Friday, January 30, 2009

Thanks to everyone who came out to the launch of our final print edition last night at the Squire & Firkin pub in Toronto’s west end. I was going to post some pictures here, but it seems the staff from North Island (Masthead’s parent company) was so busy socializing that no one bothered to take out a camera.

As a couple of others have mentioned, a lot party talk was of the doom-and-gloom variety, particularly if you were chatting with newsstand people, who seem shell-shocked by the wholesaler/publisher nuclear showdown happening in the States. Hard times indeed.

A few tips came my way over the course of the evening, which may soon find their way into our news section. And I also managed to connect with a very smart and opinionated young magaziner, who I hope will be adding her voice to our blogs section early next month. As always, stay tuned. We're still alive and kicking.

Friday, January 30, 2009

As an online magazine that frequently encourages other publishers to embrace user-generated content, MastheadOnline is proud to offer readers the opportunity to comment on all news stories, features and blogs. MastheadOnline is also committed to standard journalistic practices and this extends to what readers are and are not permitted to say. Therefore, all those wishing to comment on future articles are advised to read and follow these seven guidelines for posting on MastheadOnline.

  1. Comments deemed libelous will not be published.
  2. Comments that forego proper grammar, spelling and punctuation will not be published. (The editor will fix minor typos/errors.)
  3. Personal attacks will not be published.
  4. Only constructive criticism of work or business practices is acceptable.
  5. Comments that stray too far off-topic may not be published.
  6. Racist, sexist, homophobic or otherwise hateful comments will not be published.
  7. Anonymous comments are acceptable, but readers are encouraged to use their full name, or, barring that, a consistent moniker.
  8. Comments may be edited.
Monday, January 26, 2009

Based on what they told me last week, I think I will like what John Macfarlane and Brian Morgan have done with The Walrus. While I believe both men are committed to a Walrus that is intellectual and ambitious, it also sounds like they’re aiming to create a magazine that is more immediate and accessible than the one produced by their predecessors.

Let's backtrack. I support the idea of The Walrus. I believe Canada should have a national, mass-distributed magazine of ideas, culture and long-form journalism. And I don’t even mind that such a magazine requires charitable funding to survive. But, thing is, up to now, I haven’t particularly enjoyed reading that magazine.

I mostly like this cover, though I have no idea why John Macfarlane, who killed the annual summer fiction issue at Toronto Life, would use one of his cover lines to sell a short story.

Despite the fact that I am not rich, well connected or even particularly well educated (my “university degree” is for “journalism”), I think I’m the kind of person The Walrus is trying to reach. I read The New Yorker religiously. I read New York and Maclean’s a lot. I sometimes read The Atlantic and Vanity Fair. I enjoy Maisonneuve and This Magazine. I prefer the features and columns in Toronto Life to the real estate and shopping tips.

I subscribed to The Walrus in the early days. I even applied for an internship there (and didn’t get it). The magazine has dominated the National Magazine Awards over the last five years, so there must be people out there who thought highly of it, but personally, I can only name two memorable pieces from my own reading experience: Bill Cameron's memoir about dying from cancer and Bill Reynolds' piece about cycling, which I only read because Reynolds is my old prof and friend.

To be fair, I haven’t read that many pieces in The Walrus. Yes, I used to subscribe, but most of the time, I never bothered digging in. The magazine, in my opinion, never worked hard enough to earn my attention—it always had the stench of something that was supposed to be “good for you.” The display copy was inconsistent at best, cryptic at worst. (The cover line for the Reynolds article mentioned above was “Love thy bike.” What the hell?) The art was often completely disconnected from to the features (which, from what I’ve heard, was partly due to the ramshackle way stories were assigned and edited). There was too much text. (Those New Yorker cartoons aren’t there just to make you laugh/groan/scratch your head.) And then, when I would finally work up the courage to read something, I’d be bored. 

Perhaps I just wasn’t literate enough for the old Walrus. Kat Tancock, who writes the Magazines Online blog, is a fan. “I have half a PhD,” she told me. “I'm pretty immune to the sleepiness factor.”

The Macfarlane/Morgan Walrus will no doubt be a more conventional magazine than the Alexander/De Luca Walrus. There will be profiles. Some of the articles will be shorter than they might have been in the past (though Macfarlane assures us that the magazine is still committed to long-form journalism). When the editors are discussing stories, they’ll have to ask the question “Why now?” The display copy and the art will work together. The stories will have more “moment.”

That’s what I was told, anyway. And it got me excited. I haven’t seen the issue yet, but an advance copy is supposed to be on the way. And when I get it—and read it—I’ll let you know what I think.

Friday, January 23, 2009

We have been getting a lot of comments on MastheadOnline lately. That's great, awesome, super, fantastic, etc. Keep 'em coming.

But here's the thing: It's time to lay down some rules. For a variety of reasons, I haven't been posting some of the comments coming in. And it's only fair that we're explicit about what's acceptable and what's not. So expect to see a policy sometime next week.

In the meantime, check out the comment policies for Television Without Pity. They're hilarious. If you're looking for advice on how to be a valuable commenter, check out Lifehacker's guide. And if you're looking for a comment-related laugh, check out this Webcomic.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

There’s an interesting posting up on the Canadian Magazines blog from Jon Spencer of Abacus Circulation, who has asked recent applicants to the Canada Magazine Fund's "Support for Business Development for Magazine Publishers" to fill out a survey about their experience:

I would be interested to hear whether your applications to this program in the current fiscal year (from April 2008 to March 2009) have been handled as they have been in previous years, or if you have encountered any changes to the approval process.

I have also heard some rumblings and grumblings about how the way CMF applications are being handled this year, particularly with regards to response times. Unfortunately, like publishers across the country, I’m pretty much in the dark when it comes to questions like “What’s happening with the Canadian Periodical Fund?” or “What happens when Canada Post pulls its $15 million contribution to the PAP in April?”

It’s not like I haven’t tried to get some answers. I make periodic calls to the Department of Canadian Heritage and once in a while I even get someone on the phone, but every time I ask for information about  funding for magazines, I get “no comment.”

I understand that things must be difficult for people working in government right now, what with parliament prorogued until next week, but we really need to hear something from the DCH on this stuff soon. The economy is going to make 2009 a difficult enough year for publishers as it is; the least we can ask from our government is that they communicate to us about what’s going on with funding that many magazines rely on for survival.

About Me
Marco Ursi
Marco is the editor of MastheadOnline. His blog offers a mix of commentary, service and ideas related to Canadian magazines.


Twitter: @MarcoUrsi

Most Recent Blog Comment
Jen says:
Masthead, why don't you do this anymore?...
Blog Archive
2009 (40)