The first Worcester Magazine under new management is out today.
Here’s a running list of my notes, mostly for my own future reference.
Excerpts from the masthead. Folks from the previous incarnation in bold:
Publisher: Gareth Charter
Editor-in-Chief: Jim Keogh
News Editor: Scott Zoback
Arts & Entertainment Editor: Doreen Manning
Photographer: Steven King
Contributing Writers: Douglass Chapel, Janice Harvey, Ina Irving (this is a pseudonym), Matthew Quinn (also a pseudonym)
Editorial Interns: Nick Vorres
Bylines:
Scott Zoback: 6
Jim Keogh: 3, co-author of weekly picks page
Doreen Manning: 1, co-author of weekly picks page
Steven King: cover photo, “People on the Street” etc.
Doug Chapel: 1
David Wildman: 1
Nick Vorres: 1
Ina Irving: 1
“One on One” is Allen Fletcher (looking sad in what I guess is an old photo) interviewed by Zoback. The only missing feature I notice is Charlene Arsenault’s “Cookie” column on local bands and the like.
“Ina Irving” and “Matthew Quinn” are the pseudonymous restaurant reviewers. If they keep the pseudonym, does that mean it’s the same person? Why is there pseudonyms on the masthead anyway?
They still have the unsigned editorial. Who thinks this is a good idea in 2008?
Anyhow, with Scott writing so much (the contributions from others are either autobiographical or light) it’s not much different from previous issues.
Good job on the byline count. Now, as long as they don’t kill Scott…
(and I’m pretty sure the pseudonyms are discrete persons, and the same ones as before)
The unsigned noosepaper editorial is a format that I can get very snarky about, but only when the subject matter is hardly a matter that might involve necessity. Necessity involves taking a position wherein retribution for the opinion could be directed at the individual who wrote the opinion. For instance, if the paper is willing to take a stand against some powerful public figure, not merely to malign them, but to call attention to serious matters of public interest, and the public figure has the power to make life difficult for the individual, or worse, then the anonymous nature of the editorial lends the stronger power of the press to the opinion. It would be, in other words, in the public interest.
To merely forward propaganda for the powers that be, and hide behind the anonymous editorial format… that’s the work of sniveling sycophants, and I’ve posted what I think about this crap when I see it in the T&G. If the T&G was owned by someone locally, it would make a huge difference to me, but they’re a chain. Publishing lopsided propaganda regarding local matters under the anonymous editorial format goes quite a ways beyond the tradition, and deep into bullshit territory, as far as I’m concerned.
In the case of the unsigned editorial in this week’s WoMag, though, it’s really of no consequence, one way or the other.