't sure whether this was an indication of humility or lifeless resignation. I'm still not.