this is what concerns me

So far I’ve raised $600 for my story about Mid-Market blight and troubles, past and future, at California crowdfunding journalism site Spot.Us. I’m humbled and amazed by the generosity of my friends and strangers — and I’m surprised by the general interest in this topic. The story will be finished in two weeks (hey Newsom, call me back!) but in the meanwhile, I’ve been posting brief updates on the Spot.Us site. My most recent one concerned this little infographic seen here.

When McSweeney’s hired me to write this story for the Panorama, they also hired graphic designer Laura Foxgrover to work up an accompanying infographic that would include my reporting on the individual empty buildings plus a map of the Mid-Market area. I’m working with Laura to update the graphic for Spot.Us and I’ll be paying her 15% of whatever I raise. This is just an unreadable preview of Laura’s most recent draft — we’ll be adding a bunch more info to the map by the time the piece is out.

A week and a half after its debut and the glittery halo has faded a bit on McSweeney’s 320-page full-color San Francisco Panorama newspaper. While most have been quick to point out how lush and lovely the thing is, Choire Sicha at the Awl breaks down the actual logistics of such a project — and with some devastating results on the financial (read: reality) side of things. Basically? Even when charging $16 and paying writers 12 cents per word or less, McSweeney’s more or less breaks even on the paper, in the event that they pay their in-house staffers less than minimum wage. Still, and this is what continues to baffle me, the common reaction is: So? It’s pretty! (The color infographics, that is — not the future of journalism, ha-ha!) So thank god for this commenter.

Sure, when you gather a bunch of amazingly talented people and don’t pay them and charge a premium price you will have a great product. Don’t you think we already know that? The challenge is to produce a product with a variety of talent and employees that need to eat. And need medical insurance. Also, you have to get advertisers. And subscriptions.

Dave KNOWS that it is almost impossible and that’s why he ain’t gonna do it. It’s easy to have all the most talented people working for no pay and then saying “look at me look what we made why can’t you be like us?”

Yes, why can’t you? Where’s your trust fund, little reporter?

For their part, D. Eggers’ public comments lately have been considerably more humble than they were back in June, when he announced the project. Plus I think it’s interesting that McSweeney’s started off calling the Panorama a “prototype” and lately refers to it more often as an “experiment” — more forgiving of these sorts of problems, and with no expectation of a follow-up.

For the last two months I’ve been working on a hefty 2,000 word story about Mid-Market blight in San Francisco for the McSweeney’s San Francisco Panorama newspaper. Early this morning I received word that management had killed the article a few hours before the paper hits the streets. Instead of punching a wall or giving up journalism forever, I’ve decided to try the crowd-funding system at Spot.us to help this story get published after all. I have some interested parties but the extra money certainly won’t hurt; it’ll also give me the opportunity to do some more reporting and dig deeper in what has already proven to be a juicy and unique piece. I’ve already invested dozens of hours by way of city maps, planning documents, and first-person interviews, but I think there’s always more to be done. Also, this way I can include a section on how Dave Eggers himself didn’t want to take out office space on mid-Market because the neighborhood was too troubled. Meta!

I hate the idea of asking for donations, but if this story would interest you personally I would appreciate any small amount you could give. If you think it sounds boring, I don’t want your money! Spend it on some comics instead, okay?

I haven’t subscribed to the New Yorker for a couple years now since it’s pretty pricey and it’s not like I read the thing for the cartoons, so I don’t mind getting the articles online. I haven’t been blown away by anything since the profile of David Foster Wallace many issues ago, but this, now this… this is good.

Elizabeth Kolbert profiled Colin Beavan, a.k.a “No Impact Man,” in terms of the absurdity of his project to live with a carbon footprint of zero — in Manhattan. She also writes about other Thoreau-wannabes who’ve undertaken similar pseudo-eco-friendly stunts in order to propel their writing careers (including one woman who gave up toothpicks but bought a three-story house and went on several cross-country plane trips).

The nouveau Thoreauvians have picked up from “Walden” its dramaturgy of austerity. Their schemes require them to renounce (if only temporarily) various material comforts—cars, elevators, Starbucks—that their neighbors take for granted. Renunciation sets them apart and organizes their lives in the name of some higher purpose. The trouble—or, at least, a trouble—is that it’s hard to say exactly what that purpose is.

At twenty-eight, [Vanessa] Farquharson is almost exactly the age that Thoreau was when he set off for Walden Pond. And she’s a lot like him, too, if he’d been the type who, as she writes of herself, enjoys blowing a “month’s savings on a bottle of pink Veuve Clicquot and pairing it with back-to-back reruns of ‘America’s Next Top Model.’ ”

(Yeah, she’s the one who bought the house and started going to “eco-friendly spas.”)

These projects are about guilt, gimmicks and cold hard cash. But of course Kolbert, writing for a print publication, looks over the most absurd bit of all: that the goddamn “No Impact” book is printed on a whole lot of environmentally unfriendly paper (really, is it even New Leaf? and how many copies will be sent back coverless to the publisher when the next gimmick rules). Still, at least someone is calling these people out while they sit in the scented soy-candlelight eating their organic grass-feed kobe beef and counting their money.

I think Rachel Maddow is one of the most talented journalists working today. She has both normal human social skills and sincere reporterly interest, and when combined, she can ask Tom Ridge the sorts of questions we’d like to ask — but she actually coheres her anger into dutiful follow-ups. Plus she looks just like Ira Glass you guys OMG!

When you’re writing a profile of Naomi Klein for the New Yorker, you need to put things in terms your base readership can understand, or at least drop some cultural cues as to why Klein is polished enough for that full-page photo despite her dirty, dirty, plebey politics.

“She was wearing dark jeans tucked into tall brown boots, a crisp white shirt, and a long black blazer. She was dressed for a fox hunt. She looked terrific.”

“[Klein's home] is furnished simply, as though on one quick trip to Crate & Barrel.”

I guess a more cynical reading would be that the author is trying to undermine Klein’s thesis here. But then they really seem to genuinely love the outfits and the furniture over at the New Yorker.

Anyone want to help me shoot a depressing documentary on foreclosure, the housing crisis and the collapse of the nouveau riche debt-ridden American dream this coming spring/summer? Some camera/sound help would be nice. C’mon, kids, road trip!!

There was a This American Life marathon on television today, I guess to get everyone in the sappy patriotic mood. Now I don’t believe everything Ira touches is gold, but this is… well, just watch it.

Consider this another reminder to subscribe to Harper’s Weekly Review as soon as Webly possible (or you can just read them all at the archives). They have real sweet kickers. e.g.

“Israel’s Supreme Court ruled in favor of the destruction of parts of an ancient Muslim cemetery, where some of Saladin’s warriors are buried, to make way for a new Frank Gehry-designed $250 million Museum of Tolerance.”

Richard Florida says he wrote Who’s My City basically as a self-help tome. There are tons of books on the market that address choosing career and love (oft considered the other two big life decisions on which your happiness relies [no pressure]) — but none, he said, to address where one should choose to live.

I haven’t read the book, just listened to Florida’s longish Talk of the Nation segment, which was pretty enjoyable, though it only added fuel to my Portland fire. (Every other NPR commenter is singing its praises — maybe the city government hires viral marketing shills for this kind of assignment?)

I did, however, check out the Web site, which has some low-rent WMC features, like a pared-down “best cities” grid — which suggests that as a 20-29 year old single person, I should try Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, New York, San Francisco or TRENTON, NJ. Damn you, Florida.

I’ll probably still skim the book some time at the library, though, if only to find out more about Florida’s “five personality types” that dictate city choice better than most other factors, especially after hearing his banter with the aging “progressive” on TotN.