Some of you have noticed that we've started running more reviews, both of shows and of local CDs. We've always wanted to have as many reviews as possible on the site, and as our audience has grown, we're starting to hit a critical mass where there are enough people who are interested in both listening and writing.

There's been alarm in some quarters when we've run negative reviews -- after all, aren't we the shiny, happy, populist supporters of the local scene, covering everything from the obscure to cover bands equally with the hottest alt-indie rising stars? 

The fact is, that when people write reviews, there are some things they will like and some things they won't.  And some people will make those statements gently and others will not.

Just so everyone understands where we're coming from, even if they disagree, I want to make clear our approach to submitted articles, whether they be reviews or news:

We commit to review every recent local CD that we are given. If no one on our staff can get to it, we'll submit it to someone in the reader community for review. As far as I know, no one else does that.

While we edit submissions for libel, overuse of expletives and basic grammar, we do not "edit" writers' overall content unless they ask us to.

One commenter on a recent review takes issue with this approach:

"I was under the impression that the texasgigs.com"organization" was a media outlet staffed by bloggers/writers with a desire to be taken seriously, rather than a message board (of sorts) that allows anyone to comment on a genre, album, issue, etc...

Aside from my highschool newspaper, I can't recall the last time I saw an album review published in a legitamate publication (print or web) resort to ridicule to make it's point. To do so goes beyond criticizm and, as I stated previously, borders on vindictiveness. But, I suppose texasgigs.com now espouses this the type of behavior (either directly or indirectly) in it's effort to support it's policy to allow "writers" to freely express their opinions. "

If we are not taken "seriously" in the same way that the Dallas Morning News or Dallas Observer are, than we're doing something right. See, they do vigorously edit every piece of copy. Only the annointed get to write. They, based on a quick site search, haven't reviewed most of the CDs and shows we've reviewed over the past few months. And they don't allow readers to dissent and discuss instantly in the way that this commenter got to on our site.

This goes back to a core tenet of what we're trying to do with local news, as this site grows into covering everything from music, to youth sports, to crime, to neighborhood associations. I'd love to send a professional reporter to every neighborhood crimewatch meeting.in town. Or to review every CD. That's not an economically viable proposition, for us or for any media organization. But if someone without training in journalism; even someone clearly biased is willing to cover it, and we can put that information in front of people to whom it matters, I say that's far better than it not being covered at all. Sure, we strive for the Platonic ideal, but the notion that you can only cover what you can get done to a "journalistic standard" is the reason that your daily paper has so little relevant local news in it.

That's not to say we're a free-for-all. We don't let people post stories and reviews anonymously outside of the comments -- the one exception being "identifiable" anonymous folks like The Unobserver. And the comments board is our greatest defense against bad content -- the reader community can criticize, emphasize, accept and reject the writing of the individual.

This is as good a time as any to point out/remind that the launch of the larger Pegasus News site is on the horizon. We're just about over a hurdle that will allow us to keep doing what we do with TexasGigs and start adding other areas of news content. You're going to see even more largely unedited content on our site(s). We hope you'll consider providing that content in areas in which you're interested, and engaging with that content via comments.

Such egalitarianism in content posting may sound like a slippery slope to messageboard-land. Unfortunately, we can't show you just yet, but know that when we launch the full site with a larger volume of unedited content, we have a nifty gizmo in place that will automagically steer (but not force) you towards content and authors you like and away from those you don't. That may help the perceived chaos a bit. 

We realize that is not for everyone. Some people want edited content:

"You know, editorial oversight does not necessarily infringe upon a writer's ability to express an opinion... it just makes for a better, more professional publication. Those running this site should perhaps that this into consideration."

That's a perfectly reasonable point of view. Some people are going to feel more comfortable reading "professional" publications and sites. They should enjoy them, but know that they're missing a lot that those organizations can't and won't cover. There are others who think we're too restrictive over user content and speech. They should go to unmoderated message boards with anonymous authors. I imagine that both camps will still find something useful here too.

In the end, what I'm suggesting is that we do have an editor over this content -- You. Looking at the review that sparked this post, there is currently a clear message to the writer that some of our readers thought his copy was unnecessarily nasty. There's his feedback. It may or may not impact his next review.

I personally disagreed with this particular review. And I said so in the comments. You should feel free to do the same. And if you don't like the tone of reviews on the site, the best way to change it is by posting your own.  And while I disagreed with the conclusions in the review, and wouldn't necessarily have written it the same way myself, I'll vigorously defend the author's ability to see it posted on our site. This particular author isn't always so pithy, so I take it on faith that he truly disliked this work enough to write this review (albeit with a clear disclaimer that he's not a fan of the genre). Critique the critic as much as you like, but if you're unhappy with the review, the best tack in my mind is to tell us why he's wrong about the CD. And I'd add that some of the folks unhappy with this review have encouraged just as harsh in other contexts, so the argument here may actually be over content as much as tone.

We're not editors here -- we're curators. And our goal is to gather as much diverse information and opinion on our community as possible. It's an uncharted approach in media, and we don't have all the answers by a long shot. We hope to find them with your help and participation.

Comments